Privacy, neuroimaging and public policy

Privacy, neuroimaging and public policy Dr Ian Brown, OII

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?

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)

National security
Surveillance: targeted v mass; 1984
Torture: efficiency v inefficiency, slippery slope, reciprocity/consistency, long-term damage and dignity

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

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)

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

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

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

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

http://dooooooom.blogspot.com	44
http://dooooooom.blogspot.co.uk	2
http://dooooooom.blogspot.it	2
http://www.slideshare.net	1

Privacy, neuroimaging and public policy

by Ian Brown on May 09, 2009

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

4 Embeds 49

Statistics

Privacy, neuroimaging and public policy — Presentation Transcript