Arguments Against Neuroprivacy

Neuroprivacy is an up and coming ethical problem that hasn’t been faced before. Now with MRI scanners that can tell if a person is lying neuroprivacy has become an issue. Neuroprivacy is the right to one’s own thoughts. The right to deny these noninvasive procedures. It was said in the article that the scanner was 90% accurate when telling if person was lying. In my eyes, I see it as being wrong 10% of the time. That, in my opinion, is not close enough, or accurate enough to truly tell what a person is thinking. If this scanner were to be integrated into government use, like the articles example of an airport, 10% of the people could be falsely accused for terrorism or other malicious acts. Although, I do believe something like this can serve a purpose in the government. In rare cases, it could be used to strengthen an already strong case concerning court matters. Like a lie detector test, but even more accurate. The government must regulate the power a scanner like this can hold and not allow it to become the judge.
I believe removing articles of clothing …show more content…
People are already fighting to hang onto any sort of privacy they can. It’s already possible to tell the trends of human actions without prying into a person’s mind to that extent. I also think it’s different than insurance companies that make comparisons between weight and vehicle complications. Once again, that’s dealing with something superficial and isn’t an invasion of privacy to observe. Digging into someone’s brain is a different deal. I’m positive it would help insurance companies better identify people who are a liability, but at what cost? Neuroprivacy is a real and relevant ethical issue and it shouldn’t be overlooked. The mind is a sacred place that shouldn’t have to be given up unless consent is