Why do people need freedom

Nineteenth-century technological advances spurred legal resistance that yielded the new conception of a right to mental privacy Warren and Brandeis, Today, twenty-first century technological advances pose new threats to FoT.

These demand we clearly draw the contours of the right to FoT to ensure our mental autonomy in this new landscape. This process needs to be informed by developments in the psychological understanding of thought. As such, this paper will consider, in an interdisciplinary manner, what the right to FoT should be in the twenty-first century. Humans bleed data. For the longest time, it seeped into the earth where it fell or was washed away by the tides of time.

Now, new technologies capture and store it indefinitely. Technology behemoths, such as Facebook and Google, possess unprecedented troves of user data. Data-analytic companies hold thousands of data points on millions of people e. National security agencies can access even greater volumes of data Greenwald, This data can now be analyzed, using advanced machine learning algorithms, to infer unobservable inner states of individuals.

This is utilized for financial and political ends. Micro-targeting uses personality data gathered on individuals to target them with political adverts which should, in theory, be maximally effective. This was at the heart of the Cambridge Analytica scandal Cadwalladr, Whilst the effect of micro-targeting in changing political views is probably small Hersh and Schaffner, ; Liberini et al. In close political contests, this could have decisive effects.

Whilst it is always difficult to separate political bluster and marketing spiels from fact, the use of behavior-reading poses a potential threat to the FoT of technology users. A century ago, U. Today, we need to address big tech's use of other people's data. Whilst some work has studied how political stances can be predicted from brain structure Kanai et al. Early studies were able to predict with a high degree of accuracy what type of pre-defined object face, house, cat, etc.

Technology can now use people's neural activity to predict what novel images people are viewing Kay et al. Neuroimaging could once only create rudimental reconstructions of what an individual was seeing Miyawaki et al.

Brain imaging data can also be used to decode what people are hearing Mirkovic et al. Research has also attempted to infer individuals' verbal thoughts from their neural Martin et al. Neural activity when people mime speech can now be directly converted into recognizable speech Anumanchipalli et al. A major advance has been the ability to decode thoughts individuals are having which the decoding system has not previously been trained to recognize Anderson et al.

Such approaches work on the principle that words are represented in the brain as semantic vectors. That is, any word can be represented by the extent it is associated with a finite number of specific features Anderson et al.

Each word in a basic 30, word vocabulary can be represented by a unique pattern of scores on these vectors.

Once you know the neural activity associated with each of these features, you can potentially decode any word someone thinks. Basic intentions can be decoded too Haynes et al. It is even possible to predict what participants will do for very basic tasks before they themselves know Soon et al. The ability to use this information to predict people's intentions in real-time is still limited.

For example, the ability to predict people's intentions from their brain activity whilst they are playing a first-person shooter computer game in a scanner is currently limited to predicting intended movements.

Intentions to fire cannot be detected due to the neural signal being swamped by a surge of activation associated with the emotions of firing or being fired upon Smith, Much of this work is preliminary, with accurate predictions only being possible under highly constrained experimental conditions. Yet funding is pouring in. Significant private investment is also occurring. Facebook has announced plans for a Brain Computer Interface that aims to decode users' thoughts and transmit them to Facebook Solon, , and is actively funding research in this area Anumanchipalli et al.

Microsoft has patented brain-reading technology Keskin et al. Elon Musk's start-up, Neuralink, is also trying to develop brain-computer interfaces Marsh, Progress could be rapid and have profound implications for FoT. The law has long sensed the potential for technological advances to threaten FoT.

United States , In the s, U. Roe , Such threats have now either materialized or are imminent Hanson et al. Considering the implications of such technological developments for the right to FoT is one such crucial task. A clear justification for this is offered by the precautionary principle. Philosophical investigations of mental autonomy mirror this Metzinger, As the purpose of FoT is to facilitate mentally autonomous individuals, discussions of the right to FoT need to track this approach.

It will hence be important to identify the key elements of thought that enable mental autonomy. Metzinger has proposed these are attentional agency and cognitive agency. Attentional agency is the ability to control one's focus of attention. This ability is under increasing threat as social media uses insights from the behavioral sciences to design products that more and more effectively hijack and retain attention Eyal, ; Pandey, , to the point of addiction Kuss and Griffiths, The negative effects of this can be specific.

