And Im telling you that is practically impossible to read your mind without committing other known already existing crimes. There is a rule already for it, it's called basic human rights.

When I say sci fi law, it's because it's fiction. This new law is against fiction. Your example is for something that's not fiction. Do you understand the difference? Do you think this politician forwarding this law understands it?

This is more akin to those old laws of banning all alcohol.

Want your privacy? Should force/convince your countries to ban cameras first*.

Nice article, but it's more like reading stimulus reaction while reconstructing it in a form that's similar to the original. But it has flaws. Based on the recordings you can make out pretty much any existant song (or memorized recording) but not original thoughts. Everyone can remember the beats of a song, but also everyone makes word associations in different ways, depending on which concepts sticks.

Very cool for an interface tho. It would be possible to use it as base for composers, if it's possible to interpret original hummings, or beats (what would I know, I'm not a musician), which would require training.

But there is a catch

Continuing to probe musical perception is likely to be difficult because the brain areas that process it are hard to access without invasive methods.

nothing gets out on its own