Marcus,
Have a look in the new New Yorker about the article on the new civil commitment laws re sexual deviants.
I can both not want these folks living down the block AND be horrified by what We The People are doing to them. It is the luxury of liberalism to be ambivalent.
It’s all very VERY hard.
Nick
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 1:36 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
On 1/15/13 10:54 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
Who do we become when we do not respect the boundaries of others? Who are we as a society when we allow or encourage others to transgress? I understand the arguments for Law Enforcement and Intelligence and Security *wanting* to spy on people freely... to restrict the use of cryptography, etc. but they don't outweigh the risk of who we become when we do these things.
When a person visits the doctor, information shared is privileged. If the doctor does not treat it as such, the doctor's career is put at risk. It's a good incentive to keep quiet.
So imagine a world in which brain scans become much more sophisticated, and that certain dangerous mental health problems could be diagnosed with high accuracy, and also treated. Because of fear of mass shootings, etc., Americans make it law that scans be done on all, and that appropriate treatments be employed. For the sake of argument, suppose it's all handled methodically and in a secure fashion.
Should we expect that the therapists and psychiatrists involved in this hypothetical process would suffer themselves for not respecting boundaries of individuals' psychological spaces? In current practice they would be invited inside the boundary by the patient and so presumably that's different. I think it is an adjustment health providers would make without much trouble. It would be a professional analytical activity.
Marcus
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |