• Marc Jonathan Blitz
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Law, Neuroscience, and Human Behavior book series (PASTLNHB)


In the conclusion, I argue that when courts apply the Fourth or Fifth Amendment to neuroimaging, they should focus not only on measuring the intrusion that use of this technology creates in a particular instance, but at how use of it might affect individuals’ sense of privacy in their mental lives more generally, If privacy of thought is to continue to serve, in Isaiah Berlin’s words, as an “inner citadel,” then constitutional safeguards should prevent it from being technologically breached not only in cases where the breach would reveal mental content that courts regard as particularly intimate or sensitive, but in all circumstances where the government lacks very powerful reasons for its intrusion.


Autonomy Brain Constitution Intellectual privacy Internet surveillance Isaiah Berlin Mind Neuroimaging Privacy 


  1. Berlin, I. (1966). Two Concepts of Liberty. Oxford, UK: Oxford, Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  2. Farahany, N. A. (2012b). Searching Secrets. Pennsylvania Law Review, 160, 1239–1308.Google Scholar
  3. Stoller, S. E., & Wolpe, P. R. (2007). Emerging Technologies for Lie Detection and the Fifth Amendment. American Journal of Law and Medicine, 33(2/3), 359–374.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marc Jonathan Blitz
    • 1
  1. 1.Oklahoma City University School of LawOklahoma CityUSA

Personalised recommendations