Slashdot Mirror
Going Cyberpunk
goingincirclez writes "Cnet has an article about the development of a "Neuro-chip". This can be implanted in the brain and is currently being researched for medical uses. The article makes a brief mention the composition of pictures on a computer based on signlas receieved from the brain. Couple this development with the information in this Wired article from last October, and I can't help but wonder how far we are from literally being able to record dreams and thoughts?" On a similar note there are stories about a temperature-sensing implantable microchip and a scientist who claims he can tell whether you've committed a crime.
Nope.
In the article, it states that the suspect agreed to the test. So, yes, we (in the USA anyhow) would still be protected under the 5th Amendment.
Not that I see this technology going to use in many other countries...
"We have eyewitnesses stating that the gunman was tall, white, with blonde hair."
"So what? This guy wants to run against me next year. I say he did it, and he must be put to death."
Ever Onward, Forward Bound
can't help but wonder how far we are from literally being able to record dreams and thoughts?
If you read material on brain research, you'll quickly come to the realize that we have no idea at all how the brain works. The theories are widely varying and contradictory. The chip in this story is a hack, like shocking a dead frog and watching its muscles twitch. You can do it without any kind of clue, but going from there to a full understanding of things is a gargantuan leap.
To Quote a section of the Yahoo article:
From a scientific perspective, we can definitively say that brain fingerprinting could have substantial benefits in identifying terrorists or in exonerating people accused of being terrorists," Farwell said"
Sounds like a definite maybe?
SCO to Hell
In the 80s, the FBI said 99.9% of the population have committed a federal crime worthy of jail time.
.1%
With laws like the PATRIOT act and DMCA, I'd say they are going after that
"Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
In the UK silence is basically an admission of guilt. You are not told "You have the right to remain silent", you are told "Anything you do not say now may later harm your defence" or something like that. IANAL - could someone better grounded in this give us a more accurate quote please?
:
"You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention now, anything you later rely on in court. Anything you do say will be given in evidence."
We lost the "Right to Silence" in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Under the new laws, although we are under no obligation to self-incriminate, the court can now make inferences as regards to silence under the following circumstances
1) Failure to mention a fact when questioned under caution before charge which is relied on in defence.
2) Failure on being charged with an offence or informed of likely prosecution, to mention a fact which it would have been reasonable to mention at the time.
3) Failure or refusal to account for objects, substances or marks found on your person, in or on your clothing or otherwise in your possession, in the place where you were arrested (if asked).
4) Failure or refusal after your arrest to account for your presence at a place at or about the time the offence is alleged to have been committed (if asked)
info from : Liberty UK
It's unfortunately seen as a right to have a driver's license. It isn't. It's a privilege. The government regulates this for the protection of everyone on the road. And, you sign a contract with the government that says that you will give a breathalyzer test whenever they demand it of you, else they can (and will) revoke your license.
They can't do this with basic rights; that would violate the Constitution. They legitimately can't put you in jail or any such if you refuse a breathalyzer test.
Unfortunately, I fear that I most post this anonymously, as in the past, people have misconstrued my statements as trolls of flamebait.
Secondly, there's the problem of spike sorting. There is, AFAIK, no fully automatic way to detect and sort spike trains from multiple-extracellular electrodes in real-time. (ie to be able to tell how many neurons are "talking" to any single electrode.)
Finally, the level of plasticity in the adult brain is an unknown quantity. Primate studies are suggestive, but there doesn't seem to be a consensus on how to best have a machine "talk" to the brain. Should we have the brain learn how to do it? Have the machine learn to do it? Some combination of these? What about for paralytics-- how do you train someone to use a very specific part of the brain. Remember that you're recording from at best a few hundred cells!
Probably surprisingly few if you have a good neurosurgeon. And if he is paralyzed to begin with it might not matter./joeyo
2^5
My former undergrad prof, Dr. John Donoghue at Brown University, is at the cutting edge of research into neural implantable interfaces.
Monkeys Demonstrate Thought-Controlled Computing
Monkeybrain Joysticks Excerpts:
A rhesus macaque monkey at a Brown University laboratory can move a cursor on a computer screen just by thinking about it - playing a pinball game in which every time a red target dot pops up, the monkey moves a cursor to meet the target quickly and accurately. The monkey plays the game mentally, controlling where it wants the cursor to go by thinking.
The primary research Nature article is Connecting cortex to machines: recent advances in brain interfaces
Cheers,
Joel
"the state is allowed to revoke your driving privileges"
I believe the subtle difference here is that driving is not a right. many seem to be confused on this issue (and are likely the same crowd jauntng around with cellphones jammed to their heads).