, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 5–12 | Cite as

Brain Imaging and Privacy

Original paper


I will argue that the fairly common assumption that brain imaging may compromise people’s privacy in an undesirable way only if moral crimes are committed is false. Sometimes persons’ privacy is compromised because of failures of privacy. A normal emotional reaction to failures of privacy is embarrassment and shame, not moral resentment like in the cases of violations of right to privacy. I will claim that if (1) neuroimaging will provide all kinds of information about persons’ inner life and not only information that is intentionally searched for, and (2) there will be more and more application fields of fMRI and more and more people whose brains will be scanned (without any coercion), then, in the future, shame may be an unfortunately common feeling in our culture. This is because failures of privacy may dramatically increase. A person may feel shame strongly and long, especially if his failure is witnessed by people who he considers relatively important, but less than perfectly trustworthy.


Privacy Brain imaging Shame 



This paper is based on my lecture at the Dalhousie University, Halifax, in September 2009. I would like to thank James Bernat (Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center), Walter Glannon (University of Calgary), Eric Racine (University of Montreal) and Jukka Varelius (University of Turku) for helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. I would also like to express my gratitude to the anonymous referee of Neuroethics.


  1. 1.
    Faraf, Martha J., and Paul Root Wolpe. 2004. Monitoring and manipulating brain function. Hastings Center Report 34: 35–45. esp. 39.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kennedy, Donald. 2004. Neuroscience and neuroethics. Science 306: 373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tovino, Stacey A. 2005. Currents in contemporary ethics: the confidentiality and privacy implications of functional magnetic resonance imaging. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 33: 844–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Illes, Judy, and Eric Racine. 2005. Imaging or imagining? Neuroethics challenge informed by genetics. The American Journal of Bioethics 5: 5–18. esp. 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wolpe, Paul Root, et al. 2005. Emerging neurotechnologies for lie-detection: promises and perils. The American Journal of Bioethics 5: 39–49. esp. 46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fischbach, Ruth L. 2005. The brain doesn’t lie. The American Journal of Bioethics 5: 54–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Levy, Neil. 2007. Neuroethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ch. 4.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kahane, Guy. 2008. Brain imaging and the inner life. The Lancet 371: 1572–1573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Simpson, Joseph R. 2008. Functional MRI lie detection: too good to be true? The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 36: 491–498. esp. 496.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Greely, Henry T. 2004. Prediction, litigation, privacy, and property. In Neuroscience and the law, ed. Brent Garland. New York: Dana.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eaton, Margaret L., and Judy Illes. 2007. Commercializing cognitive neurotechnology—the ethical terrain. Nature Biotechonology 25: 393–397. esp. 395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Glannon, Walter. 2006. Neuroethics. Bioethics 20: 37–52. esp. 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Farah, Martha J., et al. 2008. Brain imaging and brain privacy: a realistic concern? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 21: 119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Velleman, J.David. 2001. The genesis of shame. Philosophy and Public Affairs 30: 27–52. esp. 38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gross, H. 1991. Privacy and autonomy. In Philosophy of Law, ed. J. Feinberg and H. Gross. Wadsworth: Belmont.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leary, Mark R. 1996. Self-presentation: Impression management and interpersonal behavior, 40. Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schoeman, Ferninand. 1984. Privacy and intimate information. In Philosophical dimensions of privacy: An anthology, ed. F.D. Schoeman, 403–418. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. esp. 408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rachels, James. 1975. Why privacy is important. Philosophy & Public Affairs 4: 323–333. esp. 327.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior, 108. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gofman, Erving. 1982. The presentation of self in everyday life. Penguin Books, Reading.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    James, William. 1983. The principles of psychology, 281. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Simmel, Georg. 1965. The sociology of Georg Simmel, 312. New York: Free.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nagel, Thomas. 1998. Concealment and exposure. Philosophy & Public Affairs 27: 3–30. esp. 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gavison, Ruth. 1980. Privacy and the limits of law. The Yale Law Journal 89: 421–471. esp. 453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ryan, Alan. 1991. The theatrical model and concern for privacy. In Philosophy of law, ed. J. Feinberg and H. Gross, 346–348. Belmont: Wadsworth. esp.347.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Taylor, Gabriele. 1985. Pride, shame, and guilt: Emotions of self-assessment. Oxford: Clarendon. Ch. III.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Williams, Bernard. 1993. Shame and necessity. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Räikkä, Juha. 2004. On irrational guilt. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 7: 473–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cocking, Dean. 2008. Plural selves and relational identity. In Information technology and moral philosophy, ed. J. van den Hoven and J. Weckert, 123–141. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. esp. 128–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ekman, Paul. 1985. Telling lies—clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Farah, Martha J. 2005. Neuroethics: the practical and the philosophical. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9: 34–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Farah, Martha J. 2007. Emerging ethical issues in neuroscience. In Defining right and wrong in brain science, ed. W. Glannon, 19–36. New York: Dana. esp. 28.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Posner, Richard A. 1991. An economic theory of privacy. In Philosophy of law, ed. J. Feinberg and H. Gross, 349–356. Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Parent, W.A. 1983. Privacy, morality, and the law. Philosophy & Public Affairs 12: 269–288. esp. 276.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    DeCew, Judith. 1997. In pursuit of privacy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Meeler, David. 2008. The Monist 91: 151–169.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tavani, Herman T. 2008. Floridi’s ontological theory of informational privacy. Ethics and Information Technology 10: 155–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Räikkä, Juha. 2008. Is privacy relative? Journal of Social Philosophy 39: 534–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wasserstrom, Richard A. 1984. Privacy: Some arguments and assumptions. In Philosophical dimensions of privacy: An anthology, ed. F.D. Schoeman, 317–332. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kant, Immanuel. 1996. Anthropology from a pragmatic point of view. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. 250.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Reid, Lynette, and Françoise Baylis. 2005. Brains, genes, and the making of the self. The American Journal of Bioethics 5: 21–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kulynych, Jennifer. 2002. Legal and ethical issues in neuroimaging research. Brain and Cognition 50: 345–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Garland, Brent (ed.). 2004. Neuroscience and the law. New York: Dana.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kerr, Ian, and Jena McGill. 2007. Emanations, snoop dogs and reasonable expectations of privacy. Criminal Law Quarterly 52: 392–432.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Uttal, William R. 2008. Neuroscience in the courtroom. Tuscon: Lawyers & Judges.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Adams, Robert Merrihew. 1985. Involuntary sins. The Philosophical Review 94: 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations