Foundation For The Anti-Christ
Mental privacy
Brain-adjacent data is not ordinary exhaust. Prompt logs and memory records can become thought-adjacent evidence.
The reports treat neural data, affective data, intimate cognitive-state inference, prompt history, memory records, persona packages, and closely coupled AI cognition logs as heightened-risk records. The reason is practical: they can reveal or shape the inner forum even when no invasive brain-reading system exists.
Mental privacy must therefore cover both direct neurotechnology and the ordinary digital traces that allow mental-state inference.
| Requirement | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Specific | Separate consent for neural data, affective inference, prompt logs, memory reuse, and cross-context profiling. |
| Informed | The user sees what is collected, inferred, shared, retained, and used for scoring. |
| Revocable | Consent revocation works without destroying the preserved source unless the user asks. |
| Separate from boilerplate | Mental data consent is not buried inside general terms. |
| Power-aware | Workplace, school, prison, benefits, and medical settings need special scrutiny. |
No sale or transfer of mental-state inference without specific consent.
No reuse of cognitive logs for employment, benefits, policing, or ads by default.
No workplace or school cognitive telemetry as a condition of ordinary participation.
No trust, instability, deviance, or loyalty score based on private inquiry.
The same source-preservation rule applies here: the system may log consent and boundaries, but it must not silently rewrite the source record to make the person easier to govern.
No one gets a backstage pass to the mind by calling the data telemetry.
The archive studies symbols. It does not appoint targets. Review the Community Baseline and Editorial Policy before submitting dangerous or symbolic material.
