Neurorights campaigns: Calls for neuro-privacy

• Author:
• Author name

  Quantumrun Foresight
• June 16, 2023

As neurotechnology continues to advance, concerns about privacy violations also intensify. There is a growing risk that personal information from brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) and other related devices could be used in potentially harmful ways. However, implementing overly restrictive regulations too quickly could impede medical progress in this field, making it important to balance privacy protection and scientific advancement.

Neurorights campaigns context

Neurotechnology has been used in various applications, from calculating the likelihood of criminals committing another crime to decoding the thoughts of paralyzed people to help them communicate through texts. However, the risk of misuse in tweaking memories and intruding on thoughts remains exceptionally high. Predictive technology may suffer from algorithmic bias against people from marginalized communities, so acceptance of its use puts them at risk. 

As neurotech wearables enter the market, the problems associated with collecting and potentially selling neurological data and brain activity may rise. In addition, there are threats of government misuse in the form of torture infliction and memory changing. Neurorights activists insist that citizens have the right to protect their thoughts and that alteration or intrusion activities should be banned. 

However, these efforts do not entail a ban on neurotechnology research but for their use to be restricted to health benefits only. Several countries are already moving to protect their citizens. For example, Spain proposed the Digital Rights Charter, and Chile passed an amendment to grant its citizens neurorights. However, some experts argue that passing laws at this stage is premature.

Disruptive impact 

Neurorights campaigns raise questions about the ethics of neurotechnology. While there are potential benefits of using this technology for medical purposes, such as treating neurological disorders, there are concerns about brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) for gaming or military use. Neurorights activists argue that governments should establish ethical guidelines for this technology and implement measures to prevent discrimination and privacy violations.

In addition, the development of neurorights may also have implications for the future of work. As neurotechnology advances, it may become possible to monitor employees' brain activity to determine their productivity or level of engagement. This trend could lead to a new form of discrimination based on mental activity patterns. Neurorights activists are calling for regulations to prevent such practices and ensure that employees' rights are protected.

Finally, the issue of neurorights highlights the broader debate around the role of technology in society. As technology becomes increasingly advanced and integrated into our lives, there is a growing concern about the potential for it to be used to infringe on our rights and freedoms. As ethical campaigns against technology misuse continue to gain momentum, investments in neurotechnology will likely be highly regulated and monitored.

Implications of neurorights campaigns

Wider implications of neurorights campaigns may include:

• Many individuals refusing to use neurotech devices on privacy and religious grounds. 
• Nations and states/provinces holding companies that use and develop these technologies increasingly responsible and liable. This trend may involve more laws, bills, and constitutional amendments specific to neurorights. 
• Neurorights campaigns pressuