With all the poli­ti­cal and ethi­cal deba­tes about what allo­wed means for intel­li­gence should be or are, a ques­tion recently pop­ped up in my mind:

If a tech­no­logy emer­ged that allo­wed humans to read other peo­p­les thoughts and memo­ries, under what cir­cum­stan­ces should that be a legal way to find out about cri­mes that were or, even more inte­res­ting, are to be com­mit­ted? Not some­thing about pro­ba­bi­li­ties as in Mino­rity Report, but actually some­thing to read emo­ti­ons, memo­ries and thoughts? Where are the bounds in this? Should it be legal in the con­text of inde­scri­bable atro­ci­ties like 9/11? Mur­der? Rape? Theft? Only for cri­mi­nal inves­ti­ga­ti­ons, or also as a means for intel­li­gence before the act?

And to make it more inte­res­ting: What if the act of rea­ding were destruc­tive? If the sub­ject of the inves­ti­ga­tion doesn’t come out like he went in before, but was eit­her irre­pa­ra­bly dama­ged or even dead? Where are the boun­da­ries then?

• Previous Entry: Aber Osten ist doch … rechts?
• Next Entry: Ausbildungsplatzabgabe, revisited