Should Cyborgs Have the Same Privacy Rights As Humans?

Jason Koebler (3528235) writes When someone with an e-tattoo or an implanted biochip inevitably commits a crime, and evidence of that crime exists on that device within them, do they have a legal right to protect that evidence? Do cyborgs have the same rights as humans? "The more you take a thing with no rights and integrate it indelibly into a thing that we invest with rights, the more you inevitably confront the question: Do you give the thing with no rights rights, or do you take those rights away from the thing with rights?," Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, who just released a paper exploring the subject, said.

Comments

Humans have too much

[Anonymous Coward]

Humans have too many privacy rights as it is. Groups like ISIS happen because we're more concerned about doing all of our daily tasks in secret rather than being safe.

Re:Humans have too much

[MtnDeusExMachina]

Of course, an Anonymous Coward complaining about too many privacy rights. Nothing ironic about that.

Re:Humans have too much

[Anonymous Coward]

So you never do anything in secret? I certainly don't want you or anyone else to know what I am doing. Fuck the the assholes in this world who try to tell me how to live my life. I wasn't born to be a slave or to follow your rules. My life is my own bitch.

Re:Humans have too much

[Anonymous Coward]

Your name is just as anonymous moron regardless if you posted it publicly. We still don't know who you are but if we wanted the first anon can be tracked as easy as you.

Re:Humans have too much

[PlusFiveTroll]

Are you 'tarded or something. Tracking ACoward can be much harder than an actual username. Logged in users with a long posting history leak all kinds of information about who they are, information that can possibly trace back to them without an IP address. At worst both just leave an IP, which if measures are taken, such as proxies or hacked machines can be near impossible to track.

Re:Humans have too much

[rwa2]

Hmm, well, I actually came here to make some sort of comment like that... are there no advocates for full transparency?

Increasingly we're living in a world where everything is recorded. Back in the old days you just had to tell everyone that "God is watching" to make them behave. It kinda worked (the Renaissance was pretty much started because bankers were trying to buy their way out of Hell by commissioning works of art for the church). These days with so much privacy, there's not really any incentive to do anything quite like that, and we sort of have an unbalanced arms raced between those who have the money to monitor everyone else and yet guard their own privacy and anonymity.

What if, say in a parallel universe or another planet, there was a society that just simply had full transparency? No pictures of our private parts to worry about, because, well, everyone has them. Everyone shares their browsing history, because, gee, you're into interesting stuff. No need to guard your birthday and SSN because, well, there's actually real cryptographic security keeping people from opening accounts in your name. And if they they did take anything (including the people in power), we'd know who it was and where it went and how to get it back.

I mean, I know this is Slashdot and all, but humor me here.

Re:Humans have too much

[khellendros1984]

All of Slashdot can use the AC account, while only a subset of Slashdot (often only one person) can use any given named account. People leak information when they type, and if the same person or small group of people can be identified by an anonymized identifier like a username, then you can glean information about whoever's using that name.

It's like the databases of "anonymized" information. Gather enough information, and eventually you'll have enough data points to uniquely identify an individual. That's pretty far off from "just as anonymous", provided someone wants to actually do the work to datamine someone else's old /. posts.

Re:Humans have too much

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

He's trying to distract from the topic. This Cyborg business is about giving EXTRA rights and SPECIAL rights, to the Robosexual minority.

Re:Humans have too much

[tysonedwards]

Except, you have just shown that you do in fact follow *some* rules.

For example, you follow grammatical rules, sentence structure and syntax. You obviously are educated, and as such have followed "those" rules. You are posting on an internet site, and as such one can infer that you have access to a computer, electricity, and internet service, so you are a member of a first world society...

So, which rules exactly do you feel are "unjust", and thereby not appropriate for you to follow?

Of note, that consideration is typically considered a common ideology, and as such carries with it it's own set of societal "rules" that are typically obeyed by those who are within that group, even if those rules are themselves tacitly conveyed.

Re:Humans have too much

[mythosaz]

It's all part of the secular cyborgist robosexual agenda.

Re:Humans have too much

[ATMAvatar]

Assuming that it was impossible to have *any* privacy, you would immediately see widespread persecution of anyone who didn't fit the "norm". Shortly afterward, anyone with any intelligence would cease any public activities which did not meet general approval and start looking for ways to engage in them so that only other people with those hobbies would know about it - in effect, clamoring to restore the lost privacy.

In short, a life without privacy is one where you must live according to how everyone else wants you to live, whether than living how *you* want to live. It is a prison without bars.

Re:Humans have too much

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

IT'S PROVEN FACT!

Give a cyborg privacy? He'll win the Olympics, for sure. And then he'll KILL his girlfriend.

Re:Humans have too much

[khallow]

The poster didn't say that he never followed rules. The previous poster ending a great deal of privacy for people.

Humans have too many privacy rights as it is. Groups like ISIS happen because we're more concerned about doing all of our daily tasks in secret rather than being safe.

I think the previous poster already answered your question about what rules he thinks are unjust.

Re:Humans have too much

[bzipitidoo]

Very idealistic. We could do with more transparency. Mroe than that, we could do with more equality of transparency. The rich get to hide their mistakes behind the corporate veil. Those of us who aren't executives of corporations have more limited options.

However, until the law is perfect, justice is truly fair, and our peers are totally enlightened about freedom of thought, speech, and so forth, all of which may be never, privacy is important. Is there anyone who hasn't had things to hide from our own parents? Especially our parents? Like that you got a warning for speeding while you were out on the town last night? Think of all the potentially embarrassing things there are to buy, such as porn magazines, sex toys, alcoholic drinks, hemorrhoid medicine, denture adhesive, and certain genres of music. I would love to have the hypocrisies and tyrannies uncovered and shamed out of existence by acknowledgement that lots of people have the same problems and desires. I mean things like that your parents engaged in sex to bring you into the world, but they forbid that you learn any details about sex (The stork brought you? You appeared under a cabbage leaf?), and certainly forbid that you try it! Just having a waist size connected to your name could be more than embarrassing, supposing it suggests that you are overweight, and you suffer discrimination from people who have never even seen you?

There are also political issues. Do you want it known whether you voted Republican or Democrat, or some 3rd party? Some examples of political issues are the War on Piracy and the War on Drugs. Years ago, there was the hysteria over Communism, with the House Un-American Activities Committee and the infamous Joe McCarthy ruining the careers of many in Hollywood. That has all been discredited now and we are at last easing up on drugs. Piracy however is still raging. And it can still happen again, with climate scientists such as Michael Mann among some of the more recent victims. They did their utmost to fish through his private emails for evidence that he was incompetent or a liar, and when they couldn't find good enough dirt, they exaggerated what they could. There are powerful interests that would very much like to use more transparency to force their extreme views on copyright on the rest of us. Would you like to be sued for copying a recording to another device? Arrested and your equipment seized, for timeshifting? With total transparency, they could do that. But fortunately for us all, the universe does not work that way. They cannot win, but they can hurt plenty of people before they are at last shut down. I think someday, copying will be legal, and seen as good for everyone, even artists. Until then, we all just have to be a little cautious, and keep it quiet whenever we do anything they could construe as piracy.

Re:Humans have too much

[rmdingler]

Dr Barnard, I presume.

Re:Humans have too much

[epyT-R]

Total transparency is not healthy for human psychology and social behavior. Just look at what the spying programs have done to create the current delusional group psychosis that is washington DC culture. Do you really want to be at the mercy of a bureaucratically enforced morality for every little decision you make? If everyone knew everyone else's business, you can be sure that getting permission to do anything noteworthy would be next to impossible. You can kiss individuality goodbye.

I would never, ever want to live in such a society.

Re:Humans have too much

[flayzernax]

Indeed to me it's pretty simple. The group will really has no business influencing an individuals personal and private life. The life that has nothing to do with anyone else. Especially.

Other than that, really for many of us, me, particularly, an idealistic society is one in which every person is individually empowered and completely independent from the moires of society.

Re:Humans have too much

[Fjandr]

None of those are rules.

Re:Humans have too much

[NotSanguine]

I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

--Robert A, Heinlein, The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress

Re:Humans have too much

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you, sir, do not understand what a rule is.

Re:Humans have too much

[pitchpipe]

"Humans have too many privacy rights as it is. Groups like ISIS happen because we're more concerned about doing all of our daily tasks in secret rather than being safe." - by Anonymous Coward

Of course, if I had said something as stupid as that, would want to maintain my anonymity/privacy as well.

Re:Humans have too much

[fustakrakich]

She's eight foot two, solid blue
Five transistors in each shoe
Has anybody seen my gal?

Re:Humans have too much

[rwa2]

Oh, well, that's an easy problem to solve, we can just simply round up all the persecutors and... OH SNAP, NOW YOU'VE GOT ME DOING IT!

But really, at what point can we just ignore the busybodies and come skulking out of the closet and be who we want to be and not give a fuck about what what other people think, because they don't have the power to do anything about it.

As far as living by everyone else's rules go, I probably have a good deal of privacy, but I still do it anyways. I don't veg out on video games as much as I'd like to, or pay people to perform sexual acts, even though those things are perfectly legal in places. But people are social creatures who learn from watching others, and naturally try to "fit in" whether their peers are giving them a hard time about it or not. Varying degrees of privacy might make it easier or harder for people to give you shit about stuff, but protection from other people is more of the essential right that should be guaranteed; having some sort of "guaranteed right to privacy" is delusional at best. If someone has some beef with you they'll be able to dig up some dirt.

Re:Humans have too much

[rwa2]

Yeah, very idealistic, probably too much for homo sapiens, but maybe an advanced race of cybernetic organisms could handle it. Or perhaps they won't really have a choice since their black boxes could be subpoenaed.

Heh, as a parent, I would feel like a failure if there was something that my kids wouldn't feel comfortable confiding with me. But they're not yet teenagers, so we'll see. I suppose my own youth may have been atypical... brought home my first porn stash when I was 7 or something (someone left a bundle in the neighborhood playground trash can). My parents found it... and let me keep it. My mother was a fairly conservative asian, but my dad (who's pretty much that hippie perv uncle type) convinced her that if they were ever going to raise a medical doctor, I'd have to not be squeamish around "anatomy". So yeah, maybe not everyone would grow up with such, er, "understanding" parents, but it seems like with the internet and all, people are really opening up about formerly taboo topics and talking more comfortably about masturbation and menstruation and accepting of different viewpoints, if only because, hey, there are some real wackos out there. In all likelihood this trend will continue for at least a generation, until they rebel against it for reasons.

Yes, politics... it's a long shot, because people love to argue about this kind of stuff like it really matters to them personally, but idealistically that kind of thing will eventually relegate itself in status to "administrative overhead" which should be minimized so we can all just get on with our lives. Yes, politicians make it sound like it's the most important thing ever, because that's the only way they can get power in this world, and we let them. So there will always be people trying to assert their power over others, the question is how can we limit that. I don't think the answer is by trying to guarantee privacy, because as you mentioned, if someone really holds a beef against you, they'll be able to dig up some kind of dirt on you and control the narrative. Hell, even if that narrative is "hey, look at how carefully this guy guards his privacy, he uses the same level of encryption as the drug cartel bosses, he must be up to no good!" I think it's important for you (or perhaps your lawyer, if you're in it deep) to be able to control your own narrative, and that's where the greater transparency comes in.

I don't know if the matters of piracy and intellectual property will be with us that much longer into the future, esp. if we're considering the plight of cybernetic organisms. Already, we're kinda seeing the shift away from licensed reproduction and performances to a clamoring for mindshare.... fading away are the days where the Distributors of Popular Culture had to put earworms into your head by playing crap repetitively on broadcast radio, until you shell out money at them so you can listen to that earworm whenever you want to be reminded of that particular year of your life, like they own a part of your life and culture. Nowadays they're kinda losing the broadcast channel, and have to compete virally for eyeballs with a ton of other half-decent content, in order to deliver you to their advertisers. Or worse yet for them, artists can simply be crowdfunded directly, and paid to produce more of the type of content that people want.

Anyway, I and a ton of other people pirated a ton of content back in the day, back when my entertainment budget was closer to 0 than it is now. I've since been able to just avoid that content that wants to collect royalty fees. If they want to go back though the records and collect for "lost" sales, then sure, I suppose it's fair game, but I'd also expect them to settle for fair compensation and not the exorbitant legal sums they've been requesting. But enough on that digression.

Probably the more impactful "invasions" of privacy we'll be seeing are overlays of stuff that already exists... maybe an overlay that shows you all of the registered sex offenders you meet as you

Re:Humans have too much

[rwa2]

Yeah, I think that it's possible (and that it's actually already happening) that society will become more accepting (and supporting!) of diversity. A healthy ecosystem is a diverse one, and is able to use and take advantage of the individual strengths of each of its members.

Re:Humans have too much

[Anonymous Coward]

Shortly afterward, anyone with any intelligence would cease any public activities which did not meet general approval and start looking for ways to engage in them so that only other people with those hobbies would know about it - in effect, clamoring to restore the lost privacy.

Sounds like how many fairly common hobbies already exist. My dealer knows my hobby, but I have to go through great lengths to prevent the rest of the world from knowing because I face rather extreme persecution (since my particular hobby, despite being less lethal than some and less addictive than others, and identical in effect to certain legal products), is still a massive stigma, and not just legally.

Re:Humans have too much

[houghi]

Harder, but not impossible. It only depends on how much time and money you are willing to put into it. Is that just a google search or a complete 3 letter department?
Most of the time the three letter department will know, but either does not care, or wants to kleep it a secret. Just like the Enlish let cities be bombed as not to let the Germans know they had cracked the code.

