Would you let the government read our minds? (1 Viewer)

[Thorgasm]

If the government had a machine that could read our minds, would you let them in the name of security?

 

[Kandahar]

Of course not. Talk about the ultimate invasion of privacy...

 

[Thorgasm]

Of course not. Talk about the ultimate invasion of privacy...

True, but I have to wonder how much liberty people would be willing to sacrifice for security. If a program like this were around it could eliminate crime, I would think that there would be people for it. I just wonder how many.

Me, personally, would be against this.

 

[Befuddled_Stoner]

How do you mean, "let the government read our minds"? Like a Hobbesian wet dream of 24/7 surveillance on everyone? Or more like, getting rid of the courts and using mind scanning to ascertain guilt or innocence?

Just because 24/7 mind reading would get rid of all crime doesn't mean it would be a good idea. If that was the goal, we could also nuke the entire surface of the planet, arrest everyone in the world, or my personal favorite, abolish all law.

The only reason I can see someone agreeing to 24/7 surveillance would be because they have no appreciable mind to be read.

 

[Thorgasm]

The only reason I can see someone agreeing to 24/7 surveillance would be because they have no appreciable mind to be read.

I love how you put this. It would make a good bumper sticker if the issue ever arises. :rofl

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

No, because this would only allow them to better control us. Powerful men should always be threatened.

 

[Billo_Really]

The government did read my mind!

No I owe them another $173.62.

Christ!

 

[mixedmedia]

uhhhhhh...hmmmmmmm....uhhh.....wellllll.............I don.....hmmm....uhhhh....I'm thinking.....give me a minute...................................

uh, no.

 

[mixedmedia]

And you left out the money phrase in your question:

Would you let the government read our minds if it prevented another terrorist attack?

 

[Joby]

What if they had a machine like Minority Report:

Red Light goes off, someones thinking about terrorism!

(i'm still a HUGE NO)

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by mixedmedia:
Would you let the government read our minds if it prevented another terrorist attack?

The government reading our minds IS a terrorist attack.

 

[disneydude]

And you left out the money phrase in your question:

Would you let the government read our minds if it prevented another terrorist attack?

EXACTLY!
The way you phrased the question sounds eeriely like some of the regulars on these boards. And the scary thing is......we can all pretty much guess how they would answer.

 

[mixedmedia]

EXACTLY!
The way you phrased the question sounds eeriely like some of the regulars on these boards. And the scary thing is......we can all pretty much guess how they would answer.

Yup. If you put the word "terrorist" in it, some folks will bend over and take just about anything.

 

[Jerry]

If the government had a machine that could read our minds, would you let them in the name of security?

I'd psy-hack the machine, place spyware psy-programs in it and broadcast Big-Bro's thoughts over the Global Consciousness.

Dirka dirka Mohommid Alah, mutha phucka!

 

[Goobieman]

Of course not. Talk about the ultimate invasion of privacy...

How about with a warrant?

 

[CoffeeSaint]

How about with a warrant?

A warrant based on what? We think you're thinking bad thoughts, so we'd like to check? Or are you talking about the use of a mindreader to determine guilt or innocence in a criminal trial?

 

[Thorgasm]

I in no way would support this. I posed this question wondering if anyone would say yes. It seems the "ends justify the means" crowd won't touch this poll though.

 

[Caine]

How about with a warrant?

Absolutely NOT, Goobie-Man
There is no way my thoughts will be read by "the man"

 

[mixedmedia]

I in no way would support this. I posed this question wondering if anyone would say yes. It seems the "ends justify the means" crowd won't touch this poll though.

I'm telling you it's because you left out the money....if you'd put the word "terrorist" somewhere in your title they wouldn't be able to resist. It's the sirens' call of irrationality.

 

[Goobieman]

Absolutely NOT, Goobie-Man
There is no way my thoughts will be read by "the man"

Assuming we're discussing a criminal investigation here...

It would likely violate your right to self-incriminate, if you were the focus of the investigation.

But if you were NOT the focus, and there was a warrant issued, what isargument that the gvmnt cannot read your mind?

 

[Goobieman]

A warrant based on what? We think you're thinking bad thoughts, so we'd like to check? Or are you talking about the use of a mindreader to determine guilt or innocence in a criminal trial?

A warrant based on whatever is relevant. If you are a witness to something but do not want to testify, or there is probable cause to think that you know something.

As I mentioned before, you could not be the focus of the investigation or the person on trial, because such a thing would violate your 5th amendment rights - but if someome -else- is the focus, that's a different story.

 

[Caine]

A warrant based on whatever is relevant. If you are a witness to something but do not want to testify, or there is probable cause to think that you know something.

As I mentioned before, you could not be the focus of the investigation or the person on trial, because such a thing would violate your 5th amendment rights - but if someome -else- is the focus, that's a different story.

WRONG!

When you have, say, a search warrant......You have to specify WHAT you are searching for, specifically. And you can only search in areas where you are likely to find that specific item or items you are searching for. When it comes to the mind, the potential to invade privacy while diging through things that are NOT your target far exceeds the demand for the evidence obtained from a "third person".

 

[americanwoman]

If the government had a machine that could read our minds, would you let them in the name of security?

Nope.They don't want to know what goes on in my head. :mrgreen:

 

[Goobieman]

WRONG!
When you have, say, a search warrant......You have to specify WHAT you are searching for, specifically. And you can only search in areas where you are likely to find that specific item or items you are searching for.

You are correct.

When it comes to the mind, the potential to invade privacy while diging through things that are NOT your target...

Is conceptually no different than any other search warrant -- you look for X, and your search is limited to X. Anything else you are supposed to ignore, and is inadmissible in court. No difference.

Remember that if there is a legitimate warrant issued, the government can invade your privacy all it wants.

far exceeds the demand for the evidence obtained from a "third person".

How do you know that, without any specifics?

 

[Caine]

Is conceptually no different than any other search warrant -- you look for X, and your search is limited to X. Anything else you are supposed to ignore, and is inadmissible in court. No difference.

Wrong again!
While the search is limited to "x" as you put it... And you can only search in a place where "x" could reasonably be... (your not going to search inside a small place for a large object). Any evidence of another crime that you DO find during your search may be used for additional charges, you just have to obtain another search warrant before you leave.

Remember that if there is a legitimate warrant issued, the government can invade your privacy all it wants.

Only to the extend of the crime. You can't invade privacy of specifica areas of someone's live without articulatable probable cause to believe evidence of the alleged crime is there.

How do you know that, without any specifics?

Judges ted to be more protective of the privacy of third persons who are not even directly involved.