"Tell me Mr. Jones," said the public prosecutor, "All the
evidence points to the fact that you were indeed contemplating
the murder of your lover on that night. Were you not? Remember
that you are under oath, and that your polygraph results have
betrayed your innermost thoughts. You had the motive, ability
and, in your judgment, sufficient anonymity to carry out the
macabre act with impunity. And I admit that were it not for this
mass of incontrovertible evidence we uncovered by following your
intent, you might well have succeeded in pulling the wool over
our eyes! Is this not what you are thinking?"
There it is. Fragment from a mystery novel as it were, when you
gauge your own mental reaction as you read the passage, you will
find it to be a clear example: Most reasonable people would not
think twice about sanctioning techniques, including the
administration of polygraph tests, that authorities may use to
probe into and conclude on the conents of that innermost
repository of our private thoughts - our mind. Yet, it appears
unreasonable to most of us if authorities claim to have the
ability, much less to use it, to determine probable intent in
criminal behavior from one's behavior on the Internet. Is the
Internet that different in people's perceptions as a place
where absolute anonymity may be enjoyed regardless of disposition
and intent? Indeed, do people honestly believe it is ok to probe
one's mind, but not one's online behavior?