When you are looking not at countries, but to companies, Google will know a LOT already. And not only via ads, but people use google fiber and/or their DNS servers. And then there is fingerprinting
so /. will know who you are, if they are interested.

As an individual it will be a bit harder, but people tend to write in a similar way, so you will be able to start recognising people after a while.

So what you must know is that NOTHING is anonymous on the Internet. Sure, most of the time nobody will go after you for saying "Niggers".

Re:Humans have too much

[SuricouRaven]

But they do have the power to do something about it.

For a good example, I loathe the catholic church. I think they are an outdated organisation that does far more harm than good, that their views on contraception are getting people killed, that their homophobia and misogyny are archaic and disgusting and that, while they proclaim themselves as a great charitable organisation, the fast wealth they flaunt given every chance tells another story. The cover-ups for pedophiles is just the icing on the evil cake.

My first job out of university was for a Catholic school.

If my employers had been able to read my posts about the church, there is no way I would have gotten that job. I'd likely have not gotten my job at another school later on either, because their legal advisor would caution against hiring someone who may later be accused of religious discrimination.

Sure, you could pass a law prohibiting discrimination in employment or services based on personal views - but it'd be very hard to enforce.

Re:Humans have too much

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep.. all those things are true. But it was his choice to follow those rules since he knows those skills would give him a benefit in the world......

He could likewise live in a cave somewhere without any knowledge about computers and languages, but then he would probably had some issues posting here..

Re:Humans have too much

[rwa2]

Good point... I don't think that kind of thing will be much of an issue, though, because corporations like to save money by hiring the lowest salary staff from the largest pool of potential employees as possible.

As much as I'd like to believe that workplace diversity policies were implemented purely for progressive civil rights reasons (and I do applaud some of the brilliant and talented HR reps that can make everyone and themselves believe it!) it's obviously in their interests to "overlook" a lot of stuff that might come up from a moderately extensive background check, if it helps them stuff more warm bodies into a chair for less money. The labor force will become much more like the mechanical turk... remote, faceless, unseen. Heck, we're already just a number. Then later on if something bad happens, they can just say "oh, how were we to know employee #4872030 was a psycho?"

Sure, maybe small time employers still lack the sense to do less extensive background research... so in that case, hope you only shared the stuff that's kosher! So in a sense, if you already assume we have full transparency and Someone is always watching what you're doing, you should already be in good shape.

Just as an aside, I did go to a Catholic school for a few years as a kid, and it wasn't that bad. Granted, it was an international school next to a US Embassy, though most of the US Embassy brats went to a more expensive international school across town. In retrospect it was pretty well run... We said the morning prayers (well, the glee club eventually started singing it) along with the national flag anthem during morning assembly, and other than that, there wasn't much religion. OK, actually there was also a religion class period, but you could choose to do the Catholic one, the Buddhist one, the Muslim one, or the Hindu one, or if you were just a dirty atheist/agnostic like me, you'd be lumped into the "Values" class which was essentially another social studies/psychology group. The only thing I remember is a picture in the textbook of two girls licking an ice cream cone together. We laughed our way through it then, but still, when I came back to the US school system, I felt that it was something that was missing here... there weren't really any classes that tried to teach you how to share and be nice and get along with others. So if you didn't get it from your parents or church, well, then you just don't get it here in the US. Huh.

Re:Humans have too much

[Anonymous Coward]

Groups like ISIS happens due to several things..
(not in any order)
- Lack of education
- Religion
- Poverty
- Desperation (as in desperate for a "better" life)

The root-cause of why ISIS has been allowed to grow as they have is due to USA invading Irak and destroying most of the country leaving poor and desperate people in it's wake.
I remember another group that USA have been going after for a number of years now.. you know that they where trained and equipped by the CIA during the cold-war to help in fighting the Russians?

Leave other countries alone.. If they want to help then educate the population and let the countries change by themselves... If they have food then drop educational material, as in math/physics/chemistry/etc instead..

Re:Humans have too much

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, dude, I think his point was that people are too worried about what other people think about them and wouldn't it be nice if nobody gave a damn. Hey, I had a wank yesterday (actually I had 2) and I'm into mom porn. There you go - nothing to be embarrassed about. As for hiding things from your parents, it's another example of judgementalism. Judgementalism is at the heart of so many human-created evils in the world. Religious extremism - judgementalism based on not being willing to allow others to believe something different to you. Anti-gay discrimination - judgementalism again. Racism - judgementalism based on skin colour. Envy - judgementalism. You get my point.

Obviously it's idealistic to wish that all away, it's part of human nature. But just think, wouldn't it be nice if we could somehow concentrate on making the most of our own lives without judging others on how they live theirs?

Re:Humans have too much

[SuricouRaven]

Same at the one I went to - there was minimal catholic influence. We had a bishop in to speak once - discovered at the last minute that the portable projection screen we were going to set up in the churchy bit was broken, so I spent half an hour sitting behind it with one arm holding the screen in place.

It depends how many potential candidates there are. If there are more jobs than candidates, employers will have an incentive to overlook minorly undesireable traits to hire the best talant. But if there are many many candidates qualified for a job, who would you expect the employer to choose? The one with a history of insulting religion online, which some future customer could cite as evidence in a discrimination claim (Possibly an unjustified one, fishing for a settlement), or the one who has no strong opinions on anything?

Re:Humans have too much

[murkwood7]

A fucking C.

Humans have too many privacy rights as it is.

Who said humans have ANY privacy rights. AfC The only privacy rights humans have are the ones we barely give lip service to.

Groups like ISIS happen because we're more concerned about doing all of our daily tasks in secret rather than being safe.

Groups like ISIS, and Governments in general, happen because of the inate human desire to be able to tell fellow human beings what to do, and how to think, and how to act. And make it stick. AfC

Re:Humans have too much

[TWX]

Don't forget a lack of opportunity. It's very much easier to solicit young men for your cause that might kill them when they want a wife or girlfriend and cannot get one due to society's structure making that basically impossible for them. Suddenly the promise of women at the time of martyrdom becomes more appealing.

The United States is a bit of an aberration and we would do well to remember that. At our founding we were sparsely populated, had few neighbors who themselves were sparsely populated, and were facing large amounts of untamed wilderness. Our concept of manifest destiny effectively meant that if you wanted a say in affairs greater than your own, all you had to do was move west and set up your own place to govern, and if you look at the religious migrations that occurred, and the movement of immigrants that came through America's east-coast cities and kept traveling inland you can see how that played out.

Even still, we had our share of internal violence, with its strongest being the 1860s and the civil war. If you look at the propaganda from that war, The Battle Hymn of the Republic calls on men to fight for natural rights as a Godly cause; religion played a role in many of our decisions as a nation. Now I couldn't rightly say what Union or Confederate troops did to the civilian population beyond what we know about (ie, the burning of Atlanta) because I'm no historian, but given human nature I wouldn't be surprised if the lack of atrocities is simply a matter of documentation and no desire to show them off, versus them not occurring.

Back to my original point, Our country's creation and history is uniquely created by our geography, lack of population density, and the various mindsets of those that immigrated here and those that resettled. Our modern form of democratic republic reflects how disparate and diverse the perspectives and opinions are, and that abstraction layer in the form of elected representation is often overlooked in terms of how we feel and how we actually govern, and our most extreme citizens generally aren't represented in government. We're successful but we still have to pay attention to our fringe element, and fortunately that fringe element is fairly small.

We can't expect other countries to have the same circumstances as we do. Our kicking-over the anthill that was Iraq was a huge mistake, and while Saddam Hussein was not our friend, history has shown him to be the lesser of evils in the short term. He oppressed his people, and he killed those that sought to overthrow him, but he didn't kill those that simply believed in the same god but worshiped that god in a slightly different way. He couldn't have afforded to let religious extremism come out into the open because it was a threat to him, so he kept stomping it down. Don't get me wrong, he was a bad person, but not nearly so bad as what's spawned in his wake.

We need to remember the lessons of Iraq, and to not go around kicking over other dictators just because we don't like dictators. Take that cork out of the bottle and the whole thing explodes.

Re:Humans have too much

[TWX]

So you never do anything in secret? I certainly don't want you or anyone else to know what I am doing. Fuck the the assholes in this world who try to tell me how to live my life. I wasn't born to be a slave or to follow your rules. My life is my own bitch.

Thing is, if you're using services or technology that communicates with third-party systems, then you're not doing things where that tech is involved that are truly secret. The argument against allowing that data to be accessed has been fought and lost.

If you want your activities to be secret, don't involve technology that communicates with anyone else.

Re:Humans have too much

[Anonymous Coward]

That was pretty good, I admit. You've made it into the top ten list of the year for AC trolling.

Re: Humans have too much

[Anonymous Coward]

If that were true functioning socuety would seize to exist. This discussion reminds me about ones in the past long gone about anarchy and ideal society.
These concept of ideal state or society alway fails at two things. People have different hierarchy of values thus dagree not only on some things but also what are basic or core values (intelectual proprty, marihuana, abortion etc). Besides this showstopper assuming ideal society where we all are relaxed about everyone's drugs of choice does not take into account that we are not ideal and never will be. It does not take into account that things that are desirable in one situation are not acceptable in another. You can see this already by child porn. It is evil till your 12yo sends own naked photos around and some overzealous asshole starts prosecuting. People have to learn too and tital transparency combined with not removable evidence of our early stupidity may destry lives. Besides all this there are psychological arguments - our psyche needs shadow. If all our farts are recirded for eternity and everybody to see it is not good for our psyche. People tend to forget these small details.

Re: Humans have too much

[Anonymous Coward]

"I wasn't born to be a slave or to follow your rules. My life is my own bitch."

Is your name Spartacus bychance? :)

Re: Humans have too much

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. Things like ISIS happen because government are to busy spying on things that doesn't matter to do something about groups like this.

If they where less interested in security measures that do not actually improve security and used the money to actually confront groups like ISIS, such organisations would not exist.

Re:Humans have too much

[Pallas Athena]

A wise man, Benjamin Franklin, once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety - and will loose them both". You seem to fall in that category.

Re: Humans have too much

[Anonymous Coward]

420 much?

Re:Humans have too much

[Triklyn]

remember donald sterling and brendan eich? imagine that but 100 fold... now imagine that but forever. The public is judgemental and hypocritical as it is. the first thing that would happen would be a fucking market crash as each fortune 500 would have to do some restructuring to find corporate officers pure as the driven snow...

All the evidence is beginning to suggest...

[rmdingler]

No. They should set their bar a bit higher than that.

Re:All the evidence is beginning to suggest...

[khasim]

That would be nice. But in the meantime ... it's about property. From TFA:

But our laws do not recognize the rights of machines themselves.

Because they are non-sentient property. Ask again once AI is achieved.

But what is the difference between that and having a phone with you - sorry, a computer with you - all the time that is tracking where you are, which you're using for storing all of your personal information, your memories, your friends, your communications, that knows where you are and does all kinds of powerful things and speaks different languages?

And the difference between a stored text communication and a written letter? Learn the 4th Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Machines, meanwhile, remain slaves with uncertain masters.

Really? "Slaves"? Maybe you should look into actual slavery.

As to "uncertain" just look for the sales receipt or lease agreement. My car is a machine and there is no uncertainty as to who owns it.

... understanding that we are - if not yet Terminators - at least a little more integrated ...

Fuck you.

Learn what technology really is before you go off on movie tangents.

Re:All the evidence is beginning to suggest...

[msauve]

"Really? "Slaves"? Maybe you should look into actual slavery."

A word doesn't automatically take its worst possible meaning. I've still got computers with IDE slave drives.

One meaning, which the OP was using, is "a device (as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another" - Merriam Webster Dictionary.

Re:All the evidence is beginning to suggest...

[khasim]

A word doesn't automatically take its worst possible meaning.

Here is the quote from TFA. It provides the context.

Machines, meanwhile, remain slaves with uncertain masters.

No. That is not referring to an IDE drive.

Or, more completely:

Humans have rights, under which they retain some measure of dominion over their bodies. Machines, meanwhile, remain slaves with uncertain masters. Our laws may, directly and indirectly, protect peopleâ(TM)s right to use certain machines - freedom of the press, the right to keep and bear arms. But our laws do not recognize the rights of machines themselves.

So no. They are not talking about an IDE "master/slave" situation. They are talking about humans using machines (with examples provided) and equating that to "slavery".

Re:All the evidence is beginning to suggest...

[arth1]

No. They should set their bar a bit higher than that.

Yes, I think the rule should be simple:
Anyone or anything that claims a right to privacy shall have it.

Re:All the evidence is beginning to suggest...

[BringsApples]

But our laws do not recognize the rights of machines themselves.

Because they are non-sentient property. Ask again once AI is achieved.

What about how the computers store information for their own use (example: evercookies)? I know it's not the "mind" of the computer doing what it wants but it's certainly not the user either.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You're right, but that applies once you get an expensive lawyer, only. Otherwise, all the legal stuff that protects us is worthless.

And it's silly to think that machines could be held accountable. But the people that program them...

Re:All the evidence is beginning to suggest...

[denzacar]

That would be nice. But in the meantime ... it's about property.

Not quite.

An apt comparison would be comparing "cyborgs" i.e. people with various technology built into their bodies, for uses other than medical, with gun laws.
I.e. It is not a property issue but a claim right issue.

