The mind readers

In Isaac Asimov's deservedly famous short story "All the Troubles of the World," the megacomputer Multivac has so much data on each person in the world (including detailed brain scans) that it can predict ahead of time if someone is going to commit a crime.  This allows authorities to take appropriate measures -- defined, of course, in their own terms -- to prevent it from happening.

We took a step toward Asimov's dystopian vision, in which nothing you think is secret, with a paper this week in Nature Neuroscience about a new invention called a "brain activity decoder."

Developed by a team of researchers at the University of Texas at Austin, the software uses an fMRI machine to measure the neural activity in a person's brain, and is able to convert that neural activity into a continuous stream of text -- i.e., the output is what the person was thinking.

The researchers had volunteers listening to podcasts over headphones while the fMRI watched how their brains responded.  This allowed them to compare the actual text the test subjects were hearing with what the brain activity decoder picked up from them.  After only a short span of training the software, the results were scary good.  One listener heard, "I don't have my driver's license yet," and the decoder generated the output "She has not even started to learn to drive yet."  Another had the input, "I didn’t know whether to scream, cry or run away. Instead, I said, 'Leave me alone!'", which resulted in the output, "Started to scream and cry, and then she just said, 'I told you to leave me alone.'"

Not perfect, but as a proof-of-concept, it's jaw-dropping.

[Image licensed under the Creative Commons © Nevit Dilmen, Brain MRI 131058 rgbca, CC BY-SA 3.0]

The researchers touted its possible use for people who have lost the ability to communicate, in situations like locked-in syndrome.  However, I don't think it takes an overactive imagination to come up with ways such a device could be abused.  What would happen to the concept of privacy, if a machine could read your thoughts?  What about the Fifth Amendment right not to self-incriminate?  Like in Asimov's story, how could the authorities separate what a person had done from what they were contemplating doing?

Or would they?

Jerry Tang, who led the research, emphasizes that the decoder had to be trained on the person whose thoughts were going to be read; if it were trained on me, it couldn't immediately be used to figure out what you were thinking.  My response to that is: yet.  This is already leaps and bounds past previous attempts at thought-reading, which was only able to output single words and short sentences.  Given more time and further refinements, this technique will only get better.

Or scarier, as the case may be.

Tang also pointed out that even with improvements, the software would be defeated by someone putting up resistance (e.g., deliberately thinking other things to block the fMRI from getting the correct output).  He also is aware of the possibility of abuse.  "We take very seriously the concerns that it could be used for bad purposes and have worked to avoid that," he said.  "We want to make sure people only use these types of technologies when they want to and that it helps them."

Well, maybe.  I'm not a conspiracy-theory type, nor someone who thinks that all government is inherently bad.  Here, though, it seems like the potential for Orwellian thought-crime is a short step away.

Keep in mind, too, how generally inaccurate our brain's storage system is.  As we've seen over and over here at Skeptophilia, what we remember is an amalgam of what actually happened, what we were told happened, what we imagine happened, and a good dollop of falsehood.  False memories can be as convincingly real as accurate ones.  If the brain activity decoder were used on an unwilling person to extract his/her thoughts, there is no guarantee that the output would be at all reflective of reality.  In fact, it's almost certain not to be.

But since eyewitness testimony -- in other words, recall -- is considered one of the highest forms of evidence in a court of law, it's no stretch to wonder if a person's thoughts would be given the same undeserved weight.

I'm not sure what the right step is, honestly.  There are some who believe that a potential for misuse shouldn't stop scientific progress; anything, they argue, can be used for harm.  Others feel like the hazards can sometimes outweigh the benefits, and trusting the powers-that-be to do the right thing with technology this powerful is foolish.

I don't have an answer.  But I will say that my mind was forced back to the prescient quote from another seminal science fiction writer, Michael Crichton: "Scientists are preoccupied with accomplishment.  So they are focused on whether they can do something.  They never stop to ask if they should."

****************************************

Okay, now I'm scared

There are three reasons I don't tend to put much stock in conspiracy theories.

