{"id":247833,"date":"2023-11-13T12:00:46","date_gmt":"2023-11-13T12:00:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=247833"},"modified":"2023-11-07T09:21:10","modified_gmt":"2023-11-07T09:21:10","slug":"human-rights-advances-in-neurotechnology-lead-to-calls-for-protection-against-abuse-of-brain-data","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2023\/11\/human-rights-advances-in-neurotechnology-lead-to-calls-for-protection-against-abuse-of-brain-data\/","title":{"rendered":"Human Rights: Advances in Neurotechnology Lead to Calls for Protection against Abuse of \u2018Brain Data\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>

Image credit: Joe P\/AdobeStock.com<\/p><\/div>\n

26 Oct 2023<\/em> – Neurotechnologies are becoming increasingly able to decode our innermost self, threatening the ability of existing human rights frameworks to protect individual liberty and privacy. The term \u2018neurorights\u2019 indicates new rights to be integrated within national and international law to protect the mental neurocognitive sphere from the deep interference made possible by brain\u2013computer interfaces and other technologies interacting with the neural system.<\/p>\n

Such devices are used predominately in the medical field or in the military. However, in the future, technological cognitive enhancement may be available to individuals. Given the potential for unwanted intrusions into the mental sphere that neurotechnologies make possible, there\u2019s a growing awareness of the need for a governance framework.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Faced with the ethical challenge of determining the conditions under which it\u2019s legitimate to interfere with another person\u2019s neural activity, Marcello Ienca, Assistant Professor of Ethics of AI and Neuroscience at the TUM School of Medicine and Health in Munich, and Roberto Andorno, Associate Professor of Biomedical Law and Bioethics at the Law Faculty of the University of Z\u00fcrich, have identified four possible neurorights. The first is the right to mental privacy, allowing individuals to secure neural information from unwanted access. The Italian privacy regulator, for example, is among those concerned about mental privacy violations and is organising a conference on the dangers inherent in \u2018neuroimaging\u2019, which is becoming so advanced that it might soon be recognised as \u2018mind reading\u2019.<\/p>\n

The second right relates to psychological continuity. Neural devices can be used for stimulating brain function or modulating it \u2013 an example being transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) devices, which generate a constant, low current delivered to a specific brain area via electrodes on the scalp. The alterations such devices produce in brain function can positively affect a patient\u2019s condition. Given the therapeutic effectiveness of similar technologies, the use of brain stimulation devices will likely expand beyond the psychiatric field. However, tDCS devices may cause unintended alterations and affect an individual\u2019s self-perception.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

“Before we think about creating new laws, we should look at the existing ones and consider whether, and to which extent, we really need new laws.”<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

— Monika Gattiker, Vice Chair, IBA Healthcare and Life Sciences Law Committee<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n

In a study involving patients treated with a technology called DBS, more than half of participants expressed a feeling of unfamiliarity with themselves after surgery, saying for instance: \u2018I have not found myself again after the surgery\u2019. Additionally, memory engineering technologies may have an impact on an individual\u2019s identity by selectively removing, altering, adding or replacing memories relevant to self-recognition. This right to psychological continuity, therefore, seeks to preserve the individual\u2019s identity.<\/p>\n

The third proposed neuroright concerns mental integrity. Article 3 of the EU\u2019s Charter of Fundamental Rights states that \u2018everyone has the right to respect for their physical and mental integrity\u2019. It requires, for example, the free and informed consent of the patient. Andorno and Ienca suggest reconceptualising this right in such a way as to protect individuals from non-authorised intrusions that have a direct impact on their neural computation and thus cause harm.<\/p>\n

Finally, Andorno and Ienca outline the right to cognitive freedom, to safeguard the ability to make free and competent decisions on the use of neurotechnologies. Adults should be free to use brain\/computer interfaces and similar devices for both medical reasons and cognitive enhancement purposes so long as they don\u2019t cause damage to the freedoms of others.<\/p>\n

