It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Should your mind be considered a private space?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 03:35 PM
I play computer games.
so if I am thinking about a game that I kill in it.
they would put me down as a pre crimeb.

posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 04:34 PM
Your mind is a private space.

I have little or no filter on mine,between my brains and mouth but that is me.

I hope the legal lefty beagles are already devising loopholes and clever arguments to argue this point if all the stuff they are talking about becomes a reality.

It won't if it won't make money, and nobody wants to spend money on criminals otherwise all our 19th Century prisons would have been torn down and shiny ones built in their place.

Maybe it might encourage people to think more positively, and nicer more productive thoughts that might turn into positive actions to help other people than just ourselves.

I doubt it.

edit on 7/3/2016 by MrsNonSpecific because: Sentence didnt make sense

posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 05:18 PM

originally posted by: chiefsmom
a reply to: DexterRiley
Wait, aren't Tinfoil hats suppose to work?

There was actually a thread recently that discussed some research done at MIT. Apparently they showed that Tinfoil hats do more harm than good; especially with electromagnetic radiation. I don't know how they might work against reading brain activity. But it seems to me that any type of Faraday cage would work to stop this form of privacy invasion.

Yes, my thoughts are mine, and mine alone. Sheesh. Will this lead to having to copy-write your own thoughts?
That's an interesting thought. I remember when they first starting mapping the Human Genome that one of the companies doing the original research was attempting to patent gene sequences. I believe that was ultimately disallowed.

But, yes, this strikes me as being a very slippery slope. In addition to privacy invasion, we do have to consider that accessing someone's thoughts also amounts to accessing proprietary data.


posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 06:17 PM
You know there is one very interesting aspect of this notion of US government surveillance of citizens' minds. In general there was one Supreme Court Associate Justice who was a staunch advocate of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

Though I consider Justice Antonin Scalia to be a vile human with few redeeming qualities, I will give him credit for his generally unwavering support of the rights of citizens to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." While I hope that a moderate Associate Justice will be appointed to the SCOTUS, there is no guarantee that a left leaning Justice will vote so faithfully in favor of that right.

The case of Maryland v. King, decided in 2013, saw Scalia in the minority, siding with most of the liberal side of the Court. On the other hand, Justice Stephen Breyer, who is generally considered a solid liberal vote, sided with the conservatives in finding that the government could extract and record DNA from anyone who was booked and arrested.

Justice Scalia wrote a scathing dissent that demonstrated a thorough understanding of the technical aspects of DNA analysis, and the slippery slope of acquiring and storing that information without a court order.

I know what some of you are thinking. I vomited in my mouth a little bit when I realized that Antonin Scalia and I actually agreed on something. It took a couple of days for me to get over that...

- Through the Ars lens: Looking at Justice Scalia’s opinions, dissents
- Privacy Rights After Scalia: New Interpretation?
- Antonin Scalia Emerges As Fighter For Fourth Amendment Privacy Rights
- Liberals, give Antonin Scalia some credit: His stance on civil liberties is one issue even Democrats should appreciate him for


posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 09:09 PM

originally posted by: mamabeth

originally posted by: malevolent

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Murgatroid

If there's a Heaven, then I am so screwed.

heavens overrated i can't place where i heard this but its stuck with me awhile "I'd rather rule in hell than serve in heaven"

That statement is from Milton's "Paradise Lost".What satan was suppose to have said when bannished
from Heaven.To some others'...what Kahn said at his hearing aboard the starship Enterprise in the "Space Seed".
Never saw it, sci fi has never interested me. and who said satan has lost yet?

posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 09:17 PM

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: malevolent
...the fact is GOD doesn't care about us.

The source is obvious on that one, same as before.

Your namesake is lying, don't fall for it...

I've seen proof BTW, will you as well.

You can count on it...
so whats your point? you just going to try to play the judge and jury based only on my name???? i think you you need to gtf over yourself

posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 09:26 PM

originally posted by: geezlouise
a reply to: malevolent

Well, I don't even believe in God personally. I don't disbelieve per say. I just don't know. But I do believe in the psychological value of God, however, which is a little different.

And I get it now... seeing isn't always believing. Because we all see things that aren't there sometimes, we also hear, feel, smell and can even taste things that aren't there. Let's get real, people! We can barely trust our own five senses.! Specially when one sense is isolated from the others(seeing but not feeling/hearing/smelling/etc.).

Life is really pretty amazing though. Look at how far we've come!
well that was one hell of a way to throw them under the bus.

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in