The first is that humans are seriously bad at keeping their mouths shut.  In fact, I wrote just a couple of months ago about a guy who developed a mathematical model that found the likelihood of a conspiracy staying secret varies inversely with the number of people who are involved in it.  So the idea of a grand global conspiracy that thousands of Illuminati operatives know about, but none of the rest of us do, is almost certainly nonsense.

The second is the more practical aspect.  A lot of conspiracies -- chemtrails, for example -- lack credence because what they're claiming is happening is next to impossible.  Okay, you could probably put some kind of nasty chemical in jet fuel so it gets spewed out in the exhaust contrail, but the fact remains that even so, it'd be an extremely stupid and inefficient way to poison people.  Likewise, the idea that the COVID-19 vaccine was being used as a delivery mechanism to inject people with 5G-capable microchips is indicative of the fact that whoever believes this understands neither microchips nor vaccines.

A third reason is specific to surveillance technology, which is a big part of a lot of alleged conspiracies.  Tracking even a fraction of the population of the world would generate so much data that it would be damn near impossible to analyze.  The idea that some evil agency is monitoring my every move, for example, is actually a little comical:

Evil conspirator #1: What's he doing now?

Evil conspirator #2:  Same as he was doing two hours ago.  He's eating potato chips and watching Doctor Who.

Evil conspirator #1:  The tracking device showed activity a few minutes ago, though.

Evil conspirator #2:  I think he got up to let his dog out.

So watching me 24/7 not only wouldn't generate anything sketchy, it would be the most boring and pointless job ever, sort of like monitoring Donald Trump to see how often he says something that's true.

But a recent development did raise my eyebrows.  A paper this week in Nature Communications describes a new invention -- a digital fiber that can store files and sense our physical activity and vital signs, and that's thin and flexible enough to be woven into cloth.

"Fibers still do what they've always done," said Yoel Fink of MIT, who was the senior author of the paper.  So my research has been to try to see if we can bring the world of devices and the world of function [together] to define a new path for fibers and align them with high-tech devices...  We think of the surface of our bodies as valued real estate, and we may be able to make better use of that real estate.  There's a lot of information that your body is communicating that we don't actually have the means to listen to or intercept.  That inaccessible data includes information about our health and physical activity.  To intercept that, sensing functions can be integrated into fabric."

Okay, that got my attention, but maybe not for the reason you think.  I still don't believe that it is practical to monitor large numbers of people continuously, and most of the enormous quantity of data generated would be useless in any case.  What concerns me here is something more specific -- and that's the potential use of tech like this to monitor people and inform marketers, insurance companies, and so on of our health and physical activities, without our knowledge or permission.

It's already bad enough.  I'm perfectly aware that my phone is listening to me, but (like I said) since my life is kind of boring anyhow, it can listen to its little electronic heart's content.  I will say that I've been startled at times by this, though -- last year around Halloween my wife and I were in the car and were laughing about people dressing their dogs up in costume, and I suggested that we get a Star Wars AT-AT costume for our hound, Lena.  With her long legs, it would be just about perfect.

Then I got home, got on my computer, looked at Facebook, and the first thing I saw was an advertisement for -- I shit you not -- AT-AT costumes for dogs.

I know that my online activity is generating targeted ads for me all the time -- you wouldn't believe how many ads I see for running gear and writing software like Grammarly -- but the dog costume thing definitely gave me the sense of being watched by Big Brother.

So I don't see the evil global conspirators as being the potential problem, here; I'm more suspicious of the evil greedy capitalists.  If our activities are being watched via the clothes we wear, there'll be no way to hide anything from becoming an opportunity for targeted marketing, not to mention our health information no longer being private -- HIPAA be damned.

I guess the solution is to be naked all the time.  Where I live, that'd work in the summer, but being naked in the winter in upstate New York is just asking to freeze off body parts you may actually have a use for.  Plus, the neighbors might object.  In default of that, it seems to be only a matter of time that the intimate details of your life and activities might be monitored by your t-shirt.

With or without your permission.

*************************************

Astronomer Michio Kaku has a new book out, and he's tackled a doozy of a topic.