The hijacking of parent's attention by smartphones can have detrimental effects on their families Kildare and Middlemiss, However, there is also a wider problem; the person who cannot control their attention cannot control their thoughts. An essential element of cognitive agency is the second-order mental action. To act on these, without reflection, is to fail display autonomy.

They allow us to structure our thoughts, undertake logical trains of thought, and guide our behavior Metzinger, The ability to perform second-order mental actions should hence form a key target for protection by the right to FoT.

They propose that mind extends into the world. For them, the use of pen-and-paper to perform calculations or the re-arrangement of Scrabble tiles to make words, constitutes thinking.

For example, in someone with dementia, a notebook could be functionally equivalent to memory. In order for X to be classified as part of the extended mind, Clark and Chalmers propose three criteria: 1 X is a constant in the person's life and they will rarely take action without consulting it; 2 the information from X is directly available without difficulty; and, 3 upon retrieving information from X it is automatically endorsed. In Clark and Chalmers argued internet use was likely to fail to meet these criteria.

Yet today, a case can be made that, when questions arise, much of the population will typically consult a search engine e. Internet searches have become thought.

The right to FoT should protect thought wherever it is found, not just in the head. This is important because if external thinking e. If it is deemed thought, then it will be protected by the absolute right of FoT. Any court that recognized the existence of external thought would be setting a highly impactful precedent. The extensive literature on factors that affect human decision making Cialdini, includes the suggestion of two distinctly different systems that we possess for making decisions Kahneman, Its speed comes at the cost of accuracy.

Its cost slower decision making can be offset by its increased accuracy. Attempts by governments and corporations to encourage citizens to use rule-of-thumb thinking, bypassing rule-of-reason thinking, could potentially violate the right to FoT. Knowledge of what influences decision making is already being used by the state to influence behaviors.

The commercial use of such knowledge to manipulate consumer's thoughts and behaviors is more ethically problematic Ariely and Berns, Research into biases in human decision making have been utilized by the private sector to enhance the probability of consumers making purchases Eyal, These techniques take advantage of foibles of the human mind, rather than engaging with rational faculties to encourage purchasing behavior.

This arguably raises issues relating to FoT. Social networking companies also make use of behavioral science insights. Their business models are based primarily on advertising income, motivating them to maximize the time people spend using their product.

Sean Parker, the first president of Facebook, recently discussed the thinking that went into building this social network. Social networking sites achieve this by methods including variable reward reinforcement schedules Ferster and Skinner, , deployed in the context of providing information relevant to our fundamental need to belong Baumeister and Leary, and desire for social status Anderson et al. In summary, our concept of what thought is and how the mind works have important implications for our conception of what the right to FoT should be.

Before turning to a further consideration of these issues, there is the need to examine how the right to FoT is currently conceptualized. Today, it is a staple of most international human rights treaties. In the United States, whilst elements of the Fourth and Fifth Amendment pertain to FoT, it is primarily the First Amendment that is understood to protect an individual's thought from Government interference Richards, City of Lafayette, Indiana , and the U.

Detroit Board of Education , This means it cannot be interfered with in any circumstances. However, whilst one view of the First Amendment is that it protects thought itself, another view is that it only protects thought when intertwined with expression Kolber, Furthermore, U.

Finkel , For example, Doe v. The profound importance given to this right by the law contrasts with an almost complete lack of law clarifying what it actually entails. Yet the right appears to be so profound as to deter any attempts at actually defining it. Similarly, the U. Supreme Court has never stated exactly what the right to FoT is Blitz, This lack of development appears to be because the mind has not traditionally been conceived as an entity vulnerable to external intrusions or interference and has hence not been viewed as in need of legal protection Bublitz and Merkel, ; Richards, This view can be seen in when the U.

A useful way to frame an exploration of the limited case law and scholarly writing on FoT is through Vermeulen's non-binding commentary on Article 9 of the ECHR. Vermeulen proposes the right to FoT has three key elements; a right not to reveal one's thoughts, a right not to have one's thoughts manipulated, and a right not to be penalized for one's thoughts. I will utilize this framework, exploring, for each element, descriptive aspects what does law say about this right , normative aspects why should this right exist , and contemporary challenges that will need to be taken into account when developing the right.