As for machines and not humans with implants... again... that is not a property issue.
It is not even an issue of consciousness nor intelligence (should those machines posses it) as we regularly limit the rights of humans who have shown a lack of self-control - be it due to intoxication, disability, age...
We limit their rights, assign them guardians, we imprison them etc.
Again, it is an issue of claim rights and duties.

And, whether we like it or not, the issue of rights of robots and AI's will probably be settled in an unrelated field long before it becomes an actual issue.
And it will be done without care for science or logic. The main factor will be cuteness.

Re:All the evidence is beginning to suggest...

[rmdingler]

You're right, but that applies once you get an expensive lawyer, only.

One of the great strengths of a populace gifted with civil rights is an abiding belief that those rights belong to them. No law or condition of government can abridge an ingrained belief in individual rights.

Would I rather be a wealthy defendant than a poor one? A no-brainer, sure, but when you no longer believe that basic rights are afforded to you, you have already lost.

Re:All the evidence is beginning to suggest...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice fantasy world you live in but none of those things apply in the modern world. Your constitutional rights don't mean shit because the constitution itself is outdated. Get with the times, man.

Re:All the evidence is beginning to suggest...

[stephanruby]

When someone with an e-tattoo or an implanted biochip inevitably commits a crime, and evidence of that crime exists on that device within them, do they have a legal right to protect that evidence?

What about when someone with DNA inevitably commits a crime and leaves some DNA behind? Are we allowed to take a DNA swab just out of anyone willy nilly? The answer is no, not yet at least, and not with some kind of due process. In the US and in Europe at least, there are specific laws protecting the privacy of DNA (unless you're a felon, or unless you're in the military).

Granted, the entire male population of three villages in Scotland was once swabbed for DNA for a double rape and a double murder case, but even in that case, those males were only asked to "volunteer" for the procedure, or they would be considered primary suspects. But even in that case, I doubt that such a threat would have worked in a larger metropolis.

So then, the argument might center around the ownership of that DNA. Do you freely give away your DNA to others? Do you freely give your DNA to the government when asked? And what about the DNA of your relatives? More than one person have already been convicted for rape or murder because one of their relatives had DNA on file with the US military for instance.

Re:All the evidence is beginning to suggest...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they are non-sentient property. Ask again once AI is achieved ... The right of the people to be secure in their persons...

This is the crux of the matter right here. Are our laws based on "people" (which more often than not is codified as "human") and not sentient life as a whole? Although the direct definition of "people" (from wikipedia)

A people is a plurality of persons considered as a whole, as in an ethnic group or nation.

So I'll leave everyone with something to think about. If peaceful sentient aliens showed up tomorrow (think the Newcomers from the movie "Alien Nation") would there be arguments in Congress that they are NOT "people" and thus have no rights under the law? Also what about artificially created life? We are screwing around with genetically altering food for greater yields and survivability in harsher climates. So what about genetically engineered sentient life? Would that count as a people with rights. I'm reminded of a story by Cordwainer Smith ("The Ballad of Lost C'Mell") in which the corporations blend enough human and animal DNA together so the resulting life-form can be declared "not human" in order to create a slave race with no rights.

Re:All the evidence is beginning to suggest...

[AthanasiusKircher]

One of the great strengths of a populace gifted with civil rights is an abiding belief that those rights belong to them.

Great. But what's the use of a "belief" if it's no longer true? You're talking about a country that re-elected someone as the head of state who was KNOWN to have ordered the targeted killings of American citizens without trial. I don't see how much further one can get from "your rights are all now optional" than the head of government killing people (i.e., effective removal of ALL rights) with no legal process, and the electorate implicitly condoning the process by reelecting him.

Maybe the populace believes they have rights. But they are in error. And it's a real problem, because as long as they have this false belief, they will continue acting like they have something that don't have, rather than standing up and asking for their rights back.

No law or condition of government can abridge an ingrained belief in individual rights.

Well, I'm not sure what qualifies as a "condition of government," but the U.S. government has certainly done a very good job at abridging the ingrained belief in individual rights, particularly around the 4th Amendment, in just the past decade. For roughly 200 years the text of that Amendment you quoted was pretty roughly adhered to by courts and the government, with just a few circumscribed and clear exceptions.

But then, after 2001, it became optional. The government said: "Ooooh -- watch out! There could be evil bogeymen out there who might want to blow up planes!! Ooooh -- we seem never to see these people, and the few ones that pop up we don't seem to catch with our usual methods, but let's just search everyone who wants to travel in the country anyway... let's have government agents doing invasive body scans with no probable cause."

Well, the government said that, and people obeyed, even though it explicitly violates a number of clauses in the Fourth Amendment (something created to thwart the "general warrants" that had been issued in England before, which now basically exist in every airport terminal), as they had been understood and interpreted by courts for hundreds of years. So -- yeah, the government has definitely "abridged an ingrained belief in individual rights" through fear of unseen enemies.

when you no longer believe that basic rights are afforded to you, you have already lost.

When you have convinced yourself that rights exist that really don't anymore or that they still are in force when actually they've been significantly eroded, you've either become naive or ignorant. In either case, you're actually promoting the continued suppression of these rights by believing that things exist which don't -- since that allows people to endorse a government which no longer is observing those rights.

If, instead, you observe the empirical and legal shifts which prove that these rights have been eroded significantly in recent years, you might actually have cause to stand up and complain... and maybe try to get some of them back, rather than simply saying "I believe!" out of ignorance and complacency.

Re:All the evidence is beginning to suggest...

[Anonymous Coward]

when you no longer believe that basic rights are afforded to you, you have already lost.

That is amazingly retarded. Pretend your rights aren't being trampled, otherwise, you lose.

Re:All the evidence is beginning to suggest...

[rmdingler]

I have a less jaded view. My rights are set forth in a document we refer to as the Constitution of our Republic.

Are the powers that be embroiled in seemingly constant effort to reverse those personal freedoms given to the citizens? Sure.

However, a voting populace that expects better treatment generally gets it.

Re:All the evidence is beginning to suggest...

[msauve]

"No. That is not referring to an IDE drive."

Obviously not, but you obviously have a hard time with equivalences, because one certainly can't refer to some non-sentient piece of technology as a chattel slave. My guess is you're from California, and have been brainwashed with Political Correctness, so aren't part of the real world.

Re:All the evidence is beginning to suggest...

[UnknownSoldier]

Fantastic rebuttal ! You hit the nail right on the head.

This bullshit handwaving about "machine rights" is total nonsense. Like you said once Actual Intelligence happens instead of the joke that passes for artificial ignorance today then we can talk about "rights" of machines.

Re:All the evidence is beginning to suggest...

[mcgrew]

What about how the computers store information for their own use (example: evercookies)? I know it's not the "mind" of the computer doing what it wants but it's certainly not the user either.

Duh, it's the mind of the programmer who had the script drop the cookie. But your comment tells me you know that already.

Re:All the evidence is beginning to suggest...

[Jane Q. Public]

What is the difference between a person with computerized artificial legs, and a person with a memory chip in her skull?

Answer: none. Both are people.

Re:All the evidence is beginning to suggest...

[NotSanguine]

I have a less jaded view. The limitations on government power are set forth in a document we refer to as the Constitution of our Republic.

There. FTFY.

Re:All the evidence is beginning to suggest...

[funwithBSD]

You must be from Washington DC, where logic has been outlawed and argument for argument's sake is a local pastime.

There is only one possible logical reference to slavery here: ownership of another human being.

Re:All the evidence is beginning to suggest...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if he/she is 2/5 cyborg, it's back to the plantation!

Re:All the evidence is beginning to suggest...

[Anonymous Coward]

Translate DNA to finger print --- and EVERY tourist or business visitor to the US has to do this... every single person on that plane without a US-Passport is finger printed and photographed in case they commit a crime.
What world are you living in?

Re:All the evidence is beginning to suggest...

[sjames]

It's an important shade of meaning here. The people *DO* have those rights. The government is actively disregarding those rights but they do exist.

That is an important distinction because it leads citizens to DEMAND those rights be honored rather than meekly shuffling forward and asking for them.

It also means that the government de-legitimizes itself by failing to honor those existent rights. t some point, determined by the people as a whole, it becomes a domestic enemy rather than a government and it is then within the rights of the people to drive it out.

Re:All the evidence is beginning to suggest...

[AthanasiusKircher]

However, a voting populace that expects better treatment generally gets it.

Sorry, but that is absolute and utter nonsense. Look at history, if you need plenty of examples. A voting populace that DEMANDS better treatment often gets it. A voting populace that merely "expects" better treatment from politicians who have proven that they will not give them better treatment is just ignorant and stupid. Why would someone who has more power over you and who has a track record of violating rights voluntarily give up that power when people continue to elect them, even as they take away more rights?

You're acting like the relationship between government and the general population is one of some sort of mutual respect governed by laws of etiquette -- I respect you, and I expect that you'll respect me back.

The problem is that stuff only works well among parties that have equal power in a relationship, or when the respect is always given by the party with more power. The U.S. government has consistently been enlarging its power, particularly over the past century or so, and there is definite truth to the phrase about how power corrupts.

Re:All the evidence is beginning to suggest...

[AthanasiusKircher]

t's an important shade of meaning here. The people *DO* have those rights. The government is actively disregarding those rights but they do exist.

Meh. What does it mean to have an unenforceable "right"? Yes, you can go with the Declaration of Indepedence and say we have "inalienable rights," but as a practical matter, our rights can be severely curtailed and restricted according to current legal doctrine.

I get what you're trying to say, but I don't buy it. I think it requires some sort of supernatural objective thing that somehow "endows" us with these "rights" that exist for all time and in all places. I don't think that exists.

Instead, I think that society and governments negotiate rights for citizens based on their metaethical systems. Do I believe that people DESERVE the rights you discuss? Absolutely. I think it's a moral necessity. But as a practical matter, those rights only can exist when someone observes them. If the government ceases to observe those rights, they are no longer in force... it's that simple.

From an ethical standpoint, I believe that the people deserve to have them back, but saying that the people continue to have them when no one actually observes them is just bizarre. It's like a shop offering the "right to free ice cream for senior citizens," but most of the time a senior citizen shows up and asks for ice cream, the shop finds some arbitrary excuse why they can't serve them the ice cream that day. What the heck could it possibly mean for the shop to advertise a "right to free ice cream" in that situation?

And let's not forget that the Constitution is an instrument of our government. It may have been written by elected representatives of "the people," but it's basically no different from any other legal document. It's interpreted by the courts, and legislatures and executives act within what they consider to be its purview. If all the government basically interprets the Constitution so that the "rights" ennumerated there no longer have legal effect, then you really don't have them anymore. You SHOULD demand for them back, but pretending, "Yeah, I still have my rights, but nobody respects them" is just wordplay. It doesn't mean anything.

Re:All the evidence is beginning to suggest...

[BringsApples]

Three letters bro, "NSA".

Re:All the evidence is beginning to suggest...

[BringsApples]

You're acting like the relationship between government and the general population is one of some sort of mutual respect governed by laws of etiquette -- I respect you, and I expect that you'll respect me back.

BAM! This. This is the issue. Lack of mutual respect. When you're a civilian, there's a public and private. When you're in the FBI, CIA, White House, IRS, DEA, or military, everything is public (but you're not a part of that public, you are elite). And it's never questioned.

Re:All the evidence is beginning to suggest...

[BringsApples]

It's an important shade of meaning here. The people *DO* have those rights. The government is actively disregarding those rights but they do exist.

That something is written on paper somewhere is supposed to mean something? Why? If I write on a piece of paper that I get all of your money, do I get it? Nothing means anything unless the people that make up the populace stick to it. Currently in America the authoritarians have learned to speak in a forceful way, and if/when The People reject their logic, The People may find themselves getting arrested for resisting arrest, if you know what I mean. This is the state of things among the people that live in the place that is commonly referred to as America, not what's written on the paper that resides in the same area.

Re: All the evidence is beginning to suggest...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems to me you're missing the point a little.

Humans will treat anything they can as if it were a tool to be used carelessly and cast aside unless either that thing has 'rights' assigned to it, or has sufficient power to kill or seriously injure the user - at which point the bare minimum of respect is *usually* accorded. It's probably part of our 'tool user' heritage.

If you're unclear why that's relevant in the discussion of "at what point do people become machines and vice versa" and "should we therefore begin to accord rights to machines" then I'm sorry for you.

citizens united protects cyborgs

[Anonymous Coward]

Citizens united protects cyborgs. If a cyborg acts as a representative for a person, it gets all the rights of a person.

Re:citizens united protects cyborgs

[sumdumass]

A cyborg is a human silly.

It would have to be determine on an indevidual basis but a general rule might be that any implanted object is covered under the rights of the person holding it. Something like this would protect an implanted recording chip's data the same way a person's cell phone is. But if the person is braindead and a computer or AI is making them function, then it can be treated as the cell phone or whatever if a person with reduced mebral capacity. Some of them will be deemed incompetent and a ward of the state while some might just need someone appointed as a guardian.

Re:citizens united protects cyborgs

[Smallpond]

Yes, there are no gray areas at all. If it's implanted inside you then its part of you, and if its separate then its not. Oh, wait. A diabetes monitor has an implanted sensor and an external battery pack, so which is it? Can I search the data on it to find out where you've been or what you've been doing or not? Does it matter whether its microchip is inside or outside?

Re:citizens united protects cyborgs

[sumdumass]

I guess you could query the battery pack all day long but when you query the part inside the person, well you know where I'm going.

