A sinister thought, just the one. It’s fleeting. There are
no twisted machinations, just one ephemeral idea. But what if someone saw that
thought, or at the very least, the emotions pushing it at the very moment that
it arose? What if a government official or police officer could detain you,
arrest you, try and sentence you, based on an emotion…a thought…on which you
never acted? I’ve written about these Minority
Report tactics on this blog before,
but I’ve never heard of the unbelievably interesting and unjust technology
described by Nita Farahany in The Washington Post.
While it may be too early to panic, I’m not keen on the
technology Farahany details: streaming video analytics using algorithms to predict
the patterns of a loitering group of teens or a remote electroencephalogram detecting
changes in the brain. Farahany makes a point that “the government can't read
our minds—yet. So far, these tools simply measure changes in the brain; they
don't detect thoughts and intentions.” But, she says that scientists are
working to decipher people’s intentions and perceptions.
Frankly, while other people may not be afraid of this technology, I am. But my fear doesn’t stem only from the “Big Brother” abilities of this technology. It also comes from the fact that assumptions will be made from imperfect technology (not that I want this technology to ever be perfected, or even used as is).
What if someone has high levels of the stress hormone cortisol, and when pulled over by an officer panics not because their car is filled with cadavers or meth, but simply because their adrenal glands secrete more cortisol than the average person’s? Can this sophisticated equipment detect a person’s Cushing’s Syndrome, or will an officer register their response as probable cause to search a car, or to ticket, detain, or arrest the driver? While I don’t want this equipment scanning my body for possible causes of an emotive response, I do want society and scientists to think about what it is that makes a criminal. Does an errant thought, an emotion, an illness, a change in heart rate or neural activity determine that a crime will occur?
I’m not a scientist, just someone fascinated with science. But as someone who works in crime prevention, I don’t know where this technology could take my field. While I believe that people do exhibit warning signs and behaviors before engaging in some crimes, I will never support criminalizing someone for a thought that might come from one fleeting emotion (or from recurrent thoughts on which they never act). To prevent crime, we should educate people and engage them in their communities, not invade someone’s thoughts and construe their behavior as potentially criminal.
As always, your comments are encouraged, as I can’t (and don’t want to) read your minds.
Hat tip to All in the Mind.
Comments