Daily Bulletin

The Conversation

  • Written by Paul McGorrery, PhD Candidate in Criminal Law, Deakin University

There is growing interest in the potential for a technology known as brain fingerprinting to be used in the fight against crime and terrorism, but it’s far from reliable.

Its use without consent violates human rights. And importantly, the technology (as it currently exists) can be tricked.

Brain fingerprinting seeks to detect deception by essentially reading thoughts. It works by using electroencephelography (EEG) to read the electrical activity of the brain, with the aim of trying to identify a phenomenon known as the P300 response.

Read More: Can we predict who will turn to crime?

The P300 response is a noticeable spike in the brain’s electrical activity, which usually occurs within one-third of a second of being shown a familiar stimulus. The idea is that our subconscious brain has an uncontrollable and measurable response to familiar stimuli that the machine can register.

Imagine, for example, that a particular knife was used in a murder, and police show an image of it to their lead suspect who denies the crime. If the suspect registers a P300 response and thus a positive recognition of the knife, this would seem to suggest he’s lying. Alternatively, if the suspect doesn’t register a positive recognition, maybe police have the wrong guy.

It isn’t hard to see why this procedure might be enticing for law enforcement, but, as I explored in a recent journal article, they should be wary.

Human rights concerns

Most Australians would agree that they have a right to privacy, a right not to incriminate themselves, and a right to freedom of thought. Brain fingerprinting threatens all three.

The right to privacy usually protects us from police intrusions without a warrant into our home, our car, our body, or (at least in the United States) our mobile phone. It seems almost obvious that if we have privacy in these physical things, then surely we deserve privacy in our innermost thoughts.

As Tim Robbins said in The Shawshawnk Redemption:

There are places in the world that aren’t made out of stone … there’s something inside that they can’t get to and they can’t touch. That’s yours.

The Shawshank Redemption.

The right against self-incrimination, otherwise known as the right to silence, protects us from being compelled to bear witness against ourselves if doing so might implicate us in a crime. Surely it should also protect us from someone reaching in and taking our thoughts by force.

We also expect to have freedom of thought.

This right has not received much attention from courts, but until recently the idea that anyone could tamper with or steal our thoughts was more science fiction than fact. This is no longer the case.

In 2011, for example, researchers at the University of California were able to teach a computer to reconstruct a video someone was watching based only on their brain signals, and the results were remarkable.

Movie reconstruction from human brain activity.

But if brain fingerprinting were to become a part of the police’s investigative toolkit, this could force suspects to take the extreme step of trying to erase or suppress their memories.

Which brings us to our next question: can we suppress or erase our memories?

Tricking the technology

Around Australia, most jurisdictions expressly prohibit the use of polygraph evidence in court proceedings, in large part because of how fallible the technology is. It can be tricked by anyone with a thumb tack.

Brain fingerprinting was supposed to fix this issue. If you read someone’s subconscious brain responses before they have a chance to alter their physiology, theoretically they shouldn’t be able to trick the machine.

But there are already two plausible ways to do so.

First, research now suggests that a person can intentionally suppress their memories and reduce the chances of the brain fingerprinting machine registering a positive response.

Second, researchers have discovered that beta-blockers such as propranolol (which was originally used to treat heart disease) can sometimes block memory formation. Theoretically, a wily offender could take the drug after committing a crime and effectively erase (or at least dull) their memory of the event.

For anyone interested in testing this theory, the technology’s inventor Larry Farwell has apparently offered US$100,000 to anyone who can “beat” a brain fingerprinting test.

image A boy who was addicted to the internet, has his brain scanned for research purposes at Daxing Internet Addiction Treatment Center in Beijing February 22, 2014. REUTERS/Kim Kyung-Hoon

Courts should steer clear

Worryingly, it’s possible that brain fingerprinting could be used in Australia to contribute to the “tough on crime” rhetoric. The headlines practically write themselves: “Got away with it? Think again!”.

Indeed, researchers in New Zealand are currently hoping that their research into brain fingerprinting might have the potential to help police solve crimes.

Read More: Virtual child pornography could both help and hinder law enforcement

And there may very well be situations where this sort of technology can be useful – for example, as a means of narrowing down the likely location of an imminent terrorist attack.

But extreme caution is needed. This technology has the potential to violate fundamental human rights, and because it has not yet proved itself to be infallible, it is simply too soon to start making Orwellian thought crimes a reality.

Police should be wary of using brain fingerprinting to investigate crime. And, at least for now, courts should be opposed to admitting brain fingerprinting evidence in criminal proceedings.

Authors: Paul McGorrery, PhD Candidate in Criminal Law, Deakin University

Read more http://theconversation.com/mind-reading-technology-should-not-be-used-to-solve-crime-83874

Writers Wanted

Diverse spokespeople and humour: how the government's next ad campaign could boost COVID vaccine uptake


Let's talk about what each uni does, but don't make it a choice between teaching or research


The Advantages Of Using Betting Apps in Australia


The Conversation


Prime Minister interview with Karl Stefanovic and Allison Langdon

Karl Stefanovic: PM, good morning to you. Do you have blood on your hands?   PRIME MINISTER: No, it's obviously absurd. What we're doing here is we've got a temporary pause in place because we'v...

Karl Stefanovic and Allison Langdon - avatar Karl Stefanovic and Allison Langdon

Prime Minister Scott Morrison delivered Keynote Address at AFR Business Summit

Well, thank you all for the opportunity to come and be with you here today. Can I also acknowledge the Gadigal people, the Eora Nation, the elders past and present and future. Can I also acknowled...

Scott Morrison - avatar Scott Morrison

Morrison Government commits record $9B to social security safety net

The Morrison Government is enhancing our social security safety net by increasing support for unemployed Australians while strengthening their obligations to search for work.   From March the ...

Scott Morrison - avatar Scott Morrison

Business News

Boom in Aussies buying up restaurants, pubs, hotels and bars in regional centres

With international borders closed, regional Australia is seeing a dramatic surge in popularity as people move out of the cities and into their quaint communities. City slickers are looking for new...

Tess Sanders Lazarus - avatar Tess Sanders Lazarus

5 Signs Your Business Needs Onboarding Software

Onboarding software is the technology that automates a smooth transition for new hires from before the interview to the first day on the job. High-quality onboarding platforms feature a digital da...

Onboarded - avatar Onboarded

What Is COVID 19 Risk Assessment for Vulnerable Workers and Why Your Business Needs it

During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, governments strongly advised people to just stay at home as a critical effort to stop the spread of the virus. This led to many businesses temporarily s...

NewsServices.com - avatar NewsServices.com