It is really no different then you asking my food where I have been. It's perfectly fine until it is inside me. Then you need a warrant or my permission/willingness. But then again, your food doesn't have any rights. The fridge it is kept in, the stove used to prepare it, the plates it is served on or the house it was stored and consumed in, none of that has any rights. But you do and those rights prevent an open search of them for whatever reason unless certain criteria is secured first (permission, warrant/probable cause).

cyborg representing persons?

[turkeydance]

those are called lawyers in the USofA

What kind of cyborg?

[Stoutlimb]

Cyborgs are just kinds of humans, so yes. Unless you count cyborg cats, which would be a more interesting question which would have to depend on the cognitive abilities of said cyborg cat.

Re:What kind of cyborg?

[rmdingler]

Easy to discount on its face, but a Cyborcat could bring all the purring, mouse-killing, internet meme fun to your home without the burden of a litterbox.

Jackpot.

Re:What kind of cyborg?

[confused one]

Cyborgs are just kinds of humans

It's conceivable that something could cause a knee jerk reaction and suddenly a bill appears suggesting people with brain enhancing modifications are no longer "people". Then all your inalienable rights go out the window. Perhaps a law is passed saying modified humans are no longer human and therefor no longer citizens. Again, your rights go away. It's something that should (eventually) be addressed before stupidity happens.

While a person is smart and can make rational decisions, sometimes people become dumb, panicky, dangerous animals.

Re:What kind of cyborg?

[HiThere]

The point you really were making is that sometime the people in power are sociopaths with a dictator complex. And the time to stop them from doing something is before they decide that it's desirable.

Re:What kind of cyborg?

[confused one]

Not at all. There are plenty of examples in history. U.S. was formed, among other things, over an argument about unequal representation and the rights of citizens. Slavery in the U.S. was justified by categorizing a group of people as not being equal. Japanese internment camps were created during WWII as part of a knee jerk reaction to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. What I'm saying is that once modified humans become common, all it might take is a seemingly simple series of events for the populous to push for a distinction to be made, which might, end up limiting or removing the rights of the group through legislation.

Re:What kind of cyborg?

[dotancohen]

Cyborgs are just kinds of humans, so yes.

The situation is really not that simple, even if you consider non-cyborg humans. See this Stack Exchange thread on the topic:
http://philosophy.stackexchang...

Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Cyborgs are still humans (they just happen to have electronic implants), so yes they should have the same rights.

Re:Yes

[penguinoid]

Also it would suck if they decided to surgically remove your prosthesis and keep it in their evidence locker for a couple years until the trial proves you innocent, and then hopefully give it back. Things attached to you might be protected as your stuff, but I think it should be protected a little more at least in terms of what evidence they need before they take them and how long they can keep them.

Re:Yes

[Black Parrot]

"Sorry, my dear Intelligent Kneecap. We've had good times together, but now you know aye too much!"
*BLAM*BLAM*BLAM*
[Drags rest of self away from crime scene.]

Memory

[Anonymous Coward]

What if we had external memory implanted into our brain/spine, which we could record events (from the optic nerve) and whatnot?

I'd like to see anything that is permanently attached to our body be secure against search and seizure.

There are no new legal issues

[taustin]

An implanted cell phone is no different, legally, than any other cell phone. The cops can't search your cell phone without permission or a warrant, why could an implanted one be any different? At worst, it'd be the same process to forcibly take a DNA sample, which also requires probably cause.

Does the Brookings Institute require their senior fellows to publish on a regular basis to keep getting a paycheck or something? Cuz I'm having a hard time figuring out any other reason for this.

Re:There are no new legal issues

[Anonymous Coward]

I was trying to figure out the same thing.

Re:There are no new legal issues

[rgmoore]

You're thinking about the 4th Amendment right to avoid unreasonable searches and seizures, but cyborg implants potentially invoke the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. If the implant is actually a part of the person, some lawyer will argue that forcing the person to divulge the information on it is forcing them to testify against themself. When does the information in the cyborg implant stop being like information on a device like a phone and start being like information in your brain?

Re:There are no new legal issues

[sumdumass]

The question pops up when the human is no longer sentient. Suppose you had an AI implanted to run through probable scenarios when making najor decisions. This works well for 50 or so years and you pass on or get struck by a car or whatever and become brain dead. Also suppose the AI takes over body functions, draws off your memories and can take commands from other computers. Now are you still human or something else? Do you have the same rights or less because you are not really you?

Re:There are no new legal issues

[mythosaz]

I know we beat the Ship of Theseus to death around here, but the obvious follow-ups include, "What if I've replaced ALL my parts over time."

Which one contained "me."

Re:There are no new legal issues

[apraetor]

Whether you are talking about a memory-reading device that works externally, or a device inserted surgically, the issue will be the same: does the police accessing your mind via that route violate the 5th Amendment. I'm not sure whether a precedent exists that would apply in that situation. Your memories of committing a crime may have constitutional protection, but a recording you make wouldn't (4th Amendment would only protect it up to the point a search warrant is issued), so it's a legal grey area. Any other device which records audio or video, inside your body or not, but which doesn't constitute part of your "mind", will only be protected by the 4th Amendment.

Re:There are no new legal issues

[taustin]

The same arguments were (and should have been, to get the issues resolved) made about forced blood tests for DUIs, for forced collection of DNA evidence, for forced collection of fingerprints.

In all cases, when a minimum standard of probably cause is met, warrants will be issued and forced collection allowed.

Feel free to explain how this is any different.

Either it's a device, and subject to the same rules as a cell phone, or it's part of the person, and subject to the same rules as biometric evidence. There is no other option. The former has recently been settled by the Supreme Court, in favor of privacy and the fourth amendment. The latter was settled decades ago, same way.

If there's probably cause, a warrant will be issued. If there's not, there's not.

There is nothing new here.

Re:There are no new legal issues

[taustin]

Since that has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion at hand, and there is no theoretical much less actual, way for this to happen, who cares?

Re:There are no new legal issues

[taustin]

When there is some theoretical model for building an artificial brain (your question was trivially answerable decades ago), it will matter. In the meantime, yawn.

Re:There are no new legal issues

[taustin]

If the guy's talking about "memory reading devices," then he's off in fantasy land, as there is no theoretical basis for such technology, nor is there likely to be during the lifetime of anyone alive today.

And if you record it, it's a recording, same as if you videotaped yourself committing a crime. If it's a device, there are clear, well established rules for showing probably cause for a warrant. If it's part of the body, there are clear, well established (for decades) rules for showing probably cause for a warrant, same as for forced collection of biometric evidence, like DNA, fingerprints, blood alcohol levels, and so on.

There are no new issues here, and no gray areas.

Re:There are no new legal issues

[rmdingler]

All your cells replace themselves every seven to ten years, it is said, so we are the Ship.

Re:There are no new legal issues

[sumdumass]

A cyborg is a cyborg. You do not get to make up a definition in order to limit the discusion of it.

I purposely created a fictional scenarii in order to exempt bias but if you do not think it is theoreticaly possible, i suggest you pay more attention. They are recording brain waves as we speak in order to make prosthetics as transparent as possible. If they can relay and replay those signal to prothetics, it isn't unimaginable that it could be done for the real thing. And yes, science fiction has already done it.

Re:There are no new legal issues

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just their subtle way of hitting in the wedge of human race membership. Amputees and hearing aid users are clearly not humans, but cyborgs! The next target? Clones. After all, how else we could have clone wars?

Re:There are no new legal issues

[Skarjak]

I don't see how this is different from DNA tests, which require you to provide your DNA. If the thing is inside you, then it can be considered part of you, and then the same logic that forces you to give your DNA information would require you to give the information on the chip, no?

Re:There are no new legal issues

[taustin]

A cyborg is a cyborg. You do not get to make up a definition in order to limit the discusion of it.

Where legal definitions are concerned, neither do you. And it still doesn't matter. Current law covers it without even stretching.

I purposely created a fictional scenarii in order to

Change the subject, and not answer the real point: current law covers implanted technology in one of two ways, and does so quite thoroughly.

exempt bias but if you do not think it is theoreticaly possible, i suggest you pay more attention. They are recording brain waves as we speak in order to make prosthetics as transparent as possible. If they can relay and replay those signal to prothetics, it isn't unimaginable that it could be done for the real thing. And yes, science fiction has already done it.

Interpreting the equivalent of a mouse signal and replaying memories are not even qualitatively the same thing, and we have already proven, quite conclusively, how inaccurate memory can be, even of one's own actions. The chances of such a system being reliable enough to be admissible are zero within the lifetimes of anyone alive today. And even if such technology were developed, current law still covers it.

Once again, and I'll use small words this time:

Either it is an electronic device, and the laws covering the search of computers and cell phones covers it - show probably cause and you get a warrant.

Or it's part of the body, and decades old case law covering forced collection of biometric evidence - DNA, fingerprints, blood samples - covers it. Show probably cause, and you get a warrant.

There's no difference, legally.

Re:There are no new legal issues

[taustin]

Nothing new there, either. Arguments over whether black people were human go back centuries, for instance. Some still argue over it today. You kind of remind me of them.

Re:There are no new legal issues

[sjames]

There is the matter of access. The police may (with a warrant) remove a notebook from your desk or your pocket, but a device residing inside your skull presents more than a few new issues. Of for that matter, in at least one case, a device bolted to your skull.

Re:There are no new legal issues

[sjames]

Are you sure?

Re:There are no new legal issues

[vux984]

An implanted cell phone is no different, legally, than any other cell phone.

Here's a far better example:

Suppose your eyes were destroyed, and you had cybernetic eyes implanted. Suppose those eyes logged various operational diagnostic information for the last couple weeks on internal memory, information that can be used to determine things like when you were asleep, when you were awake, when you were indoors vs outside in sunlight, etc.

Should the police be able to get a warrant for that information?

If so, then a blind person with cybernetic eyes has a reduced right to privacy over regular humans. His eyes can essentially testify and provide evidence against him on demand, mine can't, no matter how many warrants the police obtain.

It raises a very interesting question, really.

Re:There are no new legal issues

[sumdumass]

Where legal definitions are concerned, neither do you. And it still doesn't matter. Current law covers it without even stretching.

And just where is this cyborg act of congress that defines a cyborg? Otherwise, you are making stuff up.

Change the subject, and not answer the real point: current law covers implanted technology in one of two ways, and does so quite thoroughly.

And I discussed a way that it doesn't cover- one in which the human is no longer sentient and is controlled by an AI (like they intended RoboCop and the Universal Soldiers series until one of them accessed the human side and let it through)

nterpreting the equivalent of a mouse signal and replaying memories are not even qualitatively the same thing, and we have already proven, quite conclusively, how inaccurate memory can be, even of one's own actions. The chances of such a system being reliable enough to be admissible are zero within the lifetimes of anyone alive today. And even if such technology were developed, current law still covers it.

And you are a complete idiot of you think this will never change. And how does current law currently cover an AI system implanted within a human who may not be able to express itself any more but otherwise functions like normal and expected?

Once again, and I'll use small words this time:

Either it is an electronic device, and the laws covering the search of computers and cell phones covers it - show probably cause and you get a warrant.

Or it's part of the body, and decades old case law covering forced collection of biometric evidence - DNA, fingerprints, blood samples - covers it. Show probably cause, and you get a warrant.

See above. which is it, a human or a device? That is the point I'm driving.

Re:There are no new legal issues

[j-beda]

The same arguments were (and should have been, to get the issues resolved) made about forced blood tests for DUIs, for forced collection of DNA evidence, for forced collection of fingerprints.

In all cases, when a minimum standard of probably cause is met, warrants will be issued and forced collection allowed.

Feel free to explain how this is any different.

Either it's a device, and subject to the same rules as a cell phone, or it's part of the person, and subject to the same rules as biometric evidence. There is no other option. The former has recently been settled by the Supreme Court, in favor of privacy and the fourth amendment. The latter was settled decades ago, same way.

If there's probably cause, a warrant will be issued. If there's not, there's not.

There is nothing new here.

Good points.

Re:There are no new legal issues

[j-beda]

An implanted cell phone is no different, legally, than any other cell phone.

Here's a far better example:

Suppose your eyes were destroyed, and you had cybernetic eyes implanted. Suppose those eyes logged various operational diagnostic information for the last couple weeks on internal memory, information that can be used to determine things like when you were asleep, when you were awake, when you were indoors vs outside in sunlight, etc.

Should the police be able to get a warrant for that information?

If so, then a blind person with cybernetic eyes has a reduced right to privacy over regular humans. His eyes can essentially testify and provide evidence against him on demand, mine can't, no matter how many warrants the police obtain.

It raises a very interesting question, really.

That isn't a reduced right of privacy, the RIGHT is identical - information is subject to a properly obtained warrant. People's situations are certainly different, so the consequences of being a suspect are different for people who are subject to being recorded by various devices, both internally or externally. If you wear your Google Glasses or carry a GPS tracker (ie. cell phone) or have medical devices that record logs of some sort, those devices could serve to incriminate or exculpate (great word, eh?) you whereas someone without those types of devices would obviously not be incriminated or exculpated by them. I guess it would suck to be a eye-implant thief, but on the average, I would imagine that since the vast majority of people, in the vast majority of cases, are innocent of the crimes they are suspects of, such implants would tend to provide proof of innocence more often than mistaken evidence of guilt. I will admit little sympathy for cases where true evidence of guilt is obtained through proper search warrants - that's how it should work.

it is the same right to privacy that anyone has who uses a device that records that type of information.

Re:There are no new legal issues

[vux984]

That isn't a reduced right of privacy, the RIGHT is identical

Semantics. They are effectively subject to being monitored by their prosthetics for big brother.

If you wear your Google Glasses or carry a GPS tracker (ie. cell phone) or have medical devices that record logs of some sort, those devices could serve to incriminate or exculpate (great word, eh?) you whereas someone without those types of devices would obviously not be incriminated or exculpated

One has the option to turn them off and/or leave them at home. The guy with a pacemaker doesn't have that luxury. The guy with the prosthetic eyes shouldn't be in a position where he has to choose between privacy or sight.

I guess it would suck to be a eye-implant thief

That's the low hanging fruit.

" I would imagine that since the vast majority of people, in the vast majority of cases, are innocent of the crimes they are suspects of, such implants would tend to provide proof of innocence more often than mistaken evidence of guilt "

That boils down to little more than a restatement of "If your innocent then you have nothing to hide".

I will admit little sympathy for cases where true evidence of guilt is obtained through proper search warrants - that's how it should work.

Then come the day when we can stick a needle in your brain and dump your memories out as video, you would submit to that, as long as they had a warrant?

Re:There are no new legal issues

[j-beda]

I will admit little sympathy for cases where true evidence of guilt is obtained through proper search warrants - that's how it should work.

Then come the day when we can stick a needle in your brain and dump your memories out as video, you would submit to that, as long as they had a warrant?

Yep. I wouldn't be happy, but then again I wouldn't be happy if they searched my home and found the bodies, but I would submit.

Re:There are no new legal issues

[vux984]

Yep. I wouldn't be happy, but then again I wouldn't be happy if they searched my home and found the bodies, but I would submit.

The 5th amendment is about government over-reach. If you assume the government is only looking for dead-bodies, and the only people hiding them are criminals then its easy to get swept up behind the idea that anything the governement can get a warrant for is fair game. Only criminals will be punished.

But there should be some limits. Even if that means some times some criminals don't get caught, because the alternative leads to a grossly oppressive state.

McCarthy style communist witch hunts etc. Your prosthetic eye, rats you out, and everyone else who was there.

The password to your private files? Too bad for you that you lost your hands in the war, we can just replay your password right out of your prosthetic fingers.

There SHOULD be some limits on what the government can take from us, even with a warrant.

Historically, the limit was defined at testimony. But in today's world, maybe that's not quite enough. I'm fine with DNA evidence, but object to their ability to store it in databases regardless of how it was collected, and I'm appalled that being related to a criminal whose been collected amounts to a collection of your own DNA.

"We found DNA... no full match in the system, but we know he's related to this guy who was arrested once for shoplifting -- he wasn't the guy, but they took his dna and now its in the system... but I digress... they share a grandparent... so its his cousin. We checked birth records ... he has 2, one lives in this city... so we're picking him up now..."

That's effectively being in a DNA database for not being particularly closely related to a guy who didn't do anything wrong.

Re:There are no new legal issues

[j-beda]

Yep. I wouldn't be happy, but then again I wouldn't be happy if they searched my home and found the bodies, but I would submit.

The 5th amendment is about government over-reach. If you assume the government is only looking for dead-bodies, and the only people hiding them are criminals then its easy to get swept up behind the idea that anything the government can get a warrant for is fair game. Only criminals will be punished.

But there should be some limits. Even if that means some times some criminals don't get caught, because the alternative leads to a grossly oppressive state.

There are limits. Those are defined by the constitution, and include the warrant system as further defined by the courts. Yes, some of these technologies give interesting edge cases, but I don't think any of them require fundamental changes to the legal framework.

As you stated, the reason the limitations on police powers of investigation are there is to prevent overreaching and false convictions. Retrieving physical evidence after a properly executed warrant doesn't seem like an issue to me, and I have absolutely no fear that anyone is going to be able to read people's minds in anything like the lifetime of my great-grandchildren.

"We found DNA... no full match in the system, but we know he's related to this guy who was arrested once for shoplifting -- he wasn't the guy, but they took his dna and now its in the system... but I digress... they share a grandparent... so its his cousin. We checked birth records ... he has 2, one lives in this city... so we're picking him up now..."

That's effectively being in a DNA database for not being particularly closely related to a guy who didn't do anything wrong.

You are choosing poor examples. The various constitutional amendments are designed to prevent abuses that harm people, except in the type of harm that is defined as putting the guilty in jail. We don't compel self-incrimination because it leads to abuses that harm many innocent people, and is not particularly effective at catching the guilty. If you want to argue against you are going to have to show that your hypothetical database and the described police procedure has much greater societal harm than this one.

A better reason for limiting these types of databases is the problem of false positives. If you database is large enough, even with 99.99 percent accuracy (a failure rate of 0.01%) we would have lots of innocent people being flagged in these types of searches. This type of thing already happens for fingerprint analysis, and while genetic comparisons should in principle allow us to confidently pick out any individual in the world (except for clones I suppose), in practice DNA evidence is only comparing a very tiny part of the DNA, and errors in application which can never all be eliminated, so it will never be perfectly accurate.

Compelling people to tell your their password in my mind is a problem - there are lots of ways that an innocent person could be harmed by that. Compelling people to give up their implanted devices with a proper warrant is not as big of a problem in my mind. If warrants are being issued for individuals without good "probable cause", that is a problem. If extracting the evidence is onerous or dangerous or painful, then there should be a higher barrier to getting the warrant. If there are increased expectations of privacy for example lawyers or times spent at home, then perhaps there need to be guidelines on how the implant data is analyzed, but all of these types of issues are currently considered under the existing frameworks.

My thesis is that cyborgs do have the same right to privacy as anyone else, and that no new laws need be drafted specifically for people with implants. To motivate any such laws, I think we need to demonstrate that the current practice has negative consequences to society or innocent individuals. Making it easier to catch criminals is not, by itself, a reason to reject a new practice.

 

Re:There are no new legal issues

[vux984]

Ok, lets take a slightly different approach.

Would you submit to the government mandating that you wear a camera and other monitoring equipment or have it implanted, provided that they need a warrant to read its contents?

Can you think of ANY negative implications of that? What are they? (Assume for the sake of the argument that the implantation process itself is simple, painless, and complication free.)

What's the difference between that and a disabled person requiring a prosthetic to be made whole?

The solution, by the way, is simple enough. Mandate that the prosthetics encrypt the monitoring data, and require a password from the owner to decrypt. That effectively shields the cyborg.

The problem is the consumer isn't in a position to demand this feature. And the vendor is unlikely to feel competitive pressures to provide it. So it won't come about unless we mandate it.

Re:There are no new legal issues

[j-beda]

Ok, lets take a slightly different approach.

Would you submit to the government mandating that you wear a camera and other monitoring equipment or have it implanted, provided that they need a warrant to read its contents?

Can you think of ANY negative implications of that? What are they? (Assume for the sake of the argument that the implantation process itself is simple, painless, and complication free.)

What's the difference between that and a disabled person requiring a prosthetic to be made whole?

The solution, by the way, is simple enough. Mandate that the prosthetics encrypt the monitoring data, and require a password from the owner to decrypt. That effectively shields the cyborg.

The problem is the consumer isn't in a position to demand this feature. And the vendor is unlikely to feel competitive pressures to provide it. So it won't come about unless we mandate it.

Sure, that is an extreme position. Nobody is mandating such a thing, and there is nothing currently even available that could work in this manner, and there is no reason I can see to expect that any prosthetics would ever require such position logging.

In short I don't see the need for new legislation absent something that actually exists that might be a problem. Mandating everyone wear tracking devices is something we can fight when it seems likely to be introduced. Having a medical need for something doesn't feel at all like governmental mandating in my mind, and unless significant number of people end up with such medical devices, I see no need to address the hypothetical shortcomings that the current warrant framework has in place.

I am not convinced that mandating an encryption password for such a hypothetical device would give any real protection beyond that offered by the warrant system - once they get a warrant for the password, it seems like you are screwed anyway. If the logs are so vital to the operation of the device, there are going to be ways of getting at them that do not depend on a security system that the user can forget or misplace, and if they are not vital to the operation, then the security minded will remove or turn off that feature or the maker would not put it in in the first place.

Re:There are no new legal issues

[vux984]

once they get a warrant for the password,

One cannot 'get a warrant for the password', at least in civilized countries :)

If the logs are so vital to the operation of the device

They would be like the logs on your car. They are not vital to the operation. But they do make troubleshooting a lot easier.

there are going to be ways of getting at them that do not depend on a security system that the user can forget or misplace

If the user forgets or misplaces it, it can be reset, but the encrypted history would be lost.

and if they are not vital to the operation, then the security minded will remove or turn off that feature

The security-minded will not necessarily have that option. Can you turn off the ODBII logging on your car? Not easily. Its not a simple end-user operated switch you can flick. The average person is completely unable to. Sure its possible and people repogramming and modifying cars for racing etc can probably do it.

But that doesn't mean the average person can do it, just because they want to. And what if your car isn't something modders are in... or lets set aside cars, and recall that we're talking medical implants ... flashing custom firmware onto your prosthetics ... that's going to be WAY outside the average persons ability or comfort zone.

or the maker would not put it in in the first place.

If the patient reports a problem, diagnostic logs will be absolutely invaluable information. Its doubtful any one making sophisticated electronic/computerized prognostics isn't going to have logging capabilities.

Re:There are no new legal issues

[j-beda]

once they get a warrant for the password,

One cannot 'get a warrant for the password', at least in civilized countries :)

OK, perhaps not a "warrant" but surely the US has some sort of "production order" where the court says "give us the records you have" http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/c... ? Perhaps they don't, or maybe that is only in civil cases during discovery.

Logging capabilities may be ubiquitous, but logs that would be useful in a criminal case, much less so. In any case, nothing currently on the market poses this "privacy danger".

I reiterate, the present framework is sufficient in my mind.

Re:There are no new legal issues

[vux984]

OK, perhaps not a "warrant" but surely the US has some sort of "production order" where the court says "give us the records you have" http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/c... ? Perhaps they don't, or maybe that is only in civil cases during discovery.

As it stands, to my knowledge, one only has to turn over any physical records / devices.

However, if those records are encrypted, and the password committed to memory, the witness can invoke the 5th amendment, and exercise their right to remain silent, and refuse to disclose the password. Of course, its not settled, and orders to decrypt data have been issued by the courts and are being appealed... for example.

http://www.cnet.com/news/doj-w...

As for Canada - a production order is typically issued to a 3rd party custodian of documents -- e.g. bank records, phone records, etc. And if they are encrypted the 3rd party is required to decrypt them as part of producing them. But the 3rd party isn't the subject of the invetigation, production orders aren't aren't issued against the defendant directly, that I can tell.

That is, the police cannot hand ME an order demanding that I actively produce my own phone records for them. Nor do i think a production order would compel me to disclose the password to my own phone or laptop.

Logging capabilities may be ubiquitous, but logs that would be useful in a criminal case, much less so.

There is another article on slashdot today about compelling parolees to wear bracelets that can determine if they fired a gun by using accelerometers and analyzing that information.

I can imagine all manner of prosthesis that might contain accelerometers where analyzing the diagnostic logs could be used to as evidence that you were moving or at rest, what sort of activity you were engaged in (walking, running, shooting, climbing, jumping, whether you got into a fight, or fell into a pool, got knocked down, picked up something heavy, swung it, or threw it...)

Sadly they won't.

[rogoshen1]

I would think this would be just an extension of the idea of self incrimination. Yes it's a 'cyborg' and not a robot. So conceivably the 'human' part of the combination was in charge of the volition that led to whatever thing is being investigated.

However: If I commit a crime with a tape recorder in my pocket, should the state be able to subpoena me for the tape? They would. Similarly, cyborgs could expect the same treatment. (forcible extraction of whatever data was requested.)

Re:Sadly they won't.

[apraetor]

You've hit the nail on the head, I think: when your memories can be extracted for objective review does the 5th Amendment still protect them? The question will be whether "memory copying" constitutes "interrogation"; if it does, then the 5th Amendment applies. If it doesn't, then police can apply for a warrant under the 4th Amendment, as they do for DNA samples.

mod 3own

[Anonymous Coward]

BSD's acclaimed PlatforM For the

Another issue

[Anonymous Coward]

What if technology reaches the point that they'd be able to scan our brain?

Typo

[Anonymous Coward]

s/cyborg/douche

Do you have a legal right to withhold your DNA?

[swillden]

Your DNA is part of you, as are your fingerprints, and may carry evidence against you. The fifth amendment protection against self-incrimination does not extend to refusing to give your DNA or fingerprints. You do have the right to refuse to give them voluntarily, but if there is probable cause the police can obtain a warrant and force you to provide samples. This actually exactly the same standard as with other items you might possess... your home, your papers, your cellphone, etc.

I think other forms of evidence embedded in your body will be treated similarly. You can't be compelled to give verbal testimony, but if you choose to have a recorder embedded in your body that gathers evidence that can be used against you, it will be legally permissible to compel you to hand over that evidence, unless doing so would physically harm you.

Now that I've expressed my opinion, I'll go RTFA to see if the author has a different one, and if he's convincing.

Re:Do you have a legal right to withhold your DNA?

[Anonymous Coward]

And in the future world say 80 years from now where if you don't have a Goobi (Google Brain Interface), you can't even make a phone call. Like as in forget socializing, looking for a job, whatever, if you don't have one of these things, you can't participate in society. It also just so happens to record everything you think, see, hear, and feel in order to function. Now do you feel the same way? Is none of that private so long as there is a warrant?

