> If you thought big brother was watching you, this would seem to fit nicely into that I've seen a few interesting discussions of this idea with regard to ment

> If you thought big brother was watching you, this would seem to fit nicely into that I've seen a few interesting discussions of this idea with regard to mental illness in general. If someone says they think the government can track their location at all times, is scanning their phonecalls, and shares that data with an international conspiracy... are they schizophrenic, or just talking about the NSA sharing data with Five Eyes? If you ask somebody to sign a narrow, research-only privacy waiver for a drug trial and they say you're going to share that info with a tech company that already has a secret profile of their entire life... the NHS did pass private medical records to DeepMind. If they say online ads are talking to them personally as part of a coordinated campaign to brainwash them, it turns out you can have that done to somebody for $30. It doesn't particularly seem like this is a general problem in terms of diagnosing or treating people; paranoia disorders follow pretty clear patterns of thinking, and they're usually self-validating whether or not there are actual conspiracies afoot. But the specific case of asking people to sign consents and agree to monitoring seems like a major hurdle, and I've seen some doctors point out that they can't even choose low-intimidation wordings because consent forms are usually written by legal to cover all possible cases.