Mediaboss Marketing

One of the most interesting narrative devices in science fiction stories is mind reading. Some of the more prominent uses of mind reading in recent years have included Star Wars, Inception, and X-Men, though there are many others. This week, Ill consider how the law would handle secrets in a world where mind reading, telepathy, and thought-stealing are commonplace. In particular, I will consider how the law would handle trade secrets.

The law of trade secrets provides special protection to business secrets. The protections are fairly straightforward the owner of a trade secret can use the legal system to prevent others from using the trade secret or, if the secret has already been misappropriated, to recover losses from the disclosure of the secret or to obtain the thiefs ill-gotten profits.

In order for information to qualify as a trade secret, it has to satisfy two requirements it has to have independent economic value from not being generally known, and the owner must have taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret. As one court stated, it is axiomatic that without secrecy, no trade secret can exist.

The keyword in that definition is reasonable. In our current mind control-free world, reasonable measures has a fairly straightforward meaning. In order to benefit from trade secret protections, businesses have to implement specific secrecy measures. These measures typically include things like non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), storage protocols, and access control. For example, if one has a trade secret in a design schematic, then it would be reasonable to implement protocols to ensure that only authorized personnel have access to the schematic and to ensure that each authorized person signs a non-disclosure agreement. Likewise, it would be unreasonable to post the schematic on a public server or to provide a copy of the schematic to a potential competitor.

Enter mind reading. In a world where anyones thoughts can be probed and scanned, our understanding of reasonable would understandably change. The specific outcome would depend on the version of mind control that were dealing with, as well as the prevalence of mind control in society.

It can hardly be disputed that mind reading is incredibly invasive. A mind reader can access or probe peoples deepest thoughts without permission and, potentially, without notice. In this sense, we can say that reading someones mind is roughly analogous to hacking someones computer or breaking into someones home. As far as trade secrets are concerned, that would mean that obtaining a trade secret through mind reading would simply be viewed as a new method of stealing and would not require any change in how secrets are actually protected or maintained. In other words, the existence of mind reading might not meaningfully change how the law views trade secrets. At most, companies would be expected to add a provision to their NDAs prohibiting employees from voluntarily submitting themselves to mind reading.

Some depictions of mind reading include the concept of psychic barriers or other defenses that can block mind readers, or at least make it difficult for mind readers to access secrets. If those kinds of defenses existed, then companies would be required to use psychic defenses to protect their trade secrets. A failure to provide psychic barriers would essentially be the same as failing to use locks on the door to the room containing the trade secret.

In a world where mind reading is ubiquitous, or where the process of mind reading is involuntary, social norms and expectations might change and create an environment where mind reading is viewed as inevitable. In that world, the only way to reliably keep a secret would be to prevent potential mind readers from accessing (voluntarily or otherwise) the minds of secret-carrying individuals. In a world with lots of mind readers, the only reliable way to do this would be to distribute sensitive information across multiple individuals (if possible) or to keep secret-carrying individuals away from society at large. While this is a pretty extreme solution, in a world where mind reading is commonplace, it would be one of the only sure ways to keep secrets.

If you think that requiring companies to house their entire R&D division in an isolated bunker is absurd, youre not alone. Instead of going to such great lengths to keep information secret, society might just decide to give up on secrets (or at least trade secrets) in their entirety. In a world where mind reading is everywhere, or where mind reading is automatic and unavoidable, the concept of secrets including trade secrets doesnt really make sense.

Because a world of mind readers is so different from the current world, its hard to imagine what a mind readers everywhere society would look like. As an example, consider the criminal justice system. In a world where you can access anyones thoughts at will, the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination doesnt make any sense. Similarly, the right to be free from unreasonable searches also takes on reduced importance, since most of the information one would want to search for would be accessible with a simple glance. Outside the legal sphere, lying would become a thing of the past, necessitating a monumental change in all of our social and professional interactions.

