Page - 220 - in Cyborg Mind - What Brain–Computer and Mind–Cyberspace Interfaces Mean for Cyberneuroethics

220 • Cyborg Mind Identity Theft Because of the amount of personal information now available in cyberspace, cybercrimes involving identity theft are increasingly becoming a problem. Such crimes use the personal information of a victim to exploit the benefits of his or her identity for a whole range of criminal purposes.16 Moreover, because they use part of an individual’s sense of self, victims usually experi- ence the crimes as very disturbing and invasive. Instances of blackmail and extortion may take place, as well, which threaten to reveal personal informa- tion or destroy reputations.17 In the future, criminals may also be able to use the personal identity of a person as well as his or her private thoughts, ideas or memories for their own benefit. In other words, crimes relating to the very integrity and probity of an individual could develop. Stealing sufficient information could even enable criminals to completely take over their victims’ offline or online identities.18 This means that society should be ready for such kinds of crimes against persons and organisations that may become possible in cyberspace. New technology may need to be developed against instances, such as mining large datasets as well as cross-referencing a range of personal and other information.19,20 But because the distinction between online and offline identities may con- tinue to diminish in the future, a person’s identity and privacy may increas- ingly become difficult to protect. Moreover, if persons spend more and more time in cyberspace, the re-evaluation of the identity of a person in cyberspace may mean that offences to this identity may need to be re-evaluated. Demonstrating Causality Usually, in order to identify who is responsible for an outcome, it is impor- tant to analyse the causal chain for an action. This means that an individual can be held responsible for a certain outcome if he or she has a causal con- nection to it, is aware of the eventual result and did not act under compul- sion or duress.21 As O’Brolchain and Gordijn indicate, ‘if a person is to be considered morally responsible for a particular event or action, that person must have been able to exert some kind of influence on that event and must have known that in doing so a certain consequence would most likely have ensued’.22 Demonstrating such a responsibility, however, may not be easy in the use of neuronal interfaces, since determining who is really in control, and of what, may be unclear or complex. As already noted, with procedures such as neuroimaging, scientists may be able to detect a correlation between a partic- ular behaviour and brain structure or brain activity. But such an association This open access edition has been made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license thanks to the support of Knowledge Unlatched. Not for resale.