100 years from now, mind reading is a thing...

[Independent voter]

So it's 2116 and technology has invented a way to read minds, your memories can be accessed and viewed on screen. It's like a big MRA machine they use today to look at your brain, etc. It's not portable.

The first use that comes to mind is law enforcement. Courts want to put criminals in the machine and show their crimes to juries so that juries can decide if the criminal is guilty or not.

Should this be legal? Should it require a warrant? And if it's okay for law enforcement, should this technology be given to civilians like your employer?

[Deleted]

I'd make the first real amateur POV porn website, so many source materials.

[Warlucia]

Wouldn't be legal imo, because until the big secret keepers of our Gov't find some kind of mind shields or anti-hacker shield to keep the secrets they don't want the public knowing in, they'd never allow it.

[mvaliz]

First off... I doubt that will be around in just a hundred years :P

But, for sake of argument, if it was - IMO it should be treated like a home search - requiruing a warrant before executing said task.

[Kalis]

Would there be a way to distinguish between what actually happened and what you've imagined?

Like if you're sitting in a cafe, the crime is about to happen, then all of a sudden it changes to a graphic image of you doing Eva Green up the wrong un, because minds wander and that.

[Kokolums]

In 2116, technology is so advanced that you cannot tell if it is a real memory or a memory that got implanted.

[shadowmouse]

Since it would be my memories, it should be considered protected by the Fifth Amendment.

[Noradin]

The first use that comes to mind is law enforcement. Courts want to put criminals in the machine and show their crimes to juries so that juries can decide if the criminal is guilty or not.

You cannot use those to get the truth, only what the one in question might believe is the truth.
Also, it really would only be one interpretation of the information in the brain, because what oyu propose is not something you can just project on a two-dimensional screen in a bijective way. The law of small numbers would apply for every detail involved.

[Deleted]

Since it would be my memories, it should be considered protected by the Fifth Amendment.

I doubt the US (or Europe for that matter) still has the same laws by then. Some countries might not even exist in the same form anymore.

OT: Wether we want it or not... this will be implemented. Information is power after all.

[Simulacrum]

This would be horrifyingly immoral. Not to mention forced self-incrimination.

Maybe it would be acceptable to use it in very extreme situations (during total war, or to fight a massive terrorist attack on a scale greater than any seen so far, or something similar), but outside of that it should be abolished, at least as a form of extracting information from people involuntarily.

[Deleted]

I doubt the US (or Europe for that matter) still has the same laws by then. Some countries might not even exist in the same form anymore.

OT: Wether we want it or not... this will be implemented. Information is power after all.

The bigger question is not if "the man" would use it to drain information out of people but if it would actually work. You won't get what really happened out of it but what people believe happened. Pretty much like the "Meet the Pyro"-video.

[Trollokdamus]

I think it should be legal for suspects to provide their memories in order to be proven innocent if they so desire. As for being forced to do so under a warrant from a judge, I'm not so sure... it may have its benefits but sounds way too intrusive.

[Ciddy]

Would there be a way to distinguish between what actually happened and what you've imagined?

Like if you're sitting in a cafe, the crime is about to happen, then all of a sudden it changes to a graphic image of you doing Eva Green up the wrong un, because minds wander and that.

Yeah, I think this would be my biggest problem with such a device. It'd be even worse for people who deal with things like ADD.

"Ok, here we see our suspect sneaking up and about to stab someone.......and now we see a cloud that's shaped like a dog"

Not to mention that if this can be exploited in some way, I could see an unethical prosecutor doing so.

[Gadion]

I'd actually like this technology to be available, but only up to a certain limit. It is of paramount importance that this technology not be used to unnecessarily invade anyone's privacy and not be used to manipulate people's memories themselves.

I would consider it fair if you could use memory to prove a person's guilt or innocence, but only if the memory is indisputably not imposed from the outside and accurate (many people have memory problems, and issues such as intoxication or inadequate sleep should be noted as possible excluding factors for the use of this technology). How you would prove this, is a different matter altogether and I would actually lobby against this type of technology unless this can be verified. If proven accurate and dependable however, this would be quite an efficient method to determine the truth of a matter. I consider the capability to ascertain the truth in legal matters more important than people's rights to not incriminate themselves, since they chose to commit the crime after all.

Somewhat less controversial, this type of technology might be useful for those interested in helping others cope with emotional turmoil or teaching them beneficial skills and essential knowledge.

[Nanaboostme]

Transferring our conscious mind elsewhere after death; Old memories and any awareness as well like our brain as a memory chip.

Except thats the last thing I'd want. Mother Nature's flaw of all things.

[Independent voter]

I think such a device could tell the difference between something imagined and something real just like we can tell the difference between pretend and the real world, at least most of us. There has to be something in the brain, some kind of meta data that says, "nope this was imagined" or "yes, this was real".

I agree though that each person would have a point of view, the criminal and the victim could easily remember events two different ways.

[Adam Jensen]

100 years from now?

It's a lot sooner than you think. MRIs can already read minds in a primitive fashion.

http://www.imagilys.com/fmri-mind-reading/

Basically if you think of a subject, like a bird, a specifc region of the brain lights up in a specific pattern. So if it sees that pattern, it can guess you're thinking "bird."

[muto]

Legilimens! Sorry i had to.

I think it would be fine for crime investigation purposes, but outside of that no.

[Spase Peepole]

I'd make the first real amateur POV porn website, so many source materials.

No one wants to watch a POV of a fat guy masturbating to furries and hentai.

[PACOX]

I think it should be legal for suspects to provide their memories in order to be proven innocent if they so desire. As for being forced to do so under a warrant from a judge, I'm not so sure... it may have its benefits but sounds way too intrusive.

You shouldn't have to provide evidence that you're innocent, procecutors have to prove that you're guilty. Otherwise I'd to comb your memories by merely accusing you of anything.

Let say we do produce this technology, it would probably be illegal for anyone to posses it except for the Feds and something that says that they Feds aren't allowed to use it (they would but deny using it or keep in on the hush hush).

The FBI can't get Apple to unlock the phone of a known dead terrorist, you really think people would be game for some mind reading doodad?