One of the thorniest problems in physics over the last hundred years, one which has stymied some of the greatest minds humanity has ever produced, is the quest for finding a Grand Unified Theory.  There are four fundamental forces in nature that we know about; the strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism, and gravity.  The first three can now be modeled by a single set of equations -- called the electroweak theory -- but gravity has staunchly resisted incorporation.

The problem is, the other three forces can be explained by quantum effects, while gravity seems to have little to no effect on the realm of the very small -- and likewise, quantum effects have virtually no impact on the large scales where gravity rules.  Trying to combine the two results in self-contradictions and impossibilities, and even models that seem to eliminate some of the problems -- such as the highly-publicized string theory -- face their own sent of deep issues, such as generating so many possible solutions that an experimental test is practically impossible.

Kaku's new book, The God Equation: The Quest for a Theory of Everything describes the history and current status of this seemingly intractable problem, and does so with his characteristic flair and humor.  If you're interesting in finding out about the cutting edge of physic lies, in terms that an intelligent layperson can understand, you'll really enjoy Kaku's book -- and come away with a deeper appreciation for how weird the universe actually is.

[Note: if you purchase this book using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to support Skeptophilia!]

DNA, health, and privacy

The movie Gattaca envisions a near future in which our entire destiny is ruled by our genes.  Not only are we subject to genetic tests as a preliminary to everything -- school admission, job offers, applications for insurance -- the vast majority of births result from genetically screened in vitro fertilizations.  This creates a society stratified in a new way -- made up of "valids" (people who were screened at conception and therefore are free of major genetic defects) and "invalids" (people conceived the old-fashioned way, and subject to all of the flaws that a random patchwork of genes brings).

The result is that invalids can't get any but the most menial jobs.  What employer would take a chance on giving a high-paying technical job to someone with a predisposition to early death from heart disease when there is an equally skilled candidate who is certified disease-free, and who will cost the company (and their insurers) far less in medical bills and retraining costs over the long haul?

The ethical issues that this film brings up are deeply poignant.  But one of the lines that goes by so quickly that it can pass your notice occurs fairly close to the beginning of the movie, when the main character is narrating what life is like in this society.  "Of course, discrimination based on genes is technically illegal," he says, "but there's always a way around that."

He utters this line as a potential employer hands him a plastic jar for a urine test -- ostensibly for drug testing, but which will also give the company anything they want to know about the candidate's genetic makeup.

[image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons]

We just took a step toward the world of Gattaca a few days ago, and it, like the line about the de facto acceptance of a genetic criterion for employment in the movie, slipped by without many people taking notice.  A proposed change to current privacy law called House Bill HR 1313 passed easily in committee, the vote split exactly on party lines.  Given the current fracas over the repeal/replace drive for the Affordable Care Act, not too many people gave HR 1313 much thought.  But this bill, should it become law, will provide a loophole you could drive a Mack truck through in GINA (the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act), the 2008 law that made genetic information private and explicitly prohibited employers from discrimination based upon it.

If HR 1313 passes, it will allow employers to circumvent GINA -- as long as such genetic tests are part of a "workplace wellness" program.

Before you blame the Republicans, however, realize that we were well on the way to ceding all the power over a person's private genetic data to employers during the Obama presidency.  "Workplace Wellness" laws passed during the previous administration allowed employers to levy a 30% surcharge on employees' health insurance costs if they refused to participate in "voluntary" workplace wellness programs, many of which require screenings for cholesterol, blood pressure, and other health factors. At least with GINA, there was explicit language to stop employers from doing what they did in Gattaca -- collecting private health information from people under the guise of doing screenings for risk factors, and extracting a hell of a lot more from a blood sample or urine sample than the employee bargained for.

If HR 1313 passes, that protection will disappear.  Labeling mandatory screening part of a "Workplace Wellness" program will allow employers to have access to any information on your health that they want -- including a list of the markers you carry showing your predisposition to genetic health conditions.

One more way in which we are headed, as a nation, toward giving far more clout to corporations than we do to individuals.

