Perceived Access to Self-relevant Information Mediates Judgments of Privacy Violations in Neuromonitoring and Other Monitoring Technologies
- 324 Downloads
Advances in technology are bringing greater insight into the mind, raising a host of privacy concerns. However, the basic psychological mechanisms underlying the perception of privacy violations are poorly understood. Here, we explore the relation between the perception of privacy violations and access to information related to one’s “self.” In two studies using demographically diverse samples, we find that privacy violations resulting from various monitoring technologies are mediated by the extent to which the monitoring is thought to provide access to self-relevant information, and generally neuromonitoring did not rate among the more invasive monitoring types. However, brain monitoring was judged to be more of a privacy violation when described as providing access to self-relevant information than when no such access was possible, and control participants did not judge the invasiveness of neuromonitoring any differently than those told it provided no access to self-relevant information.
KeywordsPrivacy Self Neuroethics Self-identity Neuromonitoring
- 1.A.H., et al. v. Northside Independent School District, et al. 5:12-cv-01113-LOG US (Western District of Texas San Antonio Division, 2013).Google Scholar
- 2.Moore, A.D. 2003. Privacy: its meaning and value. American Philosophical Quarterly 40: 215–227.Google Scholar
- 3.Parent, W.A. 1983. Privacy, Morality, and the Law. Philosophy and Public Affairs 12: 269–288.Google Scholar
- 4.Parker, R.B. 1973. A definition of privacy. Rutgers Law Review 27: 275–296.Google Scholar
- 6.Leary MR, Tangney JP. 2005. Handbook of self and identity. In eds. Leary MR, Tangney JP, New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- 10.Parens E, Johnston J. 2007. Does it make sense to speak of neuroethics? Three problems with keying ethics to hot new science and technology. EMBO reports 8 Spec No: S61–4. Available: doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400992. Accessed 6 July 2012.
- 12.Wilfond BS, Ravitsky V. 2005. On the proliferation of bioethics sub-disciplines: do we really need “genethics” and “neuroethics”? The American Journal of Bioethics 5: 20–1; discussion W: 3–4. Available: doi:10.1080/15265160590960924. Accessed 16 June 2012.
- 17.Paolacci, G., J. Chandler, and P.G. Ipeirotis. 2010. Running experiments on amazon mechanical turk. Judgment and Decision Making 5: 411–419.Google Scholar
- 20.Leggett H. 2009. The next hacking frontier: Your brain? Wired.com. Available: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/07/neurosecurity/. Accessed 10 July 2012.
- 21.Wardlaw JM, O’Connell G, Shuler K, DeWilde J, Haley J, et al. 2011. “Can it read my mind?” - What do the public and experts think of the current (mis)uses of neuroimaging? PloS one 6: e25829. Available: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3186771&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract. Accessed 27 March 2012.
- 22.Covin R. 2012. Mind-reading advance lets brain scientists ‘eavesdrop’ on thoughts. Huffington Post.com. Available: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/01/mind-reading-breakthrough_n_1246752.html. Accessed 8 August 2012.
- 23.Duncan DE. 2012, April 3. iBrain, a device that can read thoughts—NYTimes.com. The New York Times D2.Google Scholar
- 24.Paul, A. M. March 18, 2012. Your brain on fiction. The New York times SR6. Available http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/opinion/sunday/the-neuroscience-of-your-brain-on-fiction.html?pagewanted=al. Accessed 6 July 2012
- 25.Venkataramanan, M. 2012. Brain-reading bike helmet shows how stress you are. Wired.com Available: http://www.wired.com/playbook/2012/11/mit-media-lab-bike-helmet/. Accessed 11 November 2012.