Slashdot Mirror
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.
Of course, an Anonymous Coward complaining about too many privacy rights. Nothing ironic about that.
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.
That would be nice. But in the meantime ... it's about property. From TFA:
Because they are non-sentient property. Ask again once AI is achieved.
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.
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.
Fuck you.
Learn what technology really is before you go off on movie tangents.
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.
Here is the quote from TFA. It provides the context.
No. That is not referring to an IDE drive.
Or, more completely:
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".
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.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
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.
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"
Thank you Dave Raggett
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.
She's eight foot two, solid blue
Five transistors in each shoe
Has anybody seen my gal?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.