July 26, 2013
Could the Government Get a Search Warrant for Your Thoughts?

We don’t have a mind reading machine. But what if we one day did? The technique of functional MRI (fMRI), which measure changes in localized brain activity over time, can now be used to infer information regarding who we are thinking about, what we have seen, and the memories we are recalling. As the technology for inferring thought from brain activity continues to improve, the legal questions regarding its potential application in criminal and civil trials are gaining greater attention.
Last year, a Maryland man on trial for murdering his roommate tried to introduce results from an fMRI-based lie detection test to bolster his claim that the death was a suicide. The court ruled (PDF) the test results inadmissible, noting that the “fMRI lie detection method of testing is not yet accepted in the scientific community.” In a decision last year to exclude fMRI lie detection test results submitted by a defendant in a different case, the Sixth Circuit was even more skeptical, writing that “there are concerns with not only whether fMRI lie detection of ‘real lies’ has been tested but whether it can be tested.”
So far, concerns regarding reliability have kept thought-inferring brain measurements out of U.S. (but not foreign) courtrooms. But is technology the only barrier? Or, if more mature, reliable brain scanning methods for detecting truthfulness and reading thoughts are developed in the future, could they be employed not only by defendants hoping to demonstrate innocence but also by prosecutors attempting to establish guilt? Could prosecutors armed with a search warrant compel an unwilling suspect to submit to brain scans aimed at exploring his or her innermost thoughts?
Read more. [Image: U.S. National Library of Medicine]

Could the Government Get a Search Warrant for Your Thoughts?

We don’t have a mind reading machine. But what if we one day did? The technique of functional MRI (fMRI), which measure changes in localized brain activity over time, can now be used to infer information regarding who we are thinking about, what we have seen, and the memories we are recalling. As the technology for inferring thought from brain activity continues to improve, the legal questions regarding its potential application in criminal and civil trials are gaining greater attention.

Last year, a Maryland man on trial for murdering his roommate tried to introduce results from an fMRI-based lie detection test to bolster his claim that the death was a suicide. The court ruled (PDF) the test results inadmissible, noting that the “fMRI lie detection method of testing is not yet accepted in the scientific community.” In a decision last year to exclude fMRI lie detection test results submitted by a defendant in a different case, the Sixth Circuit was even more skeptical, writing that “there are concerns with not only whether fMRI lie detection of ‘real lies’ has been tested but whether it can be tested.”

So far, concerns regarding reliability have kept thought-inferring brain measurements out of U.S. (but not foreign) courtrooms. But is technology the only barrier? Or, if more mature, reliable brain scanning methods for detecting truthfulness and reading thoughts are developed in the future, could they be employed not only by defendants hoping to demonstrate innocence but also by prosecutors attempting to establish guilt? Could prosecutors armed with a search warrant compel an unwilling suspect to submit to brain scans aimed at exploring his or her innermost thoughts?

Read more. [Image: U.S. National Library of Medicine]

  1. whaturcatdraggedin reblogged this from theatlantic
  2. chicagowindchill reblogged this from scinerds
  3. adrianlb reblogged this from themoreuknowscience
  4. themoreuknowscience reblogged this from theatlantic
  5. originot reblogged this from theatlantic
  6. zombiegeorgie reblogged this from theatlantic and added:
    This is a interesting way of looming at lie detection test.
  7. theyinvitedpacman reblogged this from theatlantic and added:
    That’s scary.
  8. thedreamymongoose reblogged this from theatlantic
  9. kaloskagathos reblogged this from theatlantic
  10. nuttyfuckinland reblogged this from rowtoshore
  11. westinhaus reblogged this from theatlantic and added:
    -_-‘
  12. sunshinelucky reblogged this from theatlantic
  13. joooshuaaa reblogged this from theatlantic and added:
    La.mente
  14. rickyruzzo reblogged this from theatlantic
  15. epheremally-yours reblogged this from theatlantic
  16. tropically-typical reblogged this from theatlantic
  17. fallin-in-wonderland reblogged this from theatlantic
  18. seekinganotherworld reblogged this from theatlantic
  19. rustynails722 reblogged this from theatlantic
  20. usedfilmrolls reblogged this from theatlantic
  21. yeahwateva reblogged this from theatlantic
  22. courageunderpressure reblogged this from theatlantic
  23. panda12694 reblogged this from theatlantic
  24. godfatherj13 reblogged this from theatlantic and added:
    First off…I believe the US government has this capability an has been using it in the “war on terror”. The torture...
  25. nabokovsshadows reblogged this from theatlantic
  26. inclaimof27 reblogged this from theatlantic
  27. experiencednovice reblogged this from theatlantic
  28. thegreekooscorner reblogged this from theatlantic and added:
    U.S to legally search your thoughts? Cons n pros ,guys!
  29. mkweber517 reblogged this from theatlantic
  30. abaffledking reblogged this from theatlantic