Needless to say, in a mind readers everywhere society, trade secrets would barely be a topic of conversation. Companies would inevitably rely more on patents to protect their inventions than on trade secrets. Unlike trade secrets, patents dont lose their protections if they are disclosed to the public. To the contrary, public disclosure is an essential component of obtaining a patent.

The law has an interesting relationship with secrets. On its face, the law purports to comply with ones reasonable expectations of privacy and secret keeping. The problem, though, is that the laws understanding of reasonable doesnt always align with traditional expectations. On one hand, the law provides tremendous respect to secrets associated with special relationships. For example, secrets between attorneys and clients, doctors and patients, and husband and wife are generally protected. On the other hand, the law is quick to dismiss pretty much every other category of secrets, and it provides virtually no legal protections for information stored in your Gmail account, or even for secrets shared between best friends.

When it comes to trade secrets, though, the law is straightforward at least in theory: Secrecy is good. The more mechanisms one uses to protect their trade secret, the harder it will be for ones adversary to challenge the legitimacy of the trade secret protections. Thus, it is not surprising to see that mind reading which is a natural enemy to secrets spells nothing but trouble to trade secrets and to the legal infrastructure on which trade secrets are built. In a world with just a handful of mind readers, or where one can establish mind reading defenses, trade secrets can survive. But if there are too many mind readers, then trade secrets (and every other kind of secret, for that matter) will cease to have any legal relevance.

And those are my thoughts on the matter.

Follow this link:
What Happens to Trade Secrets in a World Where Professor X & Mind Reading Are Real? - The Escapist

The 23-year-old served 11 months of her 15-month prison sentence after she was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for Conrad Roys death.

Last updated on January 23, 2020, at 10:25 a.m. ET

Posted on January 23, 2020, at 9:32 a.m. ET

Michelle Carter during her trial in 2017.

Michelle Carter, the Massachusetts woman who as a teen encouraged her boyfriend via text messages to kill himself, was released early from prison on Thursday.

Carter, now 23, was released from the womens center at the Bristol County House of Corrections after serving only around 11 months of her 15-month prison sentence. She was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in 2017 for the death of 18-year-old Conrad Roy in a headline-grabbing case that caught the world's attention.

Carter earned enough good time to be released early, Jonathan Darling, a spokesperson for the Bristol County Sheriffs Office, said in a statement.

Inmates in Massachusetts jails can earn up to 10 days off their sentence every month for attending programs, having a job inside the jail, and staying out of trouble, according to Darling.

Ms. Carter has been a model inmate in Bristol County, Darling said in the statement. She has attended programs, had a job inside the jail, has been polite to our staff and volunteers, has gotten along with other inmates, and weve had no discipline issues with her whatsoever.

Carters job was serving food in the "chow hall" in the womens jail, Darling told BuzzFeed News.

On Thursday morning, two officers carrying Carter's belongings escorted her to a waiting car. She now has five years of probation.

After her release, Bristol County Sheriff Thomas Hodgson said at a press conference that Carter "integrated very, very well" in the women's center by "being busy and involved with the various programs" offered to inmates.

What was "very revealing," Hodgson said, was that Carter was interested in getting into as many programs inside the jail as she possibly could.

"One of the thing she liked doing was gardening," he said.

However, Hodgson added that he "really feels for the Roy family and what they must be going through."

"It's a very, very sad case," he said.

After her release, Carter's lawyer, Joseph Cataldo, told BuzzFeed News that he "was very pleased she is home."

He said, "Future legal plans will be announced in due course."

Michelle Carter leaves the Bristol County jail on Thursday.

Carters release comes a week after the US Supreme Court rejected her appeal to hear the case and to vacate her conviction.

Her lawyers had argued that her conviction was unprecedented and violated her First Amendment right to free speech and her Fifth Amendment right to due process. Michelle Carter did not cause Conrad Roys tragic death and should not be held criminally responsible for his suicide, her attorney, Daniel Marx, had said last year.

Massachusetts is the only state to have upheld the conviction of a physically absent defendant who encouraged another person to commit suicide with words alone, Carters petition said.