Mental privacy issues in the neurotechnology era were discussed during the Royal Society Summit on Neural Interfaces, held in mid-September in London. Ienca, among the speakers, tells Global Insight<\/em> that \u2018as the ecosystem of consumer neurotechnologies is expanding beyond biomedical research and clinical intervention, very extensive banks of neural data are being created and cross-referenced with other data related to online behaviour\u2019. In some cases, this is happening because commercial companies have policies allowing data transfer to third parties. In other cases, large technology conglomerates have acquired neurotechnology companies, meaning that neural data banks are directly available. \u2018What we learnt in the last 20 years about Big Data is that large datasets are retrospectively analysed in such a way that inferences can be made even when the data has been sufficiently de-identified\u2019, says Ienca.<\/p>\n

He describes a second problem \u2013 the decoding of neural data without understanding the subject. \u2018Artificial intelligence in recent years has made great strides, and we now have neural network models that can decode the content of mental states\u2019, he explains. \u2018We are talking about visual, auditory and even semantic content, in other words, reconstructing a person\u2019s thoughts from neural data.\u2019<\/p>\n

\u2018Before we think about creating new laws, we should look at the existing ones and consider whether, and to which extent, we really need new laws\u2019, says Monika Gattiker, Vice Chair of the IBA Healthcare and Life Sciences Law Committee and a partner at Lanter in Z\u00fcrich. Gattiker highlights, for instance, that Articles 10 and 13 of the Swiss Constitution provide protection against \u2018mind reading\u2019. She explains that \u2018the privacy of thoughts goes beyond the privacy, for example, of a letter. If a person agrees to neuroimaging, the data protection laws set the limits with regard to collecting the information\/results\u2019.<\/p>\n

Then there are relevant supranational regulations, specifically the Council of Europe\u2019s Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being regarding the Application of Biology and Medicine. Gattiker believes there may be a need for laws to be amended, but doesn\u2019t think \u2018we need to extensively regulate the neurotechnologies at this point [\u2026] however, the existing laws should be applied and enforced, and developments closely monitored\u2019.<\/p>\n

Anurag Bana, Senior Legal Adviser in the IBA\u2019s Legal Policy & Research Unit, says that whether we choose to amend existing laws or create a new set of rules, the crucial step is a discussion between all stakeholders. He highlights the impact assessments in respect of human rights due diligence included within the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which call for an assessment of which areas are directly affected. \u2018We need to understand risks and opportunities and, therefore, the companies that are investing should take a pledge that they will be really following the basic standards of protecting rights and obligations: they should take it on [themselves] when they are developing this technology\u2019, he says.<\/p>\n

So far, the only country that has included neurorights in its constitution is Chile. Carlos Amun\u00e1tegui Perell\u00f3, Professor of Legal Theory and Artificial Intelligence at the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile, was among the scholars advising the Chilean government. \u2018It is crucial to regulate neurotechnologies now because it is always easier to prevent a problem than to fix it\u2019, he says. \u2018The possible pervasiveness of brain\u2013computer interfaces will have such profound effects that they will be difficult to control.\u2019 Amun\u00e1tegui Perell\u00f3 adds that access to people\u2019s brain data on a massive scale means that large companies will have an incredibly detailed picture of how our brains work and, therefore, \u2018the possibility to control our emotions, thoughts and decisions\u2019.<\/p>\n

__________________________________________<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a> Sara Chessa is a London-based independent journalist and Media Freedom activist.<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Go to Original – ibanet.org<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

26 Oct 2023 – The possible new human rights that we might need in order to defend the mental privacy and the mental integrity of the individuals in front of certain uses of the neuro-technologies. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":247834,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[224],"tags":[1009,1706,3178,3002,1220,1277,461],"class_list":["post-247833","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-human-rights","tag-big-tech","tag-mind-control","tag-neurotechnology","tag-peace-technology","tag-privacy","tag-privacy-rights","tag-technology"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247833","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=247833"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247833\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":247835,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247833\/revisions\/247835"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/247834"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=247833"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=247833"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=247833"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}