3 ms·
Probably more useful for interrogation than coding. Under current US law, can people entering the US be subjected to mind-reading?
by Animats 2mo ago
Probably more useful for interrogation than coding.
Under current US law, can people entering the US be subjected to mind-reading?
- LPisGood 2mo agoNo. This is the philosophical basis of the fifth amendment.
- lovich 2mo agoIf such technology actually existed I don’t think the fifth would cover it without a SCOTUS ruling. You have to actively plead the fifth to invoke it. A machine that could just read your thoughts would get around that the same way they got around the fourth by the interpretation that any information you exchange with a third party is no longer protected, in a world where refusing to ever do that would leave you destitute.
- Jtsummers 2mo agoIt's already been decided by SCOTUS that things like heat imaging require a warrant, and that arbitrary scanning without a warrant (or presumably also probable cause) is a violation of the 4th amendment. This technology (still science fiction) would likely get similar treatment using the existing precedent about how new technologies can be used.
- kunai 2mo agoThe easy workaround for this (which Flock has used to massive success and why it's drawn so much ire) is to set up or subcontract a private corporation to do this which will inherently be subject to much less stringent oversight. It also allows government and law enforcement to evade accountability.
- Jtsummers 2mo agoThe legal arguments against Flock are different than the legal arguments against thermal imaging by the police (without a warrant or probably cause). And the latter is closer to the hypothetical broad mind reading (science fiction, again) than it is to Flock. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States - The case I was referencing.
- LPisGood 2mo agoLike I said, it is the philosophical basis.
- lovich 2mo agoOk? The philosophical basis is only loosely correlated with the legal basis which is what the person you replied to asked. Again look at the run around on the fourth amendment or the commerce clause ruling that made it so growing wheat for your own consumption was legally considered interstate commerce.
- LPisGood 2mo agoI don’t think what you’re describing is a run around. The fourth amendment rulings and the interstate commerce rulings are logically consistent with the principles of the constitution:
- lovich 2mo agolol, don’t think we have the same mindset then. The fourth is effectively gone in the digital age since so much activity is done via third parties who the government can compel to hand over your information. And for the interstate commerce clause they twisted it to argue that completely _intrastate_ commerce was actually interstate commerce because you would have bought the goods from other states if you didn’t make it yourself[1]. I’m not even opposed to the ruling in terms of what the government should be doing, but you are being blind if you think that’s logically consistent. There’s no reason the constitution would specify “…to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” It would have just said they had the power to regulate commerce. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
- nitwit005 2mo agoTheir data collection is naturally based off of people talking or typing: https://condu.it/thought/10k-hours https://condu.it/thought/10k-hours So you'd need to force people to somehow think the same things they do when talking or typing, without actually performing those actions. If you can do that, why not just have them talk?
- jackling 2mo agoIsn't that just for data collection though? I imagine the fully trained model they're expecting to have will be able to map thoughts -> text. The data collection will naturally need to have the 2 sets in order to do self-supervised training.
- nitwit005 2mo agoRemember that a lot of people have no internal monologue, and even for those that do, it's silent most of the time. They might hope to get that, but the typical case is for there to be no text or voice to extract.
- jackling 2mo agoRight but if someone was given a task, internal monologue or not, there will be some brainwave pattern to map thoughts to typing, right? Otherwise, how is the person typing? For a sufficiently complex task, I don't think you can rely on reflexes alone. If I understand the data collection method they're using, they will sit someone in front of a keyboard, give them some task, and collect both what they type out and the associated collected brainwaves.
- nitwit005 2mo agoSure, but remember the use case being discussed is interrogation. You have a tool that can collect what someone is trying to type, but they aren't trying to type. And, my point was, there may be zero words to collect at all, because they'll tend not to be actively thinking about any words.