In the United States the concept of mental privacy developed in the late nineteenth century from laws surrounding physical privacy. Since this time U. Georgia , Case law is sometimes unclear which of these Articles violations of mental privacy should be understood as involving e. Norway , If given by the right to FoT, it will be an absolute right. If given by the right to privacy, it would have to be balanced against other concerns. Mental privacy can be defined as our ability to determine for ourselves when, how, and to what extent information about our thoughts is communicated to others cf.

Westin, It reflects the idea there is a contextually dependent boundary between ourselves and others that must be respected Richards, One argument for mental privacy is that it serves a protective function, defending us from distress at each other's less laudable thoughts and inclinations Nagel, Another is that it facilitates intimacy, allowing us to choose to only bring certain individuals into our inner world, thereby acting as a marker of esteem or love Nagel, However, the strongest argument for a right to mental privacy is that without it our mental autonomy would be diminished.

This is because exposure of our thoughts would effectively alter them by pressurizing us not to think certain things.

The argument that mental privacy is necessary for mental autonomy rests on two claims. The first is that if we cannot keep our thoughts private then we will experience conformity pressures to think in a certain way.

The second is that this pressure will cause self-censorship, impairing mental autonomy. What evidence is there for these claims? We are clearly motivated to make our observable behaviors conform to social norms. Normative conformity adjusting one's behavior in order to fit in with the majority has been extensively documented and appears to exist because it serves three purposes Cialdini and Goldstein, It generally enhances accuracy of decision making, enhances social approval leading to greater access to resources, and helps enhance, repair, and protect self-esteem Cialdini and Goldstein, Conformity hence offers significant survival benefits.

As a result, our brains have evolved to motivate us to conform. The brain recognizes when we are deviating from social norms and reduces activation in areas associated with reward e. Failing to conform is associated with increased activity in the amygdala, the brain's fear center Berns et al. Thus, if our thoughts were made or threatened to be made public against our will, we would experience biologically rooted pressures to conform them to social norms.

Would such pressures lead our thoughts to conform? It is well-established that conformity pressures often result in people conforming their speech and behavior to group norms Asch, Yet, behaviors are something we can reflect upon and potentially change. As we do not consciously choose our first-order thoughts, how could we make them conform to a standard? Mental conformity could firstly occur by a conscious process of inhibiting thoughts as they arise.

People use a range of techniques to control such thoughts, including punishment, worry, distraction, social control, and reappraisal Wells and Davies, Yet mental conformity could also occur by non-conscious mechanisms.

For example, Eriksen and Kuethe presented participants with a list of 15 words, and asked them to free associate other words related to these.

Five of the words participants generated were followed by electric shocks. They were then asked to free associate with the same words again, but this time with no shock. It was found that participants showed a decrease in responding with the words that were punished by electric shock earlier. Some were not aware that the shocks were why they were doing this. Mental conformity can hence occur through an insidious, non-conscious process of self-censorship. Evidence of self-censorship in a democracy as a result of violation of mental privacy can already be found if as argued above we accept that internet searches represent thought.

A chilling effect on individual's internet search behavior was found to result from the June revelations of large-scale internet surveillance of individuals, as part of the information divulged by Edward Snowden. In this study, Marthews and Tucker collected data on internet search term volume before and after June This should form an important pillar of the right to FoT. Arguments against mental privacy are centered on benefits which pale by comparison to what would be lost if this right vanished.

Richmond notes a potential benefit to making minds more transparent is the normalization of abhorrent first-order thoughts, reducing self-stigma and shame. Yet, this could equally well be done by other less intrusive means, such as public education McCarthy-Jones, Opponents of data privacy argue that the more information that marketers have, the better they can serve consumers and the less intrusive they need to be Cohen, Both law and economics view one party having more knowledge than another as being inefficient as it hinders fully informed exchanges Cohen, Privacy, by acting as a barrier to prediction which is central to surveillance capitalism , becomes a barrier to efficiency.

Furthermore, this case against mental privacy is an economic one, not a moral one. Indeed, without privacy we would, to a meaningful extent, not exist at all. We have a natural ability to work out, to some degree, what others are thinking. In a typically developing child the basic form of ToM develops at around four-years-old Wellman et al. The evolution of ToM, which only exists in its full blown form in humans, was presumably driven by the benefits of being able to predict another's behavior Shultz and Dunbar, As humans evolved the ability to work out others were thinking, this created selection pressures for the ability to conceal one's thoughts from another.