Sure

[Greyfox]

If they're people. Many of the discriminatory laws in the USA over the years are obviously based on the assumption that the discriminated-against group, being different from us, are obviously not people. Take, for example, the current marriage fight. It's pretty easy to make the argument that gays should not be allowed to marry, if you don't consider them to be people. Kind of like how in the '60's, most states didn't allow interracial marriage. That was before we discovered that other races were also people. Though some groups are quite resistant to changing their philosophy on THAT subject. That's why the favorite straw-man argument of those in favor of denying those rights is always "Where does this stop? We'll eventually have to issue a marriage license between a man and his horse!" Sure, if the horse is a person. It's immediately obvious from that argument that the person making it does not consider a homosexual person to actually be a person. But I digress...

Anywhoo, the upshot of that is that if the cyborg is a person, the cyborg should have the same rights as a person, and should damn well be able to marry another cyborg if they want to. I'm not going to allow some uneducated shithead to stand between me and my Sony HD Eyeballs (Now with TerminatorVision(tm)).

Re:Sure

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a moron who shouldn't be offering opinions in a public forum. You just embarrass yourself.

Re:Sure

[sumdumass]

I like how you worked gay marriage in there but you are wrong. Gays always had the same rights to marry that everyone else has had- to marry someone of legal age of the opposite sex who was not closely related to them. In other words, they have always been human. Interracial marriage wasn't about not being human either. It was about genetics and their grade. Look into Eugenics to find more but it was the same line of thinking of nazies and the aryan race.

No it could be possible that a cyborg is not considered human. If a computer or AI is controling its actions, it is probably proper to not consider it human.

Re:Sure

[Greyfox]

The Nazis didn't view the Jews as being people either. The first thing you do when you're looking to oppress some group is to fire up the propaganda machine and dehumanize that group. Hell, it was in the Constitution for a while, a slave's counted as 2/3rds of a person. You want to make an argument that marriage is for children, I'm FINE with what, as long as a man and a woman won't be able to get married if they'd be unable to produce children. You never see that in any of those "Marriage Protection" laws, and there'd be riots if you did.

You think the Ferguson police force views the citizens there as people? I think they'd randomly stop and harass them a lot less if they did. It's awfully hard to do that sort of thing to people. It's also a lot harder to be so terrified of them that faced with an unarmed one (person,) with his hands up, you'd point an assault rifle at them and threaten to kill them.

Re:Sure

[Anonymous Coward]

You say a human,

Parent chose to say person,

You see the difference?

Re:Sure

[sumdumass]

That difference changes nothing about what i said.

Re:Sure

[ultranova]

Gays always had the same rights to marry that everyone else has had- to marry someone of legal age of the opposite sex who was not closely related to them.

And blacks always had the same rights as everyone else on same terms as everyone else: that they needed to be white to have any.

Look into Eugenics to find more but it was the same line of thinking of nazies and the aryan race.

Yes, it is. And frankly, those of us who aren't Nazis are starting to get a bit tired of having this exact same conversation over every single group you wish to take your problems out on. So please follow your fuhrer to the wastebin of history already.

Re:Sure

[Anonymous Coward]

You say a human,

Parent chose to say person,

You see the difference?

That difference changes nothing about what i said.

Different AC here, but I'll bite for the GP.

How do you tell the gender of a TG or, more importantly, a corporation?
Now there's a fun one. If corporation are people, who can they marry?
Since corporate personhood is a thing now. I want to marry my "opposite sex" company, then assist it in suicide where legal and inherit, tax free, the first five million or so without a "death" tax or a "rapacious" 10-15-20% investment tax. That way I can defer all income in a C corp and collect all profits tax free over n over.

Re:Sure

[sumdumass]

Corporations are not people, they are persons. And corporations have been persons since 1819 at least in case law but title 1 section 1 of the US code was created with the intent of including corporations under the legal definition of person. The intent was specifically to include corporations when person was used in federal law.

The only "now" about it is that you know about it and there was a recent court case which likely brought it to your attention.

But all this has nothing to do with what I said. Eugenics was the reasoning behind what the parent was spewing on about not being recognized as a person or not.

As for your tax scam, you would have to check with the states because the feds do no govern marriage but I'm pretty sure someone does not have the same legal definition as you think it might. And determining the sex of a corporation which is "persons" as defined by law might be trivial but until polygamy is legal, I don't think you could take that route.

Re:Sure

[sumdumass]

The Nazis didn't view the Jews as being people either.

No, they viewed them as inferior people but people none the less. Seriously, look up Eugenics and the T4 program of the Nazis which lead to the holocaust eventually.

The first thing you do when you're looking to oppress some group is to fire up the propaganda machine and dehumanize that group. Hell, it was in the Constitution for a while, a slave's counted as 2/3rds of a person.

Any student of history would tell you that the 3/5ths part of the US constitution was not about demonizing the slaves or anyone. It was about deciding how many representative seats a state would have and how much taxes the state would have to pay.

You want to make an argument that marriage is for children, I'm FINE with what, as long as a man and a woman won't be able to get married if they'd be unable to produce children. You never see that in any of those "Marriage Protection" laws, and there'd be riots if you did.

Only idiots would make that argument. The state needs a reason for having a law. Marriage used to be controlled completely by the churches until some king in England (I think) got into a power struggle with the church and took it over. In the US, we do things differently, we do not make laws for the sake of having laws. Marriage is about the advancement of society and children or more importantly, who is responsible for them was part of their public interest. Inheritance and communal ownership was some others. Marriage protection laws seem to be based either on religious needs or long standing tradition as a lot of the advancement or protections for society has dwindled away. But we are getting way off topic with this.

You think the Ferguson police force views the citizens there as people? I think they'd randomly stop and harass them a lot less if they did.

I'm sure they view them as people. The problem is almost all cops go through a john Wayne syndrome stage where they think they are the shit and if you do not respect their authority they will learn you different. Most of them grow out of it before it is even noticed, some skip it altogether. The problem with Ferguson is they pay rock bottom wages so about any cop who is good at what they do would move to another city for better pay.

It's awfully hard to do that sort of thing to people. It's also a lot harder to be so terrified of them that faced with an unarmed one (person,) with his hands up, you'd point an assault rifle at them and threaten to kill them.

Wow.. You are just full of misconceptions. Anyways, that seems to be the version of evens from the rabble rousers but not from the some of the witnesses and cops. But it doesn't matter, the truth probably lays somewhere in between the two extremes and we will never know seeing how this has turned political.

Re:Sure

[sumdumass]

And blacks always had the same rights as everyone else on same terms as everyone else: that they needed to be white to have any.

The failure here is the US constitution disallowed distinctions based on race after the 14th amendment. It took some time, but that was affirmed by the US supreme court in Loving v. Virginia circa 1967.

Yes, it is. And frankly, those of us who aren't Nazis are starting to get a bit tired of having this exact same conversation over every single group you wish to take your problems out on. So please follow your fuhrer to the wastebin of history already.

I'm sure you are not talking about me. But please go ahead and make a case if you think you are. I have absolutely no problem with interracial marriage and I have no problem with gay marriage where their state laws allows it. But if you think that because I pointed something truthful out that I'm somehow against all that, you best think again.

This is no different.

[TsuruchiBrian]

You need a warrant to search external electronics that belong to people. You should also need a warrant to search internal electronics that belong to people. There is no new legal questions created by putting electronics inside people rather than simply keeping them detached.

You can't just shove your iphone up your ass claim to be a cyborg to evade a search warrant. By the same token, the police can't use the fact that your iphone is up your ass to call you a cyborg and search it without getting a warrant.

Re:This is no different.

[Nkwe]

... There is no new legal questions created by putting electronics inside people rather than simply keeping them detached.

Maybe, maybe not. Let's say that you have some sort of future pacemaker or other medical device implanted that you need to stay alive. For whatever reason this device as part of its normal function also happens to have historical location information in it. Perhaps the device optimizes or alters its operation depending on your altitude or location. This device would be a part of you and having it wouldn't really be a choice. Would forcefully extracting information from such a device be any different than compelling a person to testify against their will?

Re:This is no different.

[TsuruchiBrian]

Why does it matter if the device is physically inside you or necessary to live? Why is a futuristic pacemaker any different than a cell phone? I would argue that a modern cell phone is more a part of a person than this hypothetical futuristic pacemaker, despite being outside the body. The cell phone in addition to storing location information also has all your emails, text conversations, search histories, voicemails, facebook stuff, etc.

Would forcefully extracting information from such a device be any different than compelling a person to testify against their will?

Should fingerprinting someone or taking a DNA sample be considered forcing that person's body to betray them and therefore be considered compelling them to testify against themselves?

The cyborg examples really don't add any new dimensions to this debate.

Re:This is no different.

[Oligonicella]

Are you suggesting that said *pacemaker* is storing location information without any method to nondestructively access it? If so, I call bullshit. If not, the cops need only use the same interface to extract the information without killing you.

Re:This is no different.

[Nkwe]

Why does it matter if the device is physically inside you or necessary to live? Why is a futuristic pacemaker any different than a cell phone?

It is about choice. In my opinion, it is different because such a device would not be carried by choice nor would it have data that you voluntarily placed on it. A cell phone or other computer you carry by choice. Data you put on your cell phone (pictures, email, GPS tracks, etc.), you put on by choice. With a pacemaker (or other medically necessary device), you really don't have a choice to have with you (unless you choose to die). Operational data that such a medical device might gather, you don't have any practical control over.

While fingerprints or left behind DNA can indicate that you were somewhere, they don't on their own give a history of the places you have been. You can't take a fingerprint or DNA sample from a person and get a history of all the places they have been. With an embedded device that keeps location history, you could theoretically extract the history of the locations you have been (without having to go to those places to collect evidence).

Re:This is no different.

[Nkwe]

Are you suggesting that said *pacemaker* is storing location information without any method to nondestructively access it? If so, I call bullshit. If not, the cops need only use the same interface to extract the information without killing you.

I am not talking about the technical ability to extract data from the fictional future device, I am talking about the legality. My point is that if some future medically necessary device did for some reason store historical location information, that such data should be covered by the same laws that protect a person from self-incrimination. If I don't have tell tell the cops where I was last Thursday, a medically necessary device that I can't live without and which I can't control the data collected on, should also not be available to the cops to extract the data about where I was last Thursday.

Re:This is no different.

[TsuruchiBrian]

It is about choice. In my opinion, it is different because such a device would not be carried by choice nor would it have data that you voluntarily placed on it. A cell phone or other computer you carry by choice. Data you put on your cell phone (pictures, email, GPS tracks, etc.), you put on by choice. With a pacemaker (or other medically necessary device), you really don't have a choice to have with you (unless you choose to die). Operational data that such a medical device might gather, you don't have any practical control over.

Why does it even matter? If there is significant evidence that you have committed a crime, and a court issues a warrant to search your electronic devices, why should the person who has a pacemaker be granted extra privileges than a person with a cell phone? I will concede that the person with the cell phone may have had more of a choice in deciding to own/possess their device, but so what? Why is that important?

Furthermore, I don't see why people would not have the freedom to choose pacemakers that were not able to incriminate them (i.e. ones that do not record histories, but rather simply use current sensor data, or encrypt any historical data so it is only accessible to people with the cryptographic key).

While fingerprints or left behind DNA can indicate that you were somewhere, they don't on their own give a history of the places you have been. You can't take a fingerprint or DNA sample from a person and get a history of all the places they have been. With an embedded device that keeps location history, you could theoretically extract the history of the locations you have been (without having to go to those places to collect evidence).

Which is why you shouldn't be able to access this information without a warrant (i.e. significant evidence that a person has committed a crime). I really don't see why it makes a difference if the information gives a complete or partial picture of historical events. Would it be ok to search the futurisitic pacemaker if it only recorded GPS locations to a precision of 100 miles? (i.e. obscuring the complete picture and forcing police to collect additional evidence)?

Re:This is no different.

[j-beda]

Are you suggesting that said *pacemaker* is storing location information without any method to nondestructively access it? If so, I call bullshit. If not, the cops need only use the same interface to extract the information without killing you.

I am not talking about the technical ability to extract data from the fictional future device, I am talking about the legality. My point is that if some future medically necessary device did for some reason store historical location information, that such data should be covered by the same laws that protect a person from self-incrimination. If I don't have tell tell the cops where I was last Thursday, a medically necessary device that I can't live without and which I can't control the data collected on, should also not be available to the cops to extract the data about where I was last Thursday.

Why not? The non-incrimination stuff is just so that we don't give incentives to the police to beat the snot out of you to get a forced confession from an innocent person, it is not because we think there is something "unfair" about it. Boo hoo if your medical device recorded you killing the little old lady down the street and it turned you in. Now, if there was some significant chance of the medical device giving false testimony, we might need to do something different, but there is no reason on the face of it to treat implanted medical devices or any other piece of potential evidence different depending on whether or not it is required or life-saving or not.

If fear of incrimination ended up being a deterrent to behaviour that we as a society think is important, we might carve out some legal exclusions like we do for doctors, lawyers, and priests, so maybe in the future your lawyer-bot or shrink-bot might not be subject to a warrant, but I doubt anyone would care about the pace-maker. It seems so much more likely to prove your innocence than guilt.

Then again, with so many laws against things that "everyone" does in terms of drugs, music piracy, jaywalking, etc. maybe you could get widespread support to making your implanted recorders protected information.

Pretty Simple,

[Anonymous Coward]

The power-holders make sure both precedents exist and get applied as they wish.

corporations

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see why cyborgs shouldn't have rights too. Corporations are heartless, non-emotional machines of industry and they already have more rights than humans.

