Whether it is trying to find out gifts ahead of time or trying to stop a terrorist, most people, at some point, find themselves in a situation where they wish they could read another person's mind. Thanks to the work of Northwestern University psychology professor J. Peter Rosenfeld, this fantasy is just a bit closer to becoming a reality.
A recent Wired article "How to Catch a Terrorist: Read His Brainwaves — Really?" describes how recordings of the brain's electrical activity were used to detect details of a hypothetical terrorist attack. The test caught the hypothetical terrorist 95 percent of the time, a success rate that, if replicated, could potentially allow the test to become legally admissible.
Although Rosenfeld is far from perfecting his methods, it is not too early to consider the possible, real-world applications of such technology.
Calling it a "dream of scientists, investigators and law enforcement professionals for years," it is clear that many hope this technology could be applied in law enforcement and counter-terror situations.
The use of such powerful technology should be restricted based on scientific and ethical grounds. Science is a messy, uncertain event, which uses statistics to see patterns and to try to deduce causation.
The real scientific problem is defining the acceptable statistic range. Many may claim a test with 95 percent accuracy at determining critical information is very accurate.
Yet the question is: Is this is accurate enough to use in a legal or interrogation setting? With the same 95 percent accuracy, there are still incorrect conclusions for one out of 20 subjects.
Given the literal life-and-death situations that arise in the courtroom or interrogation room, any real possibility of error is unacceptable. That is why many judges will both allow DNA fingerprinting to be admissible as evidence with its one-in-a-billion error and reject polygraph exam results.
Even if a flawless test could be created, the use of a brain wave test on interrogation targets is also wrong and should not be done.
In the Wired article, Rosenfeld wrote that he wants to see his technology applied to terrorist interrogation, saying a hypothetical terrorist suspect could either be sent to Egypt for the water board or be given a scientifically based test.
Unfortunately, the use of brain wave technology to detect deception is just as wrong as water boarding.
The involuntary use of brain wave technology violates the Fifth Amendment, which was passed to keep people from being "compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."
Water boarding is wrong because of the awful physical and psychological torment it causes. In the court of humanity, no one should be subject to such treatment.
The brain wave technology, like fMRI scanning, is just one of many emerging technologies that demand ethical consideration before being used. One can hope these and future technologies will be used in a humane and judicious manner to reach a deep understanding of our minds.
Reach Dan at djgarry@asu.edu
