NationStates Jolt Archive

Just put the person being interrogated in the machine.

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/article/2277

It won't be long before this gets refined.

Would you consider this to be torture, even though you may be completely unaware (as the subjects of this experiment were) that your thoughts were being read?

Torture? No.

Creepy? Yes.

Torture? No.

Creepy? Yes.

So it would be legal...

So it would be legal...

But as Torture is defined by law, you could in theory beat somebody black and blue, stuff things up their ass, deprive of them sleep, mock execute them etc and it still wouldnt be "torture", depending on the definition. But what Western nation would do that kind of thing, hmmmm?

So it would be legal...No, not torture, but I'd still say it was a breach of human rights. I rather not have to worry whether I was commiting thoughtcrime or not.

But as Torture is defined by law, you could in theory beat somebody black and blue, stuff things up their ass, deprive of them sleep, mock execute them etc and it still wouldnt be "torture", depending on the definition. But what Western nation would do that kind of thing, hmmmm?

I'm just curious if sitting untouched and unharmed in a machine is torture.

You know, where someone can be eating a sandwich, and not know they're having their mind read.

I'm just curious if sitting untouched and unharmed in a machine is torture.

You know, where someone can be eating a sandwich, and not know they're having their mind read.

Torture No, Possible invasion of privacy yes

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/98/Senate_House_UoL.jpg/300px-Senate_House_UoL.jpg

Torture No, Possible invasion of privacy yes

If you don't give consent, then it's absolutely an invasion of privacy, and if you're forced into it against your will, then you can make an argument for torture. It's mental rape, and if physical rape is considered torture, then so should mental rape.

Would you consider this to be torture

I would consider this to be illegal under the constitution ("protection against capital punishment, corporal punishment and torture and against medical intervention aimed at extorting or preventing statements") should it be used by the state to do just that, extort.

I'm just curious if sitting untouched and unharmed in a machine is torture.

You know, where someone can be eating a sandwich, and not know they're having their mind read.


As they would doubtless have to be forced into said machine, the accompanying force would qualify...unless some Attorney-lackey changed the rules in which case he could be kicked senseless and fucked in there, no problem.......

I am Inventing a new word for this.


MindRape

Just put the person being interrogated in the machine.

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/article/2277

It won't be long before this gets refined.

Would you consider this to be torture, even though you may be completely unaware (as the subjects of this experiment were) that your thoughts were being read?

Torture? No. Utter invasion of privacy and horrible potential for abuse? You're damned fucking straight. Technology like this should be completely illegal or at least reserved for trial cases of a hefty nature, such as trials for murder or rape.

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/1984-movie-101.jpg

Well at least I'm not the only one that thought that...

If you don't give consent, then it's absolutely an invasion of privacy, and if you're forced into it against your will, then you can make an argument for torture. It's mental rape, and if physical rape is considered torture, then so should mental rape.

If they end up being able to do it at a distance, without your knowledge at all, how is that rape?

Rape implies that you're aware of it.

Suppose you're eating lunch in a cafeteria at the detention center.

You eat your lunch, and they read your mind. You have no idea. No one even asks you a question.

You go back to the exercise yard. No effect.

Would you consider this to be torture, even though you may be completely unaware (as the subjects of this experiment were) that your thoughts were being read?

Torture? No.

This: Yes.

http://www.casual-gamers.de/cg/images/postimages/spam_hot_spicy_sm.jpg

Would you consider this to be torture, even though you may be completely unaware (as the subjects of this experiment were) that your thoughts were being read?

I don't think would, no. Could perhaps be used as torture somehow though. Who knows? People are bastards after all...

If they end up being able to do it at a distance, without your knowledge at all, how is that rape?

Rape implies that you're aware of it.

Suppose you're eating lunch in a cafeteria at the detention center.

You eat your lunch, and they read your mind. You have no idea. No one even asks you a question.

You go back to the exercise yard. No effect.

But they would be aware of the threat of it at every instant they were in said detention center which would indeed be torture, imo.

