3 ms·
I consider technology to be an extension of mind. I'm not ok with the police literally cracking open my skull and probing my brain, not just because of the inv
by edrxty 3y ago
I consider technology to be an extension of mind. I'm not ok with the police literally cracking open my skull and probing my brain, not just because of the invasive torturous nature, but because it's an invasion of the very state that forms my existence. Similarly, the bits of my mind that I offload to other places.
- didntcheck 3y agoYeah, I think a good question to distinguish the different philosophies here is: if we had a perfect lie detector, would you support defendants being compelled to use it, with adverse assumptions for refusing?
- wasimanitoba 3y agoOnly if we could restrict the questions to the facts of the case, but my phone has a lot of unrelated personal stuff on it and so does my brain.
- dools 3y agoSo like, if you wrote a journal detailing a bunch of crimes and/or criminal motives, you don't think that journal should be admissable as evidence in a criminal proceeding? Nor do you think that a warrant should be capable of granting access to that journal for the purposes of a criminal investigation?
- edrxty 3y agoWithin the narrow context that a journal is a mental device rather than "literally any document", yeah, I would prefer that be inadmissible.
- soulofmischief 3y agoThey can take the journal. They can't compel me to provide a key to unencrypt the contents.
- matt_kantor 3y agoThat part that's literally (and legally, AFAIK) part of your mind is the code you use to unlock your phone. You can't be compelled to hand that over. I believe the same logic would apply to gorgoiler's scenario if you had a keypad lock on the door (the cops might be allowed to physically break it, but they couldn't compel you to share the code). I'm no lawyer/expert, though.