Don't worry. This is nothing more than people sensationalizing a very limited technology.
What they don't tell you are a few key points:
First, everyone's brain is different. They can't tell what is going on in your mind unless you;
Second, the 'reading' can only be done by comparing known to known. They flash various pictures in front of you, then they record the activity in the brain for that picture, and they repeat the cycle for a bank of selected pictures. Then, they attempt to have a computer identify which picture you are looking at by looking at the activity in your brain.
Because of the variances between individuals, the technology has very limited application outside of user interfaces. Further, because of the difficulty in determining 'known' from 'unknown.'
As far as taking images from your mind?
Doesn't work. The mind doesn't actually remember pictures. How the mind structures information is still a area of contentious research, but the general pattern indicates that the brain prefers 'edge detection' methods. In other words - the brain latches on to landmarks and distinct features (or tries to). It does not actually bother to remember the shop clerk you talked to just ten minutes ago. Most people couldn't even recall the hair color of the lady at the check-out counter after ten minutes.
While the brain stores more information than we likely give it credit for - it does not store images in a format that any computer could plausibly reconstruct. Perhaps if you were asked to remember someone while under advanced brain imaging techniques and electrode implants, they could -start- to make inferences as to what you were remembering (as in general concepts - since the brain actually re-stimulates regions of the brain that were active during the event... which is partially why the idea of 'robbing images from memory' is complete bogus... the brain simply doesn't store images like a file - they are a collection of interlinked features that span vast areas of the brain).
It's sensationalism at its finest.
