> On Jan 2, 6:11pm, "Martin H. Pelet" wrote:
>
> > such a machine, there is always the danger of fraud. You will not
> > have the certainty that the state (or a corrupt employee) does not
> > use the information gathered in the mind scan against you. Even if
>
> Uh, if you have reason to suspect someone is exploiting the
> information, _they_ can be scanned...
>
> "mutual assured surveillance"
Um, no. Someone can exploit information in a harmful way without
ever revealing that fact -- and it can be quite obvious that some one
of several hundred people is exploiting information, but not
sufficiently obvious *which* one to justify scanning *any* of them.
Here are the rules under which I would consider allowing such a
device:
(1) for criminal investigations only, and only after all "victimless
crime" laws have been eliminated.
(2) only by consent of the person to be monitored, and only in the
presence of an attorney.
(3) the questions will be strictly yes/no.
(4) the person to be monitored shall be provided a list of questions,
and time to examine the list. In the absence of this, the person
cannot give meaningful consent.
(5) asking a question not on the list shall be considered a violation
of privacy of such severity that the person thus invaded may be
awarded a settlement without proof of actual damage -- and it shall
be considered that the person asking the question *and* the
enforcement body he/she represents are *each* liable in *full* for
this violation.
(6) use of the monitoring device without the consent of the subject
shall be, in addition to a civilly actionable violation of privacy as
under (5), a felony. In the case of an allegation of a violation of
this clause, if the appropriate executive agency declines to
prosecute, any citizen may prosecute.
US$500 fee for receipt of unsolicited commercial email. USC 47.5.II.227