Conrad Roy and Michelle Carter

In February 2012, Carter, and Roy began a long-distance relationship through texts and phone calls. In 2014, Carter, who was 17 at the time, sent Roy a series of text messages over a two-week period encouraging him to kill himself and berating him whenever he expressed hesitation, prosecutors said during her trial.

Carter asked Roy when he was going to kill himself more than 40 times, prosecutors said.

If u dont do it now, youre never gonna do it, Carter wrote in one text to Roy.

People who commit suicide dont think this much. They just do it, she said in another text.

Roy who had a history of mental illness and had previously tried to kill himself died by suicide in his truck outside a Kmart in Fairhaven, Massachusetts, on July 12, 2014.

Carter was 50 miles away in her Plainville home but spoke to Roy twice over the phone for more than 80 minutes before his death. While there are no records of what they discussed, prosecutors relied primarily on a text message Carter sent one of her friends months after Roys death.

In the message to Samantha Boardman, Carter said, Sam his death is my fault like honestly I could have stopped him I was on the phone with him and he got out of the car because it was working and he got scared and I fucking told him to get back in.

Sam because I knew he would do it all over again the next day and I couldnt have him live the way he was living anymore I couldnt do it I wouldnt let him, a part of the text said.

The trial judge based his guilty verdict on this text message, saying that Carter not only forced Roy to get back in his truck, but she also failed to call for help despite knowing it was a toxic environment inconsistent with human life.

During the trial, Carters lawyers argued that she was a troubled teenager dealing with her own mental health issues and had been taking antidepressants when Roy died. They also pointed to the attempts Carter had made to get Roy to seek help for his mental health issues.

Prosecutors painted Carter as an attention-seeking teen who used her young and vulnerable boyfriend as a pawn in her sick game of life and death. They told the court that she wanted to play the role of a grieving girlfriend to get the sympathy and attention she craves."

The trial judge, Lawrence Moniz, convicted Carter of involuntary manslaughter in June 2017 and sentenced her to two and a half years in prison with 15 months served and the rest suspended. However, Moniz allowed Carter to remain free until all her state appeals were exhausted.

Carter began serving her prison sentence last February after Massachusetts highest court refused to overturn her conviction.

Carter was denied parole after seeking early release from prison last September.

The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is 1-800-273-8255. Other international suicide helplines can be found at befrienders.org. You can also text TALK to 741741 for free, anonymous 24/7 crisis support in the US from the Crisis Text Line.

See the original post here:
Michelle Carter, Who Encouraged Her Boyfriend To Kill Himself, Was Released From Prison Early - BuzzFeed News

The Bill of Rights is the most important document in our nation.

Right?

I mean youve got the first amendment, which we all know gives us the freedom of speech. Then, how could we forget, the second amendment- the right to bear arms.

And for most people, that is all they really know. You have the occasional person who can cite the fifth amendment, our right to a fair and speedy trial. But how many of us really know our rights?

A 2017 poll conducted by the University of Pennsylvanias Annenberg Public Policy Center found that 37 of people could not identify ANY of the five rights protected by the first amendment. Additionally, the survey found that a whopping 33 percent of participants were unable to name ONE of the three branches of government. (Executive, legislative, and judicial, come on guys this is elementary level civics).

These numbers are sad- but they are also scary. How can we protect and preserve the Constitution if 37 percent of Americans do not even know the first amendment? If we want to reap the benefits of living in this great nation- we must fulfill our civic duty. That civic duty goes beyond voting and serving on a jury- part of that duty is being an informed citizen. Because the truth is, if ANY one of your rights is a mystery, it ceases to exist.

Madison Adams

Claremore

Follow this link:
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: If any one of your rights is a mystery, it ceases to exist - Claremore Daily Progress

A Kentucky lawmaker wants to grant police in his state the power to detain a person for two hours if he or she declines to offer up identification or answer an officer's questions while they're investigating possible criminal activity. Lawyers? Miranda warnings? Forget about them.

