My power. If I have physical contact with someone, like a handshake, I can then see a virtual version of them. Like someone who can see a ghost while no one else can. I can then question the virtual version and get completely honest answers with no attempt at evasion or misdirection. There is also no language barrier because the duplicate speaks perfect English. This lasts for 24 hours or until I touch someone else. Touching an infant clears the slate so I can relax.
Obviously Uncle Sam is going to conscript me for intelligence interviews. But they’ll make me available to domestic agencies.
I can see both sides of the 5th amendment argument. Is the dupe the same as the person due to protection against self incrimination?
I’m entirely serious. Becoming a conscript means, what, deciding that someone else calls the shots? You’re no longer making moral choices; someone else — someone you may well believe to be less moral than you — may be ordering you around. But if you’re calling the shots, then you’re the one making the moral choices, right?
I’m pretty sure the Constitutional challenge would be that the subject did not consent to be interrogated or waive his 5th Amendment rights. He could argue that his twin-copy-or-self-manifested was not his true self, or not the same thing. “The virtual version is not me.”
The dupe isn’t the same person; it isn’t a person at all. It’s a database of information about that person.
As with any other database of information, I think you’d need a warrant to access it without the permission of the owner. Otherwise it’s a violation of privacy and property rights.
It would not be admissible, but what was learned from it could be- if confirmed- fining out where he hid the gun for example. And if that person is a spy or a traitor, they dont need all that to shitcan him… or take other action which might not be totally legal on US soil.
Nothing about this power fails to infringe on a person’s rights against self incrimination. If the State could put someone in an interrogation chair and pull their thoughts out of their head with a remote EEG, that violates our rights. You’re not doing anything less than that.
Of course, if you are not employed by the government, if you’re a free agent, a Private Detective, you can interrogate anyone you want any way you want, as long as you don’t otherwise violate their rights. A handshake doesn’t violate anyone’s rights, and if that gives you access to their innermost thoughts, well that’s just how things work sometimes, isn’t it?
It only becomes a problem if the government is using you as their agent.
Why on earth would you ever let the government or anyone else know just what your superpower is or how it works? Use it for good if you can. Don’t use it for evil. Definitely don’t tell people about it or they’ll ask you or try to force you to use it for stuff that ain’t good, or just kill you which is easy to do outside of your reach.
So it’s basically mind reading, with a voice interface?
I’d think that anything that would be ethically questionable that you’d learn via direct mind reading would be equally shady obtained through this ghost doppleganger.
Does this voice interface just answer yes/no and factual questions, or can it describe things? Like answer “why” questions, rather than who/what/where type questions?
I mean, asking it for passwords and other security-related stuff would be legally sketchy if you stole stuff based on that information, but you could really manipulate people if you knew the why behind why they tick.
Also, does this doppleganger know things the person doesn’t consciously know? Like maybe they’re non-binary or something, but haven’t figured it out or haven’t admitted it to themselves yet? I could see that sort of information also being used to manipulate or blackmail as well.
I think I’d go into politics if I had this sort of ability. Claim I have eczema or something, and wear gloves most of the time, but then use that to get the dirt and low-down on my opponents and colleagues, so I could outmaneuver them.
Nope. If, as you indicated, the info derived is inadmissible, then so is any other evidence derived from said info. Listen, I’ve watched lots of Law & Order. I’m pretty much an expert.
Per L&O, did they ever do an episode where the cops got a phone call — no, I don’t want to give my name; let’s just say I’m an anonymous tipster — explaining where you can find, oh, say, the murder weapon?