AIN’T THINK
MY MIND IS NOT GUILTY
first published 24 November 2017 & last updated 26 march 2023
- There are ongoing studies in the field of neuroscience and psychology aimed at developing technologies that can read and interpret human thoughts, emotions, and intentions. Some experts argue that mind-reading technologies could be used to violate privacy and personal autonomy, and could even have implications for free will and responsibility
- One of the most significant ethical concerns is the potential for invasion of privacy. The ability to read someone’s thoughts could provide unprecedented access to their innermost thoughts and feelings, which should be private. There is also the risk of the data falling into the wrong hands, which could lead to disastrous consequences for the individual concerned
- Another ethical concern is the concept of informed consent. Currently, any medical procedure or experiment requires informed consent from the person involved, which involves explaining the benefits, risks, and alternatives, along with the potential outcomes. With mind-reading technologies, it could be difficult to obtain informed consent since there’s a lot about these technologies we don’t yet know
- Another issue that arises with mind-reading technology is the potential for misuse, especially in legal proceedings. If someone’s thoughts are used as evidence in court, it raises questions about the right to a fair trial, especially since thoughts are subjective and can be manipulated
Ultimately, the appropriate use of mind-reading technology will require careful consideration, regulation, and ethical guidelines. The development of such guidelines would also take into account other factors such as the risks of mass surveillance, social stigma, and the loss of autonomy
generated by Chat AI – 25 march 2023
mind reading & mind hacking:
- violates article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
- violates The Protection from Harassment Act 1997
- violates The Right to Freedom of Thought Article 9 ECHR
- violates European Convention on Human Rights
-
unlawful interception of any wire, oral, written, visual, thought to speech & text communication or electronic communication without prior consent
- violates the 5th Amendment’s right to not self incriminate
- mental decoders, brain printers & thought-to-text converters, thought recordings and reproduction devices:
- infringe copyrights
- violate the right to mental privacy
- violate private property rights
- violate intellectual property rights
absolute rights include freedom of thought, conscience, and religion and the prohibitions on torture, inhuman treatment or punishment, and degrading treatment or punishment. Absolute rights cannot be limited for any reason. No circumstance justifies a qualification or limitation of absolute rights. Absolute rights cannot be suspended or restricted, even during a declared state of emergency
proprietary ain’t think protocols designed to:
- protect mental privacy & cognitive liberty
- prevent the indiscriminate leakage of brain data across the info-sphere
- prevent someone from having mind read without consent
- facilitate reason’s denial to give away a skull-bone
- remind that we have the right to refuse coercive uses of neurotechnology
-
remind that absolute rights include freedom of thought & conscience
- detect and prevent unlawful interception
- detect and prevent thought policing
do not follow my thoughts – follow cavitas oris
ain’t think – project stamps 2017-2025
- legal advice & project stamps 2017-2025
- Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology – Roberto Andorno & Marcello Lenca 2017
- ain’t think thibia
