Imagine that you are in a car accident (the other person hit you). The insurance company uses your sleep tracker to claim that you were negligent due to not getting enough sleep the night before, and are therefore at fault, so they won't pay.
Data is as dangerous as it is helpful. The scary thing is that you cannot control how someone else will interpret your data.
In your example I think it's right that the driver is found at fault. The effects of sleep deprivation on driving are very well documented and are comparable to drinking. If a driver is not fit to be driving a car, then they are a danger to the other road users and must take responsibility for their negligence.
The same evidence could of course be helpful to the driver. If their sleep tracking app shows they are well rested and their phone's use shows no distractions while driving, then they could use that as evidence to fight a charge of driving without due care and attention.
If you have a neural mesh, the state will likely have intent to claim they have access and rights to the date in the mesh, regardless of whether it is in your body or not.
There's no way in hell I'm ever hooking a computer up to my brain in this reality.
You are of course assuming the data will be easy to understand. One possibility for a neural mesh is that we emulate parts of the brain in hardware to say add more 'storage.' We don't need an understanding of the 'format' a memory is stored to do this, much in the same way that we can build a hard drive for a computer without understanding the JPEG format.
It could be really difficult to extract useful information from such hardware. Let's say we have a brain implant that maps a 3d scene concept to positions of objects in 3d space. So input scene foo gives me baz(1,1,1), bar(1,2,1), quz(1,3,3), etc.
Such stored data is next to useless if we don't know what the inputs and outputs map to. We don't know if scene foo is a scene of a desk or a scene of a movie and we don't know if baz is a book, a gun, or an open book, but the person's brain using the implant does. Determining what these mappings are could be very difficult. We may have to expose the implant's wearer to millions of different objects to determine how they what the object tags are.
Why not build a well regulated state that only uses such powers in narrow circumstances?
I mean, you are sort of implying that installing a neural mesh would give you greater exposure to injustice than not doing so, so why not just fight the injustice to begin with?
Not believing that such a state is achievable is one thing, but you did say "in this reality".
I'm curious why you called it a neural mesh. I've never heard that term before and some searching doesn't result in anything. Is that something you made up?
I get it but this is some scary stuff that pushes the bounds of ethics. I mean, on one hand we want to prevent insurance fraud because it impacts everyone. On the other, where do we draw the line? Should we even have to consider that a pacemaker could be used to gather data about us before we consent to a pacemaker? It shouldn't. Now it is.
I don't see why this is scary. I think it's somewhat comparable to the police examining his clothes, for example, and finding no traces of sweat or smoke, which would make his story not credible. Or what about looking at how many steps a Fitbit recorded? If the pacemaker had a GPS or something embedded in it, that would be egregious, but a pacemaker collecting data on the pace it's making is expected, and the police should be able to look at it with a warrant. Police can access medical records with a warrant, and this is basically just a very recent medical record.
Suppose there was a criminal who claimed that, with a broken leg, they couldn't possibly have committed some act. Isn't it reasonable to get a warrant for the person's XRays in order to get hard evidence that the person was or was not incapacitated?
The scary part to me is the medical examiner. They are making a very advanced claim (that they can determine something definitive about what the person was or was not doing) based on the heart data. Given previous overreaches from forensic examiners, I'd want to see some actual research before chucking the person into jail.
> Should we even have to consider that a pacemaker could be used to gather data about us before we consent to a pacemaker? It shouldn't.
Your pacemaker gathers that data (exertion history over time) so that your doctor can view it after the fact and ask you "what were you doing last Thursday afternoon? The pacemaker says it was running extra high between 3:30 and 4:30."
I think most people would opt into such a device for their own health - in fact, many might wear it on their wrist and pair it with their phone.
This is just one more inflammatory example of why free software is necessary, especially in medical devices. It should not be possible for your computing devices to be used against you without your consent. For more on this area specifically, please watch this excellent talk by Karen Sandler: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcWlD2Y6HNM
At least police obtained the data through the proper channels, securing a search warrant. I can't think of an argument against this being valid and reasonable.
Same reason they can't make a spouse testify against you. The chilling effect would be problematic. (Or, if you want something more medical, why Physicians or Psychiatrists can't be force to testify against you.)
As a former medical person, and a current tech person; I'm sitting here wondering how I could write software that would allow me to get the data to help and protect my patient's health, while still protecting/limiting the data from things/actions like this one.
When helping my patients to make the decision of whether or not to have a pacemaker installed, I don't want them worrying if it's ever going to become evidence against them at some later date.
This was the reassuring part to me. Hey they can get a warrant to download your vehicle's "black box" history too. It would have alarmed me if they simply told the pacemaker service provider "this is a person of interest, give us all your data on them, oh and you can't tell anyone about this or we'll bring you up on treason charges." That is the kind of stuff that really bothers me.
