Here's what you are missing.
If tachyonic technology or precognitive ability become feasible, you can bet that the government would quickly legalize the process.
Getting back to your original issue about doing something illegal to get a legal result would be moot because the processes would be legalized by the government.
An example of that is recording telephone conversations. Illegal in many states for a citizen to do it. Legal in some states for a person to record conversations to which he is a party. Certainly, legal for law enforcement to do it with the proper warrant.
On about 'tachyonic' neuromodulative technology and remote 'precognitive ability', for both present the potential risk of illegal use, both to commit crimes and to deflect criminal responsibility, by manipulating remote inductive conduct causing unprecedented and/or erratic behaviour and/or alteration on sensorial perceptions including thought, that would in most of the cases be considered a disorder of natural cause, unless it's disproven with proper evidence. That it is to say that criminals with such resources and/or skills, could induce a criminal behaviour on an innocent, both to gain profit and/or to deflect criminal behaviour, being so aggravated by fraud via falsification of identities.
Neuromodulative induction of behaviour requires a previous precognitive activity that while not detectable in the victim, can be detectable in the perpetrators even when hindering the intentions in apparently unconscious regions of their brain; That it is to say, that if there exist the ability for ambidextery (that requires different regions of the brain to activate), and considering immersive virtual technology that do not requires to actually move the user's body to move the virtual avatar but to train different regions of the brain to cause and do an action, same techniques (for the contextual case, might be called 'microexpressive minding multistability') could be implemented for remote inductive conduct.
The catch, while treacherous, for it might be highly difficult to track the perpetrators, might be solved by comparison of the causative brain's activity of the subjects intrusively involved, for them neurological action-reaction
would premeditatively activate prior the event of inductive conduct of behaviour, that do not correspond to the proper habitual and volitive profile pattern of thought and behaviour of the identity of the self of the victim. In resume, to determine intrusive conduct, it should be by comparison of the brain activity, simple said: any unauthorized observation and/or intrusive conduct with causative reach in the private activity in within the intimacy of the mind of an individual.
On about investigative warrants:
- In the purpose of diplomatic democracy, a public poll for civilians can be made to motivate politicians, lawyers and law enforcement agents, to prepare authorization for by coordinated local sweeps to track illegal activity.
- Considerer the usage of satellital of security monitoring for criminal prevention and/or for investigation of criminal activity with warrant for sweeps, then a consensus for a global satellital sweep would end traffics of drugs, traffic of guns and traffic of human beings.
- New agreements on between law enforce of securities services, both statal, private and personal, could work to continue to reduce the probabilities of crime in anticipation of technological advancement and potential evolutive abilities to prevent its unethical misuses.
