4 ms·
I'm not saying there isn't a line to be drawn - obviously given your example most people would shrink away from the idea of using someones thoughts to convict (
by kitbrennan 11y ago
I'm not saying there isn't a line to be drawn - obviously given your example most people would shrink away from the idea of using someones thoughts to convict (literal thought-crime).
It's a question of where we draw the line. If we don't allow a judge to issue a search warrant for a phone where there is reasonable suspicion of illegal activity - why should we allow a judge to issue a warrant to search a car/property/paper-work?
Of course that completely oversteps the line in the other direction though. Conviction rates for many crimes would drop through the floor if the legal authorities have no way of obtaining evidence.
Given how powerful smart phones have become and you come run a criminal enterprise solely through your phone, it is reasonable to expect that the police with a proper warrant would be able to inspect your phone.
- beambot 11y agoBut that's what the GP was referring to. "Personal electronic storage" is increasingly becoming an extension of our mind. It may be cellphones today, but the era of implantable media may not be far off. In fact... for a pretty reasonable sum, I could build a sub-dermal implant beneath the skull with many GBytes of storage that is wirelessly powered and supports USB-like data rates. (See profile.) So this isn't an academic argument. In reality, I think you could make a pretty reasonable case that my lab notebooks (whether paper or electronic) are just a "more accurate version of my wetware memories." I'm not sure I understand why this "brain extension" isn't afforded more protections accordingly. I appreciate that this notion wasn't explicitly spelled out in the constitution -- these advances are REALLY new from a historical perspective. But I would wager: The laws will likely need to change.