Tech | April 08, 2008 | 6 comments

Mind Control Advertising?

source: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/16-04/st_thompson

Image
jcwelker
Trolling down the street in Manhattan, I suddenly hear a woman's voice.

"Who's there? Who's there?" she whispers. I look around but can't figure out where it's coming from. It seems to emanate from inside my skull.

Was I going nuts? Nope. I had simply encountered a new advertising medium: hypersonic sound. It broadcasts audio in a focused beam, so that only a person standing directly in its path hears the message. In this case, the cable channel A&E was using the technology to promote a show about, naturally, the paranormal.

I'm a geek, so my first reaction was, "Cool!" But it also felt creepy.

We think of our brains as the ultimate private sanctuary, a zone where other people can't intrude without our knowledge or permission. But its boundaries are gradually eroding. Hypersonic sound is just a portent of what's coming, one of a host of emerging technologies aimed at tapping into our heads. These tools raise a fascinating, and queasy, new ethical question: Do we have a right to "mental privacy"?
I'd love to give you answers. But the truth is no one knows. Privacy rights vary from state to state, and it's unclear how, or even if, the protections would apply to mental sanctity. "We really need to articulate a moral code that governs all this," warns Arthur Caplan, a University of Pennsylvania bioethicist.

The good news is that scholars are holding conferences to hash out legal positions. But we'll need a broad public debate about it, too. Civil liberties thrive only when the public demands them — and understands they're at risk. That means we need to stop seeing this stuff as science fiction and start thinking about how we'll react to it. Otherwise, we could all lose our minds.
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Politics,   Tech,   15 more
  2. tags:
    News,  News and Politics,  Politics,  Culture,  30 more
  3.     
    |

6 comments // Mind Control Advertising?

  • remanns
  • Azzers
    • 0
      Azzers  

    • We've lost enough privacy already. Privacy should not be exchanged for security, especially when the security we get in return sucks anyway. Did cctv prevent the death of this man? No.

    • 2 years ago
  • kylewithac
    • 0
      kylewithac  
    • Azzers:

      I agree 100% about the stupidity of trading privacy for security. But don't you think it is good that this man's killer will be easily identified and thrown in prison?

    • 2 years ago
  • Azzers
    • 0
      Azzers  
    • Azzers:

      Yes I have to agree with you there

      But a lot of the time its useful for catching the criminals AFTER the crime has taken place, but it doesn't actually offer real security.

      We need REAL security. I just think it would be better to try and find alternatives to just sticking up a camera up. I'm sick of constantly being monitored. Call me paranoid, but someday I reckon all this technology will be used against us to oppress us.

    • 2 years ago
  • remanns
    • 0
      remanns  
    • Image

    • Strangeness is coming.-------------
      Let's say you've been assaulted and you want to take propranolol to delete the memory. The state needs that memory to prosecute the assailant. Can it prevent you from taking the drug? "To a certain extent, memories are societal properties," says Adam Kolber, a visiting professor at Princeton. "Society has always made claims on your memory, such as subpoenaing you."

    • 2 years ago
more from Tech:
from the community

top videos