But think of the possible relief for nervous guys/girls the world over! If it got advanced enough to the point where we could finally answer that goddamn 'will she/he say yes or no?' without having to ask the person.

How many people d'you think would pay through the nose for this? :D

that your thoughts were being read?

This is so far from your thoughts being read that the comparison is silly. They judge by which part of your brain is active what your "intentions" are. To actually be able to register into words what you are thinking is not even theoretically possible.

They cannot "read your mind", they can only be able to be more assuredly sure of whether you are lying or not, and that wont tell them what they need to know.

If they end up being able to do it at a distance, without your knowledge at all, how is that rape?

Rape implies that you're aware of it.

Suppose you're eating lunch in a cafeteria at the detention center.

You eat your lunch, and they read your mind. You have no idea. No one even asks you a question.

You go back to the exercise yard. No effect.
That's bullshit and you know it, Eve. You open up that can of worms and we'll have Thought Police in no time, and once that happens we can say goodbye to any sort of freedom whatsoever.

Well at least I'm not the only one that thought that...See my edit. :p

If they end up being able to do it at a distance, without your knowledge at all, how is that rape?

Rape implies that you're aware of it.

Suppose you're eating lunch in a cafeteria at the detention center.

You eat your lunch, and they read your mind. You have no idea. No one even asks you a question.

You go back to the exercise yard. No effect.

Suppose you're sleeping in your bed at the detention center.

You sleep, and Bubba drugs and penetrates you. You have no idea. No one even forces you to drop a soap.

You wake up. No effect.

How is that rape?

If they end up being able to do it at a distance, without your knowledge at all, how is that rape?

Rape implies that you're aware of it.

Suppose you're eating lunch in a cafeteria at the detention center.

You eat your lunch, and they read your mind. You have no idea. No one even asks you a question.

You go back to the exercise yard. No effect.

You can be raped and not be aware of it. Is the woman who is roofied and fucked while she's unconscious any less raped? It's the most personal violation I can even begin to imagine.

That's bullshit and you know it, Eve. You open up that can of worms and we'll have Thought Police in no time, and once that happens we can say goodbye to any sort of freedom whatsoever.
Remember who you're talking to here.

Even with unconscious physical rape, there is physical evidence.

Even with a condom.

So, tell me how the mental scan is "rape".

If you don't give consent, then it's absolutely an invasion of privacy, and if you're forced into it against your will, then you can make an argument for torture. It's mental rape, and if physical rape is considered torture, then so should mental rape.

QFT.

Even with unconscious physical rape, there is physical evidence.

Even with a condom.

So, tell me how the mental scan is "rape".
Read this carefully:

It doesn't fucking matter.

If you invade another person without consent, you have raped that person. Whether they are conscious of it is irrelevant. This is not a no harm, no foul situation.

Even with unconscious physical rape, there is physical evidence.

Even with a condom.

So, tell me how the mental scan is "rape".

magnetically polarized brain cells.

MRIs don't leave them permanently that way. There would be absolutely no evidence.

Interestingly, they would never know. And neither would anyone else who might complain.

Yes but this is generally seen as a bad thing.

*warps*

magnetically polarized brain cells.

MRIs don't leave them permanently that way. There would be absolutely no evidence.

Interestingly, they would never know. And neither would anyone else who might complain.

MRIs don't leave them permanently that way. There would be absolutely no evidence.

Interestingly, they would never know. And neither would anyone else who might complain.

Rape won't change your body "permanently" either... But where there's no proof, there's no crime, eh? That's why you should only murder people that won't be missed *nod*

Unless the interrogated person suffers, either physically or mentally, it is not torture.

Comparing this with rape is a bit of a stretch, I think. This would just be an extreme form phone-tapping.

Unless the interrogated person suffers, either physically or mentally, it is not torture.

Comparing this with rape is a bit of a stretch, I think. This would just be an extreme form phone-tapping.