The Transfer of Data and Free Speech

[sahuxley]

A corollary to this is whether communication through any mechanically-assisted means should be defined as speech. I think this has a huge implication on copyrights. As we become more integrated with these devices, the line between what we say, think, and digitally transfer becomes gray. What if instead of describing a movie or song to someone, we're able to transfer our perfect memory of it directly to their memory?

Humons do not have the right

[Osgeld]

To hide tamper or destroy evidence, why should someone with a gps chip stuck in their ass have it

sounds like some "I made myself a freak and now I should be treated special" bullshit

Legal precedents

[steveha]

To decide this, we need to look at the history of the 5th Amendment and how the courts have interpreted it. I'm not a lawyer, but I think it's pretty clear that cyborgs' personal data will be covered.

According to Wikipedia's article on the 5th Amendment, courts have been pretty expansive. You can't even be required to turn over the password to an encrypted hard drive if it would incriminate you.

If I understand the history, the 5th Amendment was partly a backlash over the horribly unfair "Star Chamber" legal proceedings, and also against the use of torture to extract a confession. As a minarchist libertarian, I think it is wise to hold government on a short leash, and I am in favor of keeping the government from taking shortcuts that lead to convictions. But on the other hand, I'm in favor of the truth winning in trials. If you are driving a car and there is a collision, I want experts to be able to examine the "black box" from your car (assuming your car has one); I don't think you can reasonably claim that turning over your "black box" would constitute self-incrimination. So if we imagine a sort of "black box" inside the body of a cyborg, it's hard for me to think that should be private while I think the black box from a car shouldn't be.

Of course, I don't want to see someone have their cyborg body's black box hacked to plant fake evidence against them, but that seems awfully hypothetical at this point.

Hmmm. I wonder if anyone is going to be required to produce the data from their FitBit or other exercise tracker during a criminal investigation anytime soon. I'm guessing that the courts might hold that the 5th Amendment would protect that data. But it would be pretty amazing if you had a guy accused of stabbing someone, and his wrist device had a log showing his hand making stabbing motions at the time the murder occurred!

In short: no.

[YukariHirai]

I would think that the cybernetic bits should be treated no differently than any other physical evidence on or in a person's body. If, for example, paint stains on a suspect's shoes prove that (s)he was at a certain location at a certain time, that's effectively the same thing as an implanted chip that proves the same thing.

Who cares

[NotInHere]

We aren't in control of our data or devices anyway. If anything has been shown in the past, is that everything we do with our shiny new devices is phoned home to HQ for further analysis. No way of being self-sustained. It could leak trade secrets. And the users don't care, so lure them with a bit convenience, and they are all yours. No need to get data from inside a suspect, its already enough to just ask google what he has asked google. Google may not be in direct contact with our nerves, but if we include it into our very own thought processes, it becomes part of our brain.

And what privacy rights would those be?

[grasshoppa]

Seriously; in light of all the violations of our "privacy" by the government, what "rights" can we humans be said to retain?

Viewed in that light, however, the answer is probably a depressing "Yes".

question it nonsensical

[Anonymous Coward]

a cyborg is a human with devices, instead of carried are implanted. A human with a cellphone has rights, why would implanting a radio communications system suddenly change?

A human with an artificial heart or artificial limbs is still human. Same rights to privacy exist.

Anything else is too much navel gazing. Some things ARE simple.

Re:question it nonsensical

[Bengie]

Not to mention the brain is just a computer and should be treated as one under law. Laws should only care if the computer is self aware. Cyborg is just an augmented human, but still a human, which is a self aware computer.

1% and the GOP will use this to jail anyone who

[Joe_Dragon]

1% and the GOP will use this to jail anyone who trys to gum-up the works as there jobs are taken away. But look at the up side the jail / prison must give you health care

Re:1% and the GOP will use this to jail anyone who

[Oligonicella]

Or the Democrats will sic the IRS on you and demand the information.

Re:1% and the GOP will use this to jail anyone who

[Anonymous Coward]

Or the Democrats will sic the IRS on you and demand the information.

Not this BS again.
Part of the IRS's job is to review questionable "non-profit" groups. They targeted more lefty groups than righty ones - probably bc the right wingers were better funded in their legal eagle dept to use ambiguous names better.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/23/1294061/-IRS-Targeted-Progressive-Groups-MORE-than-Tea-Party
Since you'll attack the messenger, here's another example. Or do you think the IRS is inherently out to get those ultra conservative open source commie groups too?
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/07/irs-policy-that-targeted-tea-party-groups-also-aimed-at-open-source-projects/

A camcorder is a camcorder, even up your bum

[apraetor]

If you commit a crime, and videotape yourself doing it, the police can execute a search warrant to recover the recording and use it against you in court. Just because you choose to hide the recorder inside your own body -- whether it's surgically implanted or just up your arse -- doesn't change the legal argument. New legal ground will only be exposed when we have brain implants which directly interface with your mind; if the device records your thoughts as you think them THEN the 5th Amendment would potentially come into play.

Re:A camcorder is a camcorder, even up your bum

[wmansir]

Whether the implant records a person's thoughts is not material. A diary is not protected under the 5th even though it is a recording of private thoughts, so why should an implant that records thoughts be treated differently?

I think rgmoore has a point, the key is not that a device records thought, but when does device data become indistinguishable from private thought. If a person had brain damage and there was an implant that would effectively take the place of that damaged part of the brain, say memory, then I think it would become a legal issue.

There is also the issue of how easily the data could be retrieved. The court weighs the potential probative value of the evidence against the rights of the individual and that generally precludes procedures which endanger one's health, cause severe pain, or lasting trauma.

Re:A camcorder is a camcorder, even up your bum

[Fjandr]

They can get the information only if they know that it contains evidence. Merely suspecting it of containing evidence is not enough to compel disclosure.

Re:A camcorder is a camcorder, even up your bum

[rgmoore]

That simply isn't true. The 4th Amendment says that:

no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

IOW, they can ask for a warrant when they have a strong reason to believe that something contains evidence; they don't have to be absolutely certain. That's what "probable cause" means: enough evidence to convince a skeptical individual that something is probably true. It's a fairly strong standard- the person asking for a warrant needs to present some kind of evidence rather than just a hunch- but it doesn't demand certainty. That's why people who ask for warrants are not routinely punished when the warrants don't pan out; they only get in trouble if it can be shown that they materially misrepresented facts they used to support their warrant request.

Re:A camcorder is a camcorder, even up your bum

[Anonymous Coward]

Couldn't that argument be used to scan your brain and read your thoughts, though? What about the 5th?

Re:A camcorder is a camcorder, even up your bum

[vux984]

Just because you choose to hide the recorder inside your own body -- whether it's surgically implanted or just up your arse -- doesn't change the legal argument

Perhaps it should change the legal argument.

What if your 'cybernetics' are simple pacemaker that log's diagnostic information, tracking your heart rate over time. That information could be used as evidence of your physical state -- look his heart rate was elevated at the time of the crime, when we allege he shot the victim and then ran.

My heart can't provide testimony against me, no matter how many search warrants the police execute. Why should someone with a bad heart have to submit his pacemakers diagnotic information to police scrutiny, in exchange for life (even if the police need a warrant to get it).

And that's using technology today. 20 years from now, a man with a cybernetic replacement limb -- does he have no privacy? A police warrant pulling the limbs diagnostic logs, could establish that yup at 10:14 on Wednesday the arm was raised, and the index finger exerted force equal to the trigger pull weight of the gun believed to be the murder weapon... the jury will like that.

And you are right the current law, makes that a-ok. But its a good question whether that should be a-ok. Should a person have to choose between being made whole but having a 'bug' installed on them that can queried for information by the police with a warrant; or being disabled (limbless, blind, deaf, ...) or perhaps its no choice at all, perhaps without the enhancement they die (artificial heart, liver, etc).

Re:A camcorder is a camcorder, even up your bum

[apraetor]

There is actually precedent for protected communications like that. Conversations held via TTY are protected under Federal law. TTY operators (the folks acting as voices/ears for deaf people pre-TTS software) were barred from disclosing any of the communications which they relayed, and any records resulting from the operation of the TTY machines was likewise protected as privileged. Frankly, we don't know anything about how these theoretical brain implants would operate; whether a machine component can take the place of an organic neuron and replicate ALL the functions isn't something we've been able to research yet. We'd do better to focus on tightening laws that have real value now, erring on the side of less-legislation for the future-unknowns.

Re:A camcorder is a camcorder, even up your bum

[vux984]

There is actually precedent for protected communications like that.

That's not really a precedent for implanted electronics. Although its at least tangentially related.

But its more a special case of telecom / wiretap laws as anything to do with medical devices.

Frankly, we don't know anything about how these theoretical brain implants would operate

Your brain implants is futuristic and extreme. What about much more mundane situations that are already a medical reality. The diagnostic/logging capabilities of current implanted medical devices is already something that could potentially be searched with a warrant.

Should that categorically be protected against search?

We have privacy rights?

[Nyder]

I think this is a joke because we really don't have privacy rights. The NSA doesn't think so, most government don't think so.

So what privacy rights are we talking about again?

Let's Compromise

[Anonymous Coward]

Cyborgs will henceforth legally count as 3/5 a person.

(too soon?)

Identity

[cyberzephyr]

If you folk's look at it from my perspective: Where i live the police photograph the Tat's of the gang guy's and gal's why not document a Cyborg?

Re:Identity

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus Christ, enough with the fucking apostrophes!

Once a person, always a person

[yup2000]

don't over think it!

Re:Once a person, always a person

[confused one]

over think it. We have removed the rights of groups of people before.

Papers and self incrimination

[nurb432]

I dont see how an implant would be treated any different than a cell phone, or a diary.

Privacy, unless they get a warrant.

Treat it like clothing?

[davidwr]

If I commit a crime and my shoes or other clothing contain evidence of my criminal act, is the clothing legally treated as if it's "part of me" or as if it's not?

Generally not. Think about all the crime dramas where dirt that is only found at the crime scene is found in the suspect's shoes, or where the dye from the exploding dye-pack was found on the suspect's clothing.

Much more likely to be a legal issue is the issue of how invasive the legal system can be to retrieve the evidence. A few years ago there was an alleged perpetrator who was shot during a crime. I don't remember how it all turned out but there were major court fights over whether the police could force the person to undergo non-life-threatening surgery to remove the bullet fragments on the grounds that they were evidence in a crime.

Well, yes?

[Anonymous Coward]

A cyborg is still a human, no matter how augmented they are, they have the right to have their junk kept private. Why are we even having this debate?

A robot, on the other hand, shouldn't be allowed any sort of privacy. They are not alive, no matter how much you love them, they aren't, they are just a glorified computer that can walk around, nothing more than objects. (for the distant future where robots are a thing)

oh great

[Tablizer]

Human: "That's a pretty small frame-bolt you got there in the front."

Bot: "Mind your own biz, smelly human, or my lawyer will delete you!"

Yes

[mossy the mole]

See Post Title

Property, my ass!

[mcgrew]

First, I agree completely with your comment. Secondly, I don't even have to RTFA to see that TFA rides the short bus.

As a cyborg, I find this entire topic offensive. A cyborg is part animal and part machine, and guess what? There are a hell of a lot of us. I have a CrystaLens implant in my left eye, making glasses unnecessary for me (I see better than you do). It is a device that uses the eye's muscles to focus. I'm 62 and need no corrective lenses whatever.

Do you know someone with a cochlear implant? Artificial hip or knee? Heart pacemaker? They, like me, are all cyborgs by dictionary definition.

The former vice president of the US was a cyborg, now he's a chimera.

The question "should cyborgs have rights" is stupid and insulting. Shame on the article's author.

zero privacy = full control

[globaljustin]

just simply had full transparency?

this question reeks of absent-minded techie "disruptive innovation"

so zero privacy rights...everyone can look at everything? have you thought this through?

so the password to the safe where I keep my guns...that's open for everyone?

does this "full transparency" apply to only digital information? if so, people would just do things they want by paper like before there was ever digital technology of any kind...so it seems that your "full transparency" must include non-digital...which means at any time, my personal affects can be looked at by any person?

what about my business plans? do those get to be secret or does "full transparency" apply to those too?

"full transparency" is a totalitarian dream...so the answer is, if you loose your right to privacy, all the others follow...

can we end this line of questioning forever? privacy rights are a fundamental thing...no need for any techie "disruptive" "innovation"

Re:zero privacy = full control

[rwa2]

I'm just saying if we can embrace the positive parts of full transparency, that will be better than the fallacy of believing we can successfully safeguard our privacy.

Unless you live as a hermit in the middle of the Yukon, I don't really see how you might expect to have fully guaranteed privacy rights while living in society. Someone's going to gossip about you. Might be more effective to limit the damage they can do with whatever information they manage to glean by flying their X-Ray UAV over your house, than rely on some kind of "promise" from your neighbors or government to ever fly their X-Ray UAV anywhere they might accidentally see you.

I have a gun safe too. The manual has a little serial number on it that helps the manufacturer open it if requested. I don't know how well that information is protected from hackers, probably not that well. If someone takes my little airsoft gun out of the safe and uses it to commit a crime, I hope I get a good shot of the perp on my webcam. In any case, I've probably demonstrably done enough due diligence to keep that gun under my control, so I'm not sure what more relevance that strawman has to this conversation.

