Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Privacy, neuroimaging and public policy
Privacy, neuroimaging and public policy
Privacy, neuroimaging and public policy
Privacy, neuroimaging and public policy
Privacy, neuroimaging and public policy
Privacy, neuroimaging and public policy
Privacy, neuroimaging and public policy
Privacy, neuroimaging and public policy
Privacy, neuroimaging and public policy
Privacy, neuroimaging and public policy
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Privacy, neuroimaging and public policy

1,456

Published on

Presented at Neuroethics, UCL, 8 May 2009 …

Presented at Neuroethics, UCL, 8 May 2009
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/silva/cpjh/neuroethics-conference

Published in: Technology, News & Politics
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,456
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • http://neurologicalcorrelates.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/brain-scan-guesses.jpg
  • Transcript

    • 1. Privacy, neuroimaging and public policy Dr Ian Brown, OII
    • 2. Overview
      • Definitions of privacy
      • National security
      • Criminal justice
      • Education and employment
      • Healthcare and insurance
      • Marketing and persuasion
      • In long-term, what does neuroimaging normatively change, esp. given behavioural and genetic information?
    • 3. Definitions of privacy
      • “ the right to be let alone — the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men” ( Olmstead v US , Brandeis dissenting 1928)
      • “ This Fundamental Right insofar authorizes each individual to determine on the circulation and the use of his own personal data. A limitation of this Right on ‘Informational Self-Determination’ will only be allowed in the case of prevalent public interest.” (German Constitutional Court 1983)
    • 4. National security
      • Surveillance: targeted v mass; 1984
      • Torture: efficiency v inefficiency, slippery slope, reciprocity/consistency, long-term damage and dignity
    • 5. Criminal justice
      • Identification of criminal tendencies
        • Family situation and childhood behaviour
        • Self-fulfilling prophecies
      • Self-incrimination
        • False confessions and prisoner abuse
        • Polygraphs and truth serums
      • Evidential value
        • Accuracy and persuasiveness
      • Responsibility and culpability
      • Potential for and consequences of recidivism
        • National DNA Database
    • 6. Education and employment
      • Selection
        • Based on some measure of g or specific task performance, correlated with response speed?
        • Personality profiles (patience, determination, creativity, fearlessness)
        • Predictive quality and discrimination
      • Performance measurement
        • Professional autonomy v clocking in, communications surveillance ( Halford v UK )
      • Disciplinary action
        • Ability to take risks and make mistakes essential to development of personality
        • Can morality develop without ability to do wrong? (Brownsword & Yeung 2008)
    • 7. Healthcare and insurance
      • Earlier diagnoses and improved treatment of mental illness
        • More specific but definite diagnoses of personality disorders?
      • Incidental Findings
        • Notification of untreatable disease
      • Compliance
        • Compulsory treatment
      • Actuarial discrimination already permitted
    • 8. Marketing and persuasion
      • “ Persuasive” product and marketing design based on understanding of neural bases of consumer preferences
      • Subliminal advertising
        • Regulation preceded demonstration of efficacy
      • Broadcasting regulation
        • “ Persuasive nature” of audiovisual content is one justification for eg German system
      • Manchurian candidates
        • Politics has driven development of opinion polling
    • 9. What does neuroimaging change?
      • (Potentially) much greater insight into inner life of individuals – to a qualitatively different degree to existing behavioural and genetic monitoring technologies?
      • Sector-specific regulation developing through courts, RECs, healthcare purchasers etc.
      • Very little cross-sectoral regulation has yet emerged – likely for foreseeable future to come under Data Protection Directive and Charter of Fundamental Rights in EU
      • Abstract appeals to autonomy and dignity have minimal impact on the political process, although greater influence on constitutional courts
    • 10. References
      • R Anderson, I Brown, T Dowty, P Inglesant, W Heath & A Sasse (2009) Database State , Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust
      • I Brown & D Korff (2004) Privacy and law enforcement , Information Commissioner’s Office
      • R Brownsword & K Yeung, eds. (2008) Regulating Technologies , Hart
      • House of Lords Constitution Committee (2009) Surveillance: Citizens and the State , HL Paper 18-1
      • J Illes, ed. (2006) Neuroethics , OUP

    ×