The bill was introduced by state Sen. Stephen Meredith (RLeitchfield), and civil rights lawyers are warning that it could open a big, nasty, easily abusable, unconstitutional can of worms.

The bill states that the person who is being detained by police in this process is not considered under arrest, which appears to be a mechanism to try to keep a person from demanding a lawyer. It could also get people to incriminate themselves by making them answer police questions or face temporary detention.

While police are obviously empowered to investigate criminal activity, this bill, SB 89, seems designed to give police the power to target individuals for harassment for the sketchiest of reasons. Meredith told the Lexington Herald-Leader that one of the incidents that inspired the bill (which he acknowledges was pushed forward at the urging of local police) was a man lingering outside an apartment complex, which made neighbors nervous. They called the police, but the man refused to answer their questions and left. They found out later that he had outstanding arrest warrants.

But Rebecca DiLoreto, who lobbies for the Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, noted that the police could have tagged this guy for violating the state's loitering laws, and then they could have used that actual allegation of criminal activity to demand ID and check for warrants.

DiLoreto warns that SB 89's passage would lead to an environment where police would be able to detain people for up to two hours without having to keep official records because these people aren't technically arrested. She tells the Herald-Leader:

"The idea that we can detain people because we find them to be suspicious and we think they might commit a crime, that crosses a dangerous line. Now, unfortunately, it has been known to happen. Sometimes it's in a mostly white community where someone spots a black person walking down the street and they get suspicious and call police.

The 'crime' in this case is basically that you're here and we don't think, from looking at you, that you should be here. The potential for abuse in that seems obvious."

It would also most certainly violate people's Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.

See more here:
Kentucky Lawmaker Wants To Give Police the Power to Detain People Who Don't Answer Their Questions - Reason

Shaniz West agreed to let the police enter her home to make an arrest. They trashed it. A federal appeals court told her too bad. Now the Supreme Court has the opportunity to right this clear injustice.

The facts surrounding Ms. Wests predicament are not in dispute. In 2014, Ms. West returned to her Caldwell, Idaho, home to find four local police officers. They were looking for her ex-boyfriend, Fabian Salinas, who was wanted for violent gang activity. Ms. West told the officers she didnt know whether Salinas was inside, so the cops asked permission to enter the home in an effort to locate and arrest him. According to reports, Ms. West gave the officers her house keys and left with a friend.

Instead of entering the home, however, the police called in a SWAT team, which used shotguns and other equipment to launch a tear gas attack through the windows and garage door. The resulting damage ran into the tens of thousands of dollars and left the home uninhabitable for months.

Wests personal belongings and the home itself were saturated with tear gas, a judge with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals noted. Broken glass littered the floor and the walls and ceiling had gaping holes from contact with the tear gas canisters.

Ms. West sought compensation for the destruction, but her case was rejected by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit. The 2-1 majority held that the police were covered under a doctrine known as qualified immunity, which protects government officials from being sued for acting in their official capacity unless they clearly violate an established constitutional right. The majority further held that Ms. West should have known that by letting the authorities enter her home, she was also consenting to potential damage.

The case has similarities to a 2015 Colorado incident in which the police destroyed an innocent mans house after a suspected thief broke into the home while attempting to avoid arrest. In that instance, too, a federal appeals court eventually ruled the homeowner was out of luck when he attempted to sue to recover damages.

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fifth Amendment stops the government from taking private property for public use without just compensation. Is it truly reasonable to suggest that an owners consent to search a property also implicitly grants the authorities permission to do extensive damage? Is it truly just to argue that the authorities have no financial responsibility if, while carrying out their duties, they destroy private property?

The Institute for Justice has taken up Ms. Wests case and this week petitioned the Supreme Court for review. Lets hope the justices seize the chance to rein in the extreme effects of qualified immunity.

Read the original here:
EDITORIAL: Come on in, officer and wreck the place, while youre here - Las Vegas Review-Journal