Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Neuroprivacy and the legal implications of brain

Expand Messages
  • Joschka Fisher
    If you want to skip the leader and go straight to the subject re: Neuroprivacy..skip down to the == marks below:
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 5, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      If you want to skip the leader and go straight to the
      subject re: Neuroprivacy..skip down to the == marks
      below:
      .................................................................

      Oi Gavolt! What a 6.7 months this has been! All that
      has been going on and without my big mouth sounding
      off:

      ***My Child support battles in court etc.

      ****My Poverty smirks ( as usual )

      ***The Usual thing at my secret Stanford Labs

      ***Talks at Stanford about Google secretly being
      run/controlled by the Pentagon's agenda.

      *** DARPA and other military granting organizations
      that are politically sensitive to what the researchers
      say about them such that they may pull your grant if
      they catch you bad-mouthing IRAQ on a blog somewhere.
      Pentagon having a "dis-informatzia department". At
      Nasa JPL a lot of our projects are now classified as
      secret - no matter what the subject and taken out of
      the hands of people who are not politically "favored"!

      ***the most amazing Legal career and powerbroker, New
      York State Attorney General Elliot Spitzer - who is
      actually dictating policy to businesses. ( get that
      you laissez faire types?) He's making them act
      responsibly (or else!)

      The equally amazing political career of a certain
      Virginia governor (Clinton-esque)

      Oh yea...have any of you made comments on a potential
      hydrogen economy's chances or noted the frightening
      fact that oil companies ( major ) have stopped doing
      explorations for almost 6-7 years now? How come?


      What's the connection between Corporations
      deliberately hurting people in East St. Louis,
      Illinois' minority population. (Political
      environmental pollution as genocide?)

      ...and George Bush's paramour in the political arena
      Condoleeza blossoming into a true fascist-in-waiting!

      Anyone check out Kurzweil's new book about
      "Singularities" iz on the way? ( sounds pluralistic!)

      How 'bout the two missing probes around mars? Were
      they lost in the same region? Is there a Bermuda
      triangle on Mars?

      I know you don't like me talking about this but
      business and legal contracts count as technology as
      well as iPODS. Given that - did any of you read or
      hear the latest almost post-mortem on the constitution
      by Dr. Lawrence Tribe ( Mr. Constitutional Law
      himself?) After all silicon valley's jealous grab on
      "innovation" takes place in a democratic environment.
      Tribe seems to think the constitution's days are
      numbered in this country. I HAD the letter but
      yahoo.fr deleted it cause I didn't touch my email for
      6 months.

      I'm trying to pull it out of the Paris,France or
      London England database again or from an anonymous
      constitutional lawyer friend.

      I may have to clear it with MARK Finnern about the
      ramifications of posting a private letter that may or
      may not be in the originator's desire or interest to
      post.

      Oh yea...recent decision by courts: Cell phone usage
      in public can't be deemed a non private conversation (
      therby not subject to a court order) but still
      agencies must get a judge's order before using
      location technology on a cell phone anyway since the
      call could be occuring in private circumstances ( you
      know like at home?).
      This stems out of the Ryders on the Telecommunications
      bill Bill Clinton signed that allowed phone tappingw
      w/o a court order and Bush's enhancement to locating
      and seizing the person if one of the participants in
      the conversation is a suspect for something that could
      be LOOSELY interpreted as a terrorist act!


      Can the quality of tests or what they mesure be wholly
      arbitrary and even ridiculous? Example: Former Dean
      of Stanford Law and Harvard Law Whiz kid Kathleen
      Sulllivan failed to pass her bar exam in California.
      So have a lot of top lawyers. Is designing a test that
      hardly anyone can pass a failure on the part of the
      tester or the stupidity of the designer? If so, what
      does that say about SAT and achievement tests and the
      testing going on in the K-12 systems of the USA, the
      criterion of the book: The Bell Curve, arguments
      against quotas and affirmative action, Republicans
      trying to quash statistic gathering on subjects they
      don't approve of, and other supposed mean-and-ends
      testing.
      Did Arthur Koestler, in the book Darkness at Noon sum
      up the horrors of inaappropriate means justifying the
      ends--even in a testing situation as "a useful lie is
      better than a harmful truth?"..but then in whose
      favor?

      ====================

      Neuroprivacy and the legal implications of brain
      imaging!

      http://www.nycbar.org/Publications/record/vol.%2060%20no.%202.pdf








      ___________________________________________________________________________
      Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger
      Téléchargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com
    • Steve Dekorte
      ... I don t understand this comment. laissez-faire types would have no problem with prosecuting fraud cases. Things like government granted monopolies and
      Message 2 of 2 , Dec 5, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        On 05-Dec-05, at PM 06:41, Joschka Fisher wrote:
        > ***the most amazing Legal career and powerbroker, New
        > York State Attorney General Elliot Spitzer - who is
        > actually dictating policy to businesses. ( get that
        > you laissez faire types?) He's making them act
        > responsibly (or else!)

        I don't understand this comment. "laissez-faire" types would have no
        problem with prosecuting fraud cases. Things like government granted
        monopolies and business subsidies (state mercantilism), government
        dictated price fixing and government managed social engineering
        projects are the sorts of policies that laissez-faire economists take
        issue with.

        -- Steve
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.