I considered two possible justifications for the fact that we criminalize device- assisted card counting but not ordinary card counting. The first was that, unlike natural card counting, device-assisted card counting requires tech- nological enhancement. It makes card counting less natural and is unfair to casinos and should therefore be prohibited.
The first proposed justification fails because concerns about the unnatural- ness of card counting, if they have any merit at all, are too weak to justify a criminal prohibition.
The second proposed justification was that card counting is a kind of cheat- ing that warrants punishment. We do not criminalize natural card counting on this view because such laws would interfere with our thought privacy. Since concerns about thought privacy are less applicable to device-assisted count- ing, we can prohibit device-assisted counting without violating our rights to freedom of memory and mind.
The second proposed justification faces two major obstacles. First, it must show that we really should not punish natural card counting. Second, it must show that there is significantly greater value in protecting the privacy of thoughts that are more closely associated with the brain than in protecting the privacy of thoughts that are less closely associated with the brain (because they are partly encoded in smartphones and other devices that are external to our bodies). Both of these obstacles are substantial.
- Read the full paper here
The first proposed justification fails because concerns about the unnatural- ness of card counting, if they have any merit at all, are too weak to justify a criminal prohibition.
The second proposed justification was that card counting is a kind of cheat- ing that warrants punishment. We do not criminalize natural card counting on this view because such laws would interfere with our thought privacy. Since concerns about thought privacy are less applicable to device-assisted count- ing, we can prohibit device-assisted counting without violating our rights to freedom of memory and mind.
The second proposed justification faces two major obstacles. First, it must show that we really should not punish natural card counting. Second, it must show that there is significantly greater value in protecting the privacy of thoughts that are more closely associated with the brain than in protecting the privacy of thoughts that are less closely associated with the brain (because they are partly encoded in smartphones and other devices that are external to our bodies). Both of these obstacles are substantial.
- Read the full paper here
No comments:
Post a Comment