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.
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."
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!”