. . . Neither do I doubt that it is a good technology. This technology is real and has been for years.

What I doubt is the legality:
Farwell Brain Fingerprinting is a revolutionary new technology for investigating crimes and exonerating innocent suspects, with a record of 100% accuracy in research on FBI agents, research with US government agencies, and field applications.

WRONG

It “exonerates” (i.e., absolves, acquits, vindicates, frees, exculpates...) nobody.

Now, it might be nice to have a little tab on your file that claims a machine believes you are innocent, but that is not the way in which America’s legal system works. My personal prediction is that the technology -- which has apparently only recently slid out of its beta-test mode -- will become as acceptable as is a lie-detector test, and that the good doctor will never tell a single client that the scan is really just a legal scam to keep his job.

Don’t get me wrong. I think technology is great, and that this technology has tremendous potential -- both good and bad.

It will, however, remain up to the investigator as to whether or not the “exonerated” suspect mentioned in the article posted can actually stand up and leave the interrogation room. The brain of the investigator is the divining factor which determines whether a suspect is cleared, not the brain of the suspect.

I also predict that, with a little mental coaching, a truly guilty suspect could beat the machine, just as the current lie-detector test (which is inadmissible as “determining”-evidence in a court of law) can be beaten.

BTW, the implications from the articles (thank you very much news hacks) is that the scan is handled remotely. One day, this may be possible, but at the moment it is not.

As for the tech-scam I mentioned above, Farwell, with the aid of accomplice Dr. Nash Thompson, are pushing for funding, so they can keep on getting paid.

Reasonable.

But, you see, only suspects “in custody” can undergo such a treatment, and likely only at their request/approval (of course refusing the scan will likely imply a guilty plea -- in the eyes of the investigation team, anyway).

The test will cost the suspect a lot of money.

Those who can afford the scan will pay, in an attempt to clear their good names of whatever charges are levied -- and to keep the good doctors funded. Those who cannot pay will be allowed the test via “charitable” contribution.

Personally, if this test actually “exonerates” nobody, I see no reason to pay, whether from my pocket, or somebody else’s.

Paranoia closes far more doors than it will ever open,
Dan