Yeah, except its your innermost thoughts. You know, all that random shit people occasionally think of. The hidden urges, the random feelings of rage and lust. Some guy cuts you off while you're driving on the highway and you think about murdering him for a brief second because you're already angry for one reason or another...then you're pulled over by the thought police and imprisoned for your "crime."

It's rape. It's invasion of the one place you always keep private. Think about it. All of your little fantasies, your daydreams, everything open to anyone with one of these machines. It's not exactly a good thing.

Had a thread 'bout this a few weeks ago. You're too late.

If they end up being able to do it at a distance, without your knowledge at all, how is that rape?

Rape implies that you're aware of it.

Suppose you're eating lunch in a cafeteria at the detention center.

You eat your lunch, and they read your mind. You have no idea. No one even asks you a question.

You go back to the exercise yard. No effect.

It compares to rape in the same way some woman have drinks and end up waking naked in some bed somewhere.

In this case, the rapist clothed them and put them somewhere innocous before running away.

Besides, this is an extreme invasion of privacy. What next, will you mind if I rifle through your private documents? Point a shotgun mike at your house? Put you under 24/7 video surveillance even when you're in the toilet?

But on the bright side, YOU DK, will go to jail. Why? Because with your favored thought police, you'd be indicted for mass murder of Muslims that you're always dreaming of.

Yeah, except its your innermost thoughts. You know, all that random shit people occasionally think of. The hidden urges, the random feelings of rage and lust. Some guy cuts you off while you're driving on the highway and you think about murdering him for a brief second because you're already angry for one reason or another...then you're pulled over by the thought police and imprisoned for your "crime."

I guess I missed the part where someone advocated not only putting this technology into widespread use to monitor every individual, but also prosecuting them for uncommitted crimes.

Let's see... Most governments in the world have the resources to listen in on - or at least record and scan for key words in - most if not all phone conversations in their country. Yet they don't, unless there is a reason to suspect the person of being involved in criminal activity. What makes you think that they'd be more inclined to use this technology to spy on everyone? Just because they can? That fear is unfounded, bordering on paranoid.

The concept of thought police reeks so much of 60s science fiction that it shouldn't even pop up in a real debate. In these days, I could go to a police station and tell everyone that I wish to murder someone. They couldn't arrest me for murder, attempted murder, or anything except maybe for an illegal threat. At worst, they might keep me under surveillance for a while, and the other person might sue me for threatening him. In the current legislation there is no concept of thought crime, and I don't see how being able to know people's thoughts a bit easier could change that. The whole point of this kind of legislation is that people often want to harm others, but very seldom actually do, and arresting people "just in case" doesn't go well with the idea behind "innocent until proven guilty".

It's rape. It's invasion of the one place you always keep private. Think about it. All of your little fantasies, your daydreams, everything open to anyone with one of these machines. It's not exactly a good thing.

Sure it's not a good thing, but unless those people intend to publish what they find, or blackmail me with it, it's not that big a deal. What do I care, if some underpaid and overworked government archivists I'll never meet, know what kind of porn I like to watch? They'd probably deal daily with a lot sicker stuff than what goes on in my head, so they wouldn't care about it either.

And again, you're making the assumption that they would have any motivation or reason to monitor us normal people at all.

(Before you say that this can be used by private citizen to do me harm, that's of course possible. However, I'm assuming that for the sake of this argument, this technology will be developed anyway, and the debate is only about whether the government should be allowed to use it to fight crime and such.)

Besides, this is an extreme invasion of privacy. What next, will you mind if I rifle through your private documents? Point a shotgun mike at your house? Put you under 24/7 video surveillance even when you're in the toilet?
Oh, I reckon Eve Online imagines he'll be on the other end of that machine, doing the reading instead of being read.

*snip*
I really need to stop overexaggerating to make points, don't I?

