Apologies for the slide and for using Slate as a reference, but it is a good description of the situation on 'right to privacy' and searches and seizures by the government. Think I may be preaching at a hostile audience on this one but… Here goes:
Does the 'right to be secure in their persons' include more than just our bodies as physical carriers of things that the government may find reason to object to?
What if we carry a virus that we haven't vaccinated against? Can the government object to that decision?
What if the virus is a pattern of thought it a specific set of ideas that when brought together might be considered objectionable? Should the government have the right to check all our minds for the pattern?
I think not, but I'm pretty resigned to the sad possibility.
https://slate.com/technology/2018/06/after-the-supreme-courts-carpenter-ruling-where-is-the-reasonable-expectation-of-privacy-heading.html
However, there is the currently protected 'reasonable expectation of privacy' idea from Kats.
If we believe we do not possess a 'reasonable expectation of privacy', do we have any privacy under the law as interpreted by the courts in Kats?
If we do believe the contents of our minds to be private, in that we have a reasonable expectation of privacy, then do we have a claim that any violation of such is a violation of the 4th Amendment and possibly a violation of a human right?
Is it possible to be afraid for the confidentiality of our minds and even publish and talk about that fear openly while still maintaining coverage under the law? I suggest, yes, because until we have public and incontrovertible evidence of systems engaging the mind at such an intimate level, we are waiving none of the rights - simply we have a fear that a reasonable expectation may not exist.
My sarcastic recommendation: keep your reasonable expectation, don't say anything, ever, to anyone, outloud with your mouth. As an aside, it's rather interesting that we would be enjoined, about 2000 years ago, to 'confess with our lips' - which makes me think this may be a natural law of some kind.
If anyone wants us to believe we have no reasonable expectation of privacy, can that be a good thing?
If anyone wants us to believe that we must verbally express the most private parts of our minds, can that be a good thing?
Now, what if this is just a trick? Not really mind reading, but pre-vocalization reading?
When we are internally preparing for an important conversation, do our tongues sometimes tick and cluck (tick and tock?) out the words we are thinking?
When we are really focusing hard and reading a very challenging passage, do we tend to switch back to reading aloud? How about if it isn't so bad we have to read aloud but bad enough that we have to focus on each word or phrase, do we subvocalize?
I do. So I'd be a great target for breaking this anon's personal 'language' by mapping my subvocalizations to my thoughts and therefore getting into my head a bit. Kind of like mapping the way the currents flow in a river to predict how the water will move at different speeds and viscosities.
Despite what MJ 12 may think, it isn't magic. And if I'm not speculating correctly, who cares? There has to be a mechanism, if such a technology does exist, and we will find it and use it rightly.