I can, maybe. Is that pacemaker legally part of that man's body? If so, wouldn't this be requiring a man to testify against himself, and would a search warrant be appropriate? I don't think you can use one to force a DNA or HIV test, for example.
They found gasoline on his clothing, investigation revealed the fire started at multiple locations and he told 911 that "everyone was out of the house" but was heard over the phone telling someone to get out of here. So he was an idiot and got caught...
I wonder if he had any idea his pacemaker collected such data or that it could be used against him? Should patients be made aware of this risk when they're receiving the devices?
Apart from anything else, there's a delightful irony in that the device that (probably) kept him alive to be able to commit a crime was also responsible for catching him.
It sounds as though the doctors' evidence was fairly powerful regardless of the data from the pacemaker.
HIPAA is a federal EDI standard for healthcare providers and insurance companies that includes protections for patient safety and privacy as well as security mandates intended to protect the integrity and availability of the medical/insurance data collection and interchange processes. It has nothing to do with the lawful collection of evidence, and in fact specifically allows that:
They can't proof that you were wearing the device at the time of the incident. It's also possible to fake the data, either by letting someone else wear it or by spoofing the bluetooth device itself.
[+] [-] coreyp_1|9 years ago|reply
Data is as dangerous as it is helpful. The scary thing is that you cannot control how someone else will interpret your data.
[+] [-] kitbrennan|9 years ago|reply
The same evidence could of course be helpful to the driver. If their sleep tracking app shows they are well rested and their phone's use shows no distractions while driving, then they could use that as evidence to fight a charge of driving without due care and attention.
[+] [-] kordless|9 years ago|reply
There's no way in hell I'm ever hooking a computer up to my brain in this reality.
[+] [-] gene-h|9 years ago|reply
It could be really difficult to extract useful information from such hardware. Let's say we have a brain implant that maps a 3d scene concept to positions of objects in 3d space. So input scene foo gives me baz(1,1,1), bar(1,2,1), quz(1,3,3), etc.
Such stored data is next to useless if we don't know what the inputs and outputs map to. We don't know if scene foo is a scene of a desk or a scene of a movie and we don't know if baz is a book, a gun, or an open book, but the person's brain using the implant does. Determining what these mappings are could be very difficult. We may have to expose the implant's wearer to millions of different objects to determine how they what the object tags are.
[+] [-] ajross|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maxerickson|9 years ago|reply
I mean, you are sort of implying that installing a neural mesh would give you greater exposure to injustice than not doing so, so why not just fight the injustice to begin with?
Not believing that such a state is achievable is one thing, but you did say "in this reality".
[+] [-] driverdan|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] erikpukinskis|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wheaties|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] burkaman|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pedasmith|9 years ago|reply
Suppose there was a criminal who claimed that, with a broken leg, they couldn't possibly have committed some act. Isn't it reasonable to get a warrant for the person's XRays in order to get hard evidence that the person was or was not incapacitated?
The scary part to me is the medical examiner. They are making a very advanced claim (that they can determine something definitive about what the person was or was not doing) based on the heart data. Given previous overreaches from forensic examiners, I'd want to see some actual research before chucking the person into jail.
[+] [-] Avenger42|9 years ago|reply
Your pacemaker gathers that data (exertion history over time) so that your doctor can view it after the fact and ask you "what were you doing last Thursday afternoon? The pacemaker says it was running extra high between 3:30 and 4:30."
I think most people would opt into such a device for their own health - in fact, many might wear it on their wrist and pair it with their phone.
[+] [-] dublinben|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mywittyname|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grayhatter|9 years ago|reply
As a former medical person, and a current tech person; I'm sitting here wondering how I could write software that would allow me to get the data to help and protect my patient's health, while still protecting/limiting the data from things/actions like this one.
When helping my patients to make the decision of whether or not to have a pacemaker installed, I don't want them worrying if it's ever going to become evidence against them at some later date.
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jrowley|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Someone|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jokoon|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] snarf21|9 years ago|reply
They found gasoline on his clothing, investigation revealed the fire started at multiple locations and he told 911 that "everyone was out of the house" but was heard over the phone telling someone to get out of here. So he was an idiot and got caught...
[+] [-] nkrisc|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grayhatter|9 years ago|reply
Yes, if they find out via the internet, instead of the physician; now your patient doesn't trust you as much, and you can't do your job.
[+] [-] miguelrochefort|9 years ago|reply
What risk? The risk that the truth comes out? Give me a break.
[+] [-] vr46|9 years ago|reply
It sounds as though the doctors' evidence was fairly powerful regardless of the data from the pacemaker.
[+] [-] jordan9001|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 6stringmerc|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chaseha|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trekking101|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SN76477|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xenophonf|9 years ago|reply
https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/faq/505/what-doe...
[+] [-] _delirium|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kozak|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nom|9 years ago|reply