I was addressing Eve Online's blabber about using it at will. Frankly, I find that technology like this is far too easy to abuse and I don't like the idea of it in ANYONE'S hands. Obviously in its current incarnation its not exactly anywhere near a true thought-reading machine but it's on its way towards being so with enough time and technological development. And whether you think the idea of thoughtcrime and thought police is sixties science fiction(which its not, as it stems from 1984 more than anything else and that was published in 1947...I think) is beside the point. If people can abuse this, and they probably will be able to eventually, then they will. It's been proven of every other bloody technology invented by mankind. It's a way to gain power, power of the utmost kind, and I won't have any of it.

I really need to stop overexaggerating to make points, don't I?

Yes, that would be appreciated. :)

I was addressing Eve Online's blabber about using it at will. Frankly, I find that technology like this is far too easy to abuse and I don't like the idea of it in ANYONE'S hands. Obviously in its current incarnation its not exactly anywhere near a true thought-reading machine but it's on its way towards being so with enough time and technological development. And whether you think the idea of thoughtcrime and thought police is sixties science fiction(which its not, as it stems from 1984 more than anything else and that was published in 1947...I think) is beside the point. If people can abuse this, and they probably will be able to eventually, then they will. It's been proven of every other bloody technology invented by mankind. It's a way to gain power, power of the utmost kind, and I won't have any of it.

Yes, I was referring to 1984, but despite my efforts, I haven't found a copy of it or any other Orwell's book anywhere, and thus had to take a blind guess at the year.

I'm sure it will be abused to some extent, and that that will not prevent this technology from being developed and improved. But these things will happen regardless of how much the government will use it. Therefore I see no reason to keep the government using it to keep an eye on suspected criminals when needed. In these ways, it's not different from tapping phone lines, except the results are probably more accurate.

I do understand your fears for your privacy concerning those abusers, but I would be reluctant to stop researching this technology too. It could lead to so many neat by-products, like thought-controlled computers. How big the threat of abuse can be, depends entirely on how the development proceeds, and how the technology will be regulated. Let's panic when they give us a reason.

Let's panic when they give us a reason.

I'm not panicking so much as I'm offering a warning in my poorly delivered way. I see the abuses that have occurred throughout history, the repeated attempted--and sometimes successful--abuses of the current administration in power in the United States, and the abuses my fellow Americans pile onto everyone they get a chance to and I become more than a little worried. I don't like the idea of mind-reading technology. I do recognize the practical applications but I simply worry that it is too easy to abuse. Of course, the same could be said of a vast number of our own current technologies, so I may simply be overreacting. As you say, we should just wait and see...but with caution.

I seriously doubt this kind of technology would be used for a 1984-esque purpose; in most of the world, it would likely be considered illegal to use for surveilance purposes and if it were legal it would require warrants and judicial permission just like any other system...and no matter what, thoughts aren't crimes, so it would at most help them predict and prevent future crimes rather than do anything at the time.

The kind of regimes that might try and use this as 1984-style thought control aren't likely to because it's a hell of a lot cheaper and easier just to round up and shoot the people they're suspicious of and forget the rest. It's not like they have any preoccupation with justice that might encourage them to gather evidence first...they'll just eliminate any threats to be on the safe side to begin with.

Oh, I reckon Eve Online imagines he'll be on the other end of that machine, doing the reading instead of being read.

Oh, thats understood. You have nothing to fear if you arent doing anything wrong.

Nah--it's not about right and wrong with EO/DK. It's about who wields the power and who has the power wielded upon him or her. It's realpolitik.
You have to respect that at least Eve doesn't try to hide behind convulted morality to prove what he does is right: he simply uses power or gets used by the ones with the power. In a way he's more honest towards his own humanity than most of us are.

And he's not Deep Kimchi.

Oh, thats understood. You have nothing to fear if you arent doing anything wrong.
Nah--it's not about right and wrong with EO/DK. It's about who wields the power and who has the power wielded upon him or her. It's realpolitik.

MRIs don't leave them permanently that way.

Sperm from a rape doesn't permanently remain their either. Stop changing your standards midstream. You said rape has physical effects, so does this process.

This technology will lead to nothing but trouble...

...just a hunch.