Truth Hurts

You're walking past several stores at the mall with your family and you can't help but notice that all of your family members have red beams of light projected onto their foreheads.  As you walk by each store, a new beam comes on.  After you're done with your shopping, you head home for a nice family dinner and your thermal-sensored television comes on so you can watch the much anticipated presidential debates.  As soon as you reach the table, the red beams of light are projected once again onto the foreheads of your family members while you watch and dine.  The younger children are playing with their food, the older children discuss the candidates' platforms, and you and your significant other mingle amongst yourselves about your financial standing and how you're going to make ends meet for the following month.  You choke midsentence after you look back up at your partner's forehead to see the glaring red beam.  You almost forgot that they were listening.  No, not your family members, but the others—the many neurodata aggregators that are constantly scanning, analyzing, and surveilling your every thought, intention, and behavior.  You excuse yourself and walk at a rapid pace to the bathroom.

"That was a close one!" you say to yourself in front of the mirror as you turn the faucet handle.  Your partner knocks on the door and you let them in as you dry your face from the quick face-wash.

"Are you alright?" your partner asks affectionately.

"Everything was going well!  I was doing just fine, but then I remembered what was going on and I freaked out.  I hope they don't pick up on it.  That would be my third investigation THIS YEAR!"

"Oh, honey!  Try to relax.  Ummm..."   Your partner looks around frantically shaking their arms in front of them.  "You choked, remember?  If they ask, you can just tell them you were overwhelmed by the conversation of our finances and you choked."

"I can't handle this anymore!" you half-scream.  "They tell us it's for our own safety; that it is meant to protect our freedom from terrorists and illegal foreign imposters.  But how do we know that?  How can we possibly know?  I can't keep these questions from running through my mind, and you know what the revision of the Bill of Rights states: 'The people are not permitted to question the governing authority on technologically improved homeland security measures.'"

"Honey, we've been gone from the dinner table for far too long.  Try to compose yourself.  Remember, just let your mind go blank and focus on the debates.  Don't let your thoughts wander where they don't like.  We must return now, or we will BOTH be summoned for questioning."

------------------------------

The applications of our most modern technologies are extending to areas of much ethical controversy.  Researchers are now using fMRI scans to detect deception and truthfulness among human subjects, and the current debate on these measures is centered on whether or not such lie detection technologies should be implemented in the judicial system and used by citizens in society.  Surely, this may prove a tremendous leap for mankind, but which direction is it likely to take?  Will the future hold a better society, or a less stable one?  I suppose the outcome would depend on the accuracy of such technologies and whether or not the authorities would uphold the integrity necessary for such a new technology to function as it is intended.  In all honesty, if this technology were ordained by the supreme court for use in the court system, it would be interesting to see Casey Anthony retried by such an fMRI screening (just food for thought).

The video I inserted below brings up interesting research findings on this topic.  The most important piece of ongoing research is the Crime Scene Recognition study currently run by Dr. John-Dylan Haynes and colleagues of the Berlin Center for Advanced Neuroimaging in Germany.  This study looks at the spatial and contextual memory of the people in question of a criminal act.  Using fMRI scans, these researchers have found that scanning the brains of potential criminals for weapon or crime scene recognition via memory responses can shed light on the actual criminal. The researchers base their analyses on the brain activation patterns that are indicative of memory recognition or recall when the subjects are presented with virtual images of the crime scene or the weapons used.

This technology may begin to reshape our society in the very near future with applications beyond our current comprehension.  It would be wise to keep a vigilant eye out for future supreme court rulings as to the extent of the uses of such invasive technology.  As stated in the video, this technology may not apply to the Fifth Amendment, but instead be used to acquire evidence for court trials.  We can see in today's society that data aggregation has become quite the popular tool for marketing companies over the Internet.  Many social networks are now being used to aggregate data based on what you search or type out to better accommodate you with ads pertaining to what you prefer according to your data file.  The video also points out the potential uses of such technologies for marketing companies, and that makes me feel rather uneasy.  What would be next?  Would the Department of Homeland Security begin to use such technologies across cities and towns to better monitor for "domestic threats?"  I wouldn't doubt it for a second.  While this may prove beneficial, it sounds strikingly familiar.  Does George Orwell's "1984" ring any bells?

Another question of significance to this topic involves the accuracy of such readings on people with amnesia or alzheimer's.  Would these technologies still be able to read the minds of these individuals and detect memory recall for crime scene or weapon recognition?

In a world so complex with billions of people, each one containing his/her own brain filled with intentions, thoughts, and memories (whether implicit, explicit, or both), it is important to consider where the boundaries of mind-reading technologies should be placed.  If the freedom to privacy within our own minds is taken from us, then what freedom is left?  What kind of world would it be if we were pressured to be near 100% truthful?  What kind of lives would we live and to what extent would this technology impact humanity?

The ideal future with such technologies implemented in society would only use them for evidence acquisition, and nothing else.  But the ideal is hardly ever a realistic outlook.  Corporations and government departments are likely to grab a hold of such technologies and use them for their own gain, whatever that may be.  Prepare for change and remain informed.  

The most liberating truth is a painful one.