4 ms·

> I don't believe citizens should have the ability to protect communications (or anything, really) from a lawful warrant. Supposing there was a method to read

> I don't believe citizens should have the ability to protect communications (or anything, really) from a lawful warrant. Supposing there was a method to read thoughts or memories without physical contact, would you allow police to do so as long as they had a warrant? edit: typo

shrimp_emoji 6y ago
What if everyone in the world, right now, could produce supersmallpox or craft a nuke (or, given sufficiently-advanced technology, do something else for which the same technology offers a poor defense compared to the offense)? Wouldn't the only chance for survival entail a daily, warranted scan by the thought reader of everyone to ensure nobody was tempted to do it? (Or, better, omniscient surveillance.) The point here being that the "1984" route is a valid (if not ultimately preferable) choice in this philosophical fork in the road. (Also, rest unassured, I hate having this opinion.)
smeeth 6y ago
Interesting question. I think this would probably be protected against by the fifth amendment, would it not?
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  What if the communication were stored on a digital device, embedded in a person's skull, which they were able to interface their brain with? That may sound like an unrealistic scenario, but there are already people with medical implants that record digital data, and there has been a case of using Fitbit data to help convict someone: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/us/fitbit-murder-arrest.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/us/fitbit-murder-arrest.h...
- krapp 6y ago
  It might also be allowed by the fourth amendment, provided the warrant was legitimate, depending on the interpretation of "in their persons."
- djoldman 6y ago
  Interesting question yourself. I am not a lawyer, but: I think this would hinge on the definitions of "compelled" and "witness" in the fifth amendment. I think the courts would rule that being "a witness against himself" would require synthesizing thoughts into a statement then made under oath. I think searching thoughts would be considered a search. It would be interesting to see how the courts would handle the fact that many thoughts are fleeting and not indicative of belief or intent.

shrimp_emoji 6y ago

What if everyone in the world, right now, could produce supersmallpox or craft a nuke (or, given sufficiently-advanced technology, do something else for which the same technology offers a poor defense compared to the offense)? Wouldn't the only chance for survival entail a daily, warranted scan by the thought reader of everyone to ensure nobody was tempted to do it? (Or, better, omniscient surveillance.) The point here being that the "1984" route is a valid (if not ultimately preferable) choice in this philosophical fork in the road. (Also, rest unassured, I hate having this opinion.)

smeeth 6y ago

Interesting question. I think this would probably be protected against by the fifth amendment, would it not?

dane-pgp 6y ago
What if the communication were stored on a digital device, embedded in a person's skull, which they were able to interface their brain with? That may sound like an unrealistic scenario, but there are already people with medical implants that record digital data, and there has been a case of using Fitbit data to help convict someone: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/us/fitbit-murder-arrest.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/us/fitbit-murder-arrest.h...
krapp 6y ago
It might also be allowed by the fourth amendment, provided the warrant was legitimate, depending on the interpretation of "in their persons."
djoldman 6y ago
Interesting question yourself. I am not a lawyer, but: I think this would hinge on the definitions of "compelled" and "witness" in the fifth amendment. I think the courts would rule that being "a witness against himself" would require synthesizing thoughts into a statement then made under oath. I think searching thoughts would be considered a search. It would be interesting to see how the courts would handle the fact that many thoughts are fleeting and not indicative of belief or intent.