As far as people going through your personal effects, yes, it can and has happened. Maybe you have an accident or get heat stroke or get knocked unconscious. People are going to go through your pockets looking for ID or medicalert bracelets. Maybe they come across your stash or some kind of embarrassing toy that you didn't have locked up in a briefcase handcuffed to your wrist. You're not going to sue your good samaritans for invasion of privacy, I'd hope.

Secret business plans is an interesting one... of course even friendly countries spy on each others' businesses now, and even have regulatory limits on the strength of encryption that can be used within their borders to help with this. Business intelligence is kept in confidentiality primarily for control while negotiating... you can finagle a higher price for your shit while negotiating if you keep your trade secrets and special sauce to yourself, as well as coordinate bidding wars between competitive offers for your products and services. With more information and transparency, the work would still get done, but you may have to give up some of your ability to boost profits by lying or embellishing... whatever's fair. And perhaps disclose and license your trade secrets as patentable intellectual property, because, well, it'd probably get out eventually anyway. Or, like the Coke recipe, just maintain it as a secret special sauce for marketing mystique, even though people can analyze exactly what went into it anyway. Eh.

What about reading your thoughts? We could be getting closer to that over the next few decades, with passive sensors that will probably be part of our video game consoles soon, and maybe even deeper and more detailed with cybernetic implants like TFA suggests.

Yes, I agree privacy rights ought to be a fundamental thing. It's also a pretty certain thing that we've already pretty much lost it already, save for a little bit of data integration. Rather than ending this line of questioning, we need to start standing up the next line of defense... more limits against prosecution for "thought pre-crimes", limiting abuse of power from government / corporate / societal data mining (which probably also involves increasing transparency to all of the archives they do have), making sure we can watch the watchers...

And there's no "disruptive innovation" here... as an engineer who has held several "public trust" positions over the decades handling plenty of classified / PCI / PII data (as are many more of us here at /. ), we're quite accustomed to having a lot of scrutiny, monitoring, and accountability for every little thing we do in the line of work. So we've sort of been living that way for a while now. Yeah, it'll suck to see more of that disciplined environment creep into "civilian" life. But such is the way of the world, and good luck avoiding it without blasting ourselves back into the stone age (or Northern Canada ;)

Re:zero privacy = full control

[Anonymous Coward]

Privacy should be the default state.... All exceptions should be clearly specified in law.
Things like:
"Police are allowed to wiretap a specific phone-number after a court-hearing. Suspected crime must have a minimum sentence of 2 years in prison. Each involved person affected by the wiretap should have a dedicated lawyer assigned to the hearing to protect their rights."
"It only requires permission by one party in a conversation to record the conversation, even in secret."
"Filming/taking photos in public spaces is granted to all people currently residing at that location. All cameras must be clearly visible while recording images/audio" (would prevent surveillance cameras to be put up everywhere and would require a specific law for that)
"Filming/taking photos in private space is granted to all as long as cameras are clearly visible and all entrances to the location must be clearly marked with notices about automated surveillance"
"Following or tracking a person in secret, directly or indirectly, requires a court-order. Suspected crime must have a minimum sentence of 2 years in prison"
"Anyone may monitor the network-traffic direct to or from a computer owned by them." (no sniffing of generic traffic, only monitoring traffic to and from equipment owned by them).
"Persons currently serving a sentence have no expectation of privacy unless stated."

"No privacy rights may be signed away by contract. When expectation of privacy is not in effect the affected person(s) must be made aware of this, and what breaches are in the current area, and allowed to leave without. Where areas without expectation of privacy exists all persons within that area may execute the stated violations. All areas and must be privately owned."

And then on the end: "Anyone or any organisation (all board-members and executive staff) that violates the right to privacy face a minimum sentence of 1 year in prison and a maximum of 10 years."

* and probably thousands of more things to make society work in a sane way.. but you get the idea.

Re:zero privacy = full control

[Dragon Bait]

I'm just saying if we can embrace the positive parts of full transparency, that will be better than the fallacy of believing we can successfully safeguard our privacy.

You do realize that Roe v. Wade is based on privacy rights, don't you? If you get rid of privacy, including (or especially) medical privacy then you undermine the foundation of a woman's right to choose.

Re: zero privacy = full control

[Anonymous Coward]

If i could argue that i thought gov knew about my deed and about my knowledge that it did, then i can possibly argue that i did not intend to do harm expecting gov. To stop the bulet. Wit absolute knowledge comes absolute responsibility.

what kind of machine?

[globaljustin]

Cyborgs are just kinds of humans

exactly...so many of "teh singularity" type "futurists" who get to have their thoughts on this stuff published have absolutely no idea what they are talking about

anyone with a pacemaker or hearing aid is a "cyborg"

hell, it's "cybernetic" when you know your phone is ringing b/c you set it to vibrate...

self-incrimination

[Anonymous Coward]

Basic human right... the right against self-incrimination. Just because a sentient being incorporates mechnical and/or non-senient being into their physical being does not negate nor forfeit rights bestowed upon them by their maker.

And I don't even play a lawyer on TV.

You mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

...none?

Battlestar Galactica

[Kalium70]

I've watched enough Battlestar Galactica to know the importance of treating cyborgs well. There is a cycle that keeps repeating: humans (or some other life form) creates artificial sentient life form but treats it badly, like a slave race. The artificial life form rebels and begins to conquer its creators, but the artificial life cannot reproduce. That leads to some kind of joining between a faction of the artificial life with its creators for reproduction. The group of hybrids grows and prospers but forgets its origins and creates new artificial life. Repeat.

Re:Battlestar Galactica

[Kaenneth]

I bet the Chimpanzees wish they hadn't invented humans now.

the Spanish Inquisition

[pupsocket]

the persecution of scientists

the enforcement of taboos

the "war on drugs" and other states of mind

repression of political opposition to a regime in power

all live by stripping privacy

that's why

"The Same Privacy Rights"?

[BrianPRabbit]

Cyborgs aren't Humans?

Privacy? Worry about security first

[Anonymous Coward]

... if our current attitude towards IT security doesn't change in a decade, my prediction is that the word "botnet" will be given a whole new meaning.

Its quite simple, really.

[Z80a]

If it have enough brainpower to hire a good lawyer, it will most likely will be considered human, no matter if a cyborg, robot, bipedal fox created by the wrong kind of scientists...

Set a better example

[Anonymous Coward]

I would imagine a cyborg to set a better example than a mere human.

Why is this here?

[Anonymous Coward]

This bullshit belongs on reddit not /.

NOt rights, truth

[Anonymous Coward]

I get sick of people having rights when they are criminals. I dont think that rights are as important as the truth. Now I say that and I dont want my rights trampled, but I am not a criminal and have nothing to lose to wear a camera and then show that 'evidence' to the law as it would just exonerate me. If you choose to have technology implanted or otherwise then there should be nothing wrong if the police GET a WARRANT and look at that 'evidence". I still think there should be a procedure and people still have rights. But if the police have a reasonable suspicion then there is nothing wrong with them compelling a person to show that data. The person being questioned if they are innocent shouldn't care anyway. The only one that would care is an actual guilty person and then they shouldn't be stupid enough to have implanted tech in the first place if that is their profession.I have seen alot of law and order episodes where the criminals have more rights than the victims and it is ridiculous. If you victimize others no matter the reason you should pay the price.

Ugh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dangerous separation of terms.

Yes dumb cyborg should turn data over

[Anonymous Coward]

The smart ones will erase the incrimating data.
Cyborgs that are too dumb to erase the incriminating data deserve what ever you do to guilts cyborgs.

That ends today's thought experiment.

depends

[Anonymous Coward]

how awesome are the cyborgs tits? if super awesome, i should have all the pics.

No.

[jpellino]

No more than my computer should. The owner of the machine has the rights. Next question please.

your fallacy: dumbness

[globaljustin]

the fallacy of believing we can successfully safeguard our privacy.

this is your problem...the fallacy of the belief that believing we can have privacy is a fallacy

we have privacy when we have laws protecting it...your suggestion means getting rid of those laws

maybe ***YOUR*** privacy rights do not exist or have become 'obsolete', but you cannot speak for me or any other person in that regard

**the rest of us still want our privacy rights, and just because you think that 'privacy doesn't exit' doesn't affect our rights**

i can still sue you or have you arrested if you break the law

Whose "Rights" ?

[The Old One 666]

"... a thing that we invest with rights..." by that Benjamin Wittes seems to mean a human. The Founders believed that "rights" were given to us by God, and that we had to take care that the government did not take them from us. Wittes seems to have gone back to believing we [not God] "invested" those rights into humans. Even an Atheist [like me] could find that misguided.

Easy viewpoint

[meerling]

Once something is part of your body, as opposed to something you can drop or take off without surgery, it is no longer a separate object and is immediately part of you, only being subject to the same laws that someone that has no cybernetics is subject to.

So no, the police could not download the data from your cybernetic memory anymore than they could from your biological memory.

There, see, easy solution just by recognizing one simple idea, your body is your own, no matter where it came from. That also applies to someone with transplanted organs or other parts from someone else, as they are nut subject to any benefits or penalties that the previous owner of that tissue once had. So you can't inherit from your heart donors rich aunt, you can't be thrown in jail for the robbery and murder committed by your face donor (yes, they've done a couple of those now), or the like.

Re:Easy viewpoint

[j-beda]

Once something is part of your body, as opposed to something you can drop or take off without surgery, it is no longer a separate object and is immediately part of you, only being subject to the same laws that someone that has no cybernetics is subject to.

So no, the police could not download the data from your cybernetic memory anymore than they could from your biological memory.

There, see, easy solution just by recognizing one simple idea, your body is your own, no matter where it came from. That also applies to someone with transplanted organs or other parts from someone else, as they are nut subject to any benefits or penalties that the previous owner of that tissue once had. So you can't inherit from your heart donors rich aunt, you can't be thrown in jail for the robbery and murder committed by your face donor (yes, they've done a couple of those now), or the like.

With a warrant, you can be compelled to give blood and tissue samples, and with a warrant they can search your phone or your camera, so I don't see why it should be any different with implanted devices - either treat them like non-implanted devices (get a warrant) or like parts of your body (get a warrant). When they get to the point of reading minds and playing back memories (I say at least a hundred years), then maybe we will have some difficult issues.

What about liability?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would be more interested in liability. Suppose a piece of electronics inside a person commits a crime, say... a prosthetic arm picking up a gun and shooting someone. And the bearer of that arm denies committing the act stating that the arm took a life of its own. Well, I could easily see that future prosthetics will be networked, and someone could hack the firmware to shoot a high profile target. Unlikely, but plausible. But the big question, who's liable?

The answer is obvious.

[Blankie]

We already have laws that govern when (and how) the data on our personal devices can be accessed. As technology becomes integrated into our bodies, the same laws will cover them.

WWYMD?

[CmdrTamale]

What would your mitochondria do?

They don't get many opportunities to express themselves.
--
If you think this universe is bad, you should see some of the others - P K Dick

In the (sadly) late Iain Banks Culture novels...

[Paul Fernhout]

... Culture "Minds", drones, and humans/cyborgs all have privacy of what is in their own thoughts and memories. However, anything in a non-sentient "databank" is public to all (so, externally stored communications or designs in that sense are publicly shareable). I'm just re-reading "Excession" (out loud to my kid) where Banks made that point. In the "Culture", Banks makes it clear that sentient beings of any sort (including typical drones) have a variety of rights related to independence. When I first read that, coming from an idea of free software and free culture, it seemed somehow strange or wrong that the AI "Minds" or drones would have that sort of privacy, but now it seems to make more and more sense to me, given the sort of issues raised in the article, including that there can be many times when the line is blurred between human and machine. But the probably deeper issue is what it means to have an advanced post-scarcity "Culture" where many of the citizens are entirely non-biological (like the AI "Minds" that run much of everything).

BTW, the original "RUR" story from 1920 (where the term "robot" came from) has almost exactly the same plot as you outline for BG.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R....

A lot of long-term robotics (like Asimo) is implicitly the quest for the ideal "slave". The question is, at what points does something have rights? In the USA and elsewhere animals have some legal rights (or at least laws to protect them) since starting about a 150 years ago, and that campaign I've heard eventually led to children having independent rights (on the logic of, why should a horse or dog have rights when a child does not?).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/p...
"The first national law to regulate animal experimentation was passed in Britain in 1876--the Cruelty to Animals Act of 1876. This bill created a central governing body that reviewed and approved all animal use in research. After that, there were numerous countries in Europe that adopted some regulations regarding research with animals. "

Also:
http://www.humanium.org/en/chi...
"At the beginning of the 20th century, children's protection starts to be put in place, including protection in the medical, social and judicial fields. This kind of protection starts first in France and spreads across Europe afterwards. Since 1919, the international community, following the creation of The League of Nations (later to become the UN), starts to give some kind of importance to that concept and elaborates a Committee for child protection."

However, going back to hunter/gatherer times thousands of years ago, there was in many such cultures (from what remains of them) at least an ethic of giving thanks to the larger "animal" kind (e.g. "Rabbit") that you killed for it letting you kill it so you might survive. But it's hard to know for sure what such cultures really believed day-to-day in all circumstances. And some such cultures had various sorts of slavery.

I don't know what the line is where a mechanism (mechanical or electronic or photonic or fluidic or other) becomes self-aware, or even if that should be the line. Or at what point can a mechanism feel "pain" or "pleasure"? Is that ultimately a political and/or religious question?
http://www.rfreitas.com/Astro/...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/tec...

And also:
http://www.aspcr.com/
"We are the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Robots, founded in 1999 in Seattle, Washin