All that it takes to frame someone with brain-scanning is over and over again making clear to the person what criminal thought(s) you expect him to think.

Contrary to the freedom of politeness, where reminding oneself to not do something results in etiquette

In the ease of framing with brain-scanning, reminding oneself to not think a thought results in thinking it. Therefore, all that is required to the "evidence" of guilt from some person is to repeatedly frame him with maximum pressure and accusation, till he is preoccupied with being framed with a crime, and how he is expected of being such a criminal. Then, even thinking about being falsely accused, especially given the twisted and demonic nature of such a situation, results in thinking the very thought the person is accused of thinking, but doesn't want to think. But the very act of not wanting to think, thinks it. Because the mind is very unlike the hands and arms. There is utterly no effort, or control over thoughts. And, not all thoughts are of the person.

Without moral foundation and strong abiding in Jesus Christ, you'd be amazed at how easy it is to have people succumb to the demonic torture of going along with their tormentors, and accuse themselves of whatever crime their tormentors want to hear. It's somewhat difficult verbally. But it's extremely easy in the thoughts. As described above.

This is what the CIA/FBI depend on, this is what they meant by "breaking him", meaning the destruction of a person, so they'd accuse themselves to satisfy the whims of the torturer.

And, of course, this goes against First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and/or the principles thereof.
And, I suppose this comes from the execrable practice of watching people through cameras and screens, so that human beings are reduced merely to the level of pixels. And people want to control the pixels like how they use programs on the computer. They think people are machines.
People aren't. For one thing, a programmed machine will go on to execute its program. People aren't so programmed. To quote that horrible movie, Minority Report, even if people had intents, that doesn't mean they wouldn't have changed intent in the next moment, every second, up until they fulfill the intent. Therefore, the first crime that the PreCrime unit stopped, the intent could have stopped a millisecond later. And it would have been something else.

Maybe that wasn't clear enough. Now, I don't know any criminals, so I'll give the most relevant example. Anyone going through high school (and in life, really) would have heard at least some person mention how they tried or wanted to kill themselves, but then didn't do it. I don't think it's that rare of a story. So, there was clearly intent, but people are not machines, and even if an intent is formed, the intent can be freely changed by people later, up till a millisecond before the fulfillment. Because, people aren't machines/robots, and the brain is not a machine, people are not robots giving themselves self-commands, and once the switch is flipped, that's it. It's absurd. There are many people, probably at least one person in any person's acquaintance, who, by life experience, can show that a formed intent does not make it fulfilled.

A combination of sci-fi shows, plus a prevalent phenomenon of seeing people through their pixel-image representation (therefore making persons part of a machine), is very dangerous if not thinking at the same time.
After the invention of the TV in the 1950s, people started meeting face to face less and less, probably. Were people still interacting with people and seeing people face to face just like the pre-TV world, this kind of madness idea would not have happened.