When Gattaca premiered twenty years ago, it seemed pretty far-fetched.  People were identified when they entered a government building using a finger-prick test.  Criminals could be caught from the DNA on a single eyelash, because everyone's DNA was on record with the government.  If you were stopped on the road and refused a finger prick, the police could still identify you by an iris scan.  In one memorable scene, a woman goes to a genetic screening company to get the low-down on her boyfriend -- after she gives him a nice long French kiss, and thus mixing enough of his saliva with hers to sequence his DNA and find out if he's a good candidate for a long-term relationship.

Now, it's looking like the world of Gattaca is, as it says in the opening sequence, in the "not-so-distant future."

In fact, if HR 1313 passes, it might be right around the corner.

Medical hacking

I read something today that made me really furious, and the worst part is that I don't even know who the target of my anger is.

The story that pissed me off so completely was a CNN article about a group of Russian hackers who "outed" gymnast Simone Biles, tennis player Venus Williams, and others for being on prescription medication.  Please note that the medications these athletes were on had been previously reported to the US Anti-Doping Agency, and the athletes granted exemptions.  There has been no allegation by the USADA, the United States Olympic Committee, or any of the oversight organizations governing the individual sports that there was any wrongdoing at all on the part of the athletes.

So what that means is, these people's private medical records have been made public, for no reason whatsoever.

Biles responded to the situation with the graciousness I would expect, having watched her being interviewed during the Rio Olympics.  "I have ADHD and have taken medication for it since I was a kid," she tweeted, shortly after the story broke.  "Please know I believe in clean sport, have always followed the rules, and will continue to do so as fair play is critical to sport and is very important to me."

The first thing that outraged me about this whole situation is that these hackers, whoever they are, thought it was appropriate to violate the privacy of athletes for... for what?  I don't know.  Increasingly, hackers such as these guys (who go under the handles "Fancy Bear" and "Tsar Team") and the more famous ultra-hacker Julian Assange are making records public simply because they can, and fuck the consequences.  On one hand, I understand the motivation; I recognize the damage that has been done by covert operations, by there being no transparency and no oversight of the government and the corporate world.  There is certainly a time for whistleblowers to bring to light documents that are being hidden for immoral and unethical reasons.

But that doesn't mean that every record should be made public.  There are government documents that are quite rightly classified as top secret.  On an personal level, there is information -- and that includes medical records -- that are nobody's business but the individual's.

So, I'm sorry, but all documents are not equal.  And no, you don't have the right, simply by virtue of your existence, to see everything and anything that has ever been written down.

But there's a subtler reason why this situation infuriates me, and that's the sly implication that because Simone Biles has ADHD, she should be ashamed of it or apologize for it.  It's an attitude you find toward people with all sorts of mental and emotional illnesses and disabilities -- that somehow, you're making it all up, that you really don't need your medications, that it's not the same thing as a "real" physical ailment.  It's what gave rise to the following, which has circulated widely on social media:

I will be open, here (and note: it is my choice to be public about this; if I did not want this known, it would be entirely my right not to have it known).  I have struggled with moderate to severe depression my entire adult life.  I have been suicidal more than once.  Through a combination of therapy, the support of my friends and family, and proper medication, I now have the ability to function without feeling like I'm constantly lost in a fog of despair.  The idea that someone, under the guise of "keeping your mind open" (note the subtitle on the above photograph) would imply that my medication is a cop-out, that I should throw it away and go for a walk in the woods, is not only ignorant, it is arrogant to the point of being insulting.

And my depression is not a point of shame for me.  It's not somehow my fault, nor is it under my control.  It is no more shameful to have a mental illness than it is to have multiple sclerosis or heart disease or cancer.  The fact that we still look at mental illnesses as qualitatively different from other conditions means that we still have a long way to go, societally, in how we think about human health.

So the fact that Simone Biles and other athletes are in the position of having their personal information made public (especially since all of the athletes in question had cleared their meds with the relevant regulatory boards) is appalling; even worse is the implication is that they need to defend themselves on points that need no defense.

The whole thing, in fact, is maddening -- that hackers are now throwing our private records around just because they can, and the ongoing problem of our society's attitude toward illness and medication in general, and mental illness in particular.  How to stop the first is more of a technological problem than anything else; changing the second is something that is incumbent upon all of us.