This in turn put selection pressures on the ability to detect deception. It turns out that our ability to lie is significantly better than our ability to detect lying. Adults can only detect lies told by children at a rate slightly better than chance Gongola et al. Even as children we have a powerful ability to encrypt our inner world. However, the development of brain- and behavior-reading techniques threaten to disturb the delicate balance between our evolved ability to know other's thoughts yet to also shield our inner world.

Greece , In addition, internet-use is so ubiquitous today that individuals may feel they have no choice but to surrender their data for behavior-reading, in exchange for services. This suggests a coercive element. However, if a company starts processing someone's data for the purposes of brain- or behavior-reading then they would need their explicit consent to do this. If they do not ask, or the person does not grant such consent, then such processing would be illegal. Of course, the GDPR has many permissible violations e.

If the right to FoT covered such invasions of mental privacy, no violations would be permissible. This raises the question as to whether the right to mental privacy should be absolute. It is possible that society may wish permissible violations to exist. Warrants can be sought and granted to search individuals' homes.

It is not immediately obvious that there should not be similar permissible violations for the mind. The prosecution of hate crimes already often involve ransacking a person's life in order to determine what they were thinking Corry, Part of a justification for permissible violations could be the claim that the right to mental privacy needs to be balanced against other interests and rights.

For example, Bublitz offers a thought experiment of a future in which outward signs of particular mental states i. It is easy to see how this could slide into a dystopia, with people being punished for thoughts deemed dangerous. This highlights that most permissible violations of mental privacy would only make sense if people could justifiably be punished for such thoughts.

But can they? Yet, in one sense it is common to punish thoughts. The famous maxim of criminal law states that an act does not make a defendant guilty without a guilty mind.

In this sense, every crime with a mens rea requirement technically involves the person being punished for thoughts. As was noted in U. Price , City of Lafayette, Indiana , Perry , Mere thought is hence protected. Yet, in prosecutions for attempted crimes it is possible to conceive that the person is being punished for a thought; namely, an intention Austin, The substantial steps requirement only means that stronger evidence has been gained of the strength of the intention, it does not mean that something other than the intention is being punished Morris, Yet, it can be argued that what the person is being punished for is conduct accompanied by a certain state of mind, which makes it illegal conduct.

A series of cases involving Doe v. Doe, a convicted sex offender, was driving home from work when he began to have sexual thoughts about children. He drove to a city park, watched children, had thoughts about having sexual contact with them, and then left without having any such contact.

An anonymous source potentially from his Sexual Addicts Anonymous group; Calvert, later reported Doe's thoughts to officials. The City decided, although Doe was no longer serving a sentence or on probation, to ban him from entering any City parks. Doe challenged the ban, which a district judge upheld Doe v. Doe then appealed this decision to a three judge panel of the U. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Doe v. This time the court upheld the ban, reasoning Doe was banned from parks because of his actions, not because of his thoughts.

Whether or not thought can be punished hence appears to be somewhat open to interpretation. As technological advances make the reliable assessment of inner states increasingly feasible, arguments for not punishing thought now need to be solidly based on principle. The most influential, principle-based argument against punishing thought comes from the following syllogism. Major premise: We can only punish that which violates important interests of others in which they have a right.

Large and powerful enough groups believed that this way of governing is necessary, as for Singapore, which assures law and order and clean streets and parks. They may have such faith in their own religion and its teachings, as many do in Muslim countries, that they militantly demand that their church and governments should be one.

They may think their nation needs a dictatorship that can deal with its poverty and promote economic growth.

Instead, they are channeling 19th century conservatives like Francis Parkman and William Graham Sumner, who believed that freedom is about protecting property rights—if need be, by obstructing democracy. Hundreds of years later, those two competing views of freedom remain largely unreconcilable. Contact us at letters time. By Annelien de Dijn. Related Stories. Already a print subscriber? Go here to link your subscription.

It is all because of the freedom fighters that we prospered into a free country free from any kind of colonizers or injustice. Begin typing your search term above and press enter to search. Press ESC to cancel. Skip to content Home Essay What is the importance of freedom in our life? Ben Davis May 8, What is the importance of freedom in our life?

What are the 5 basic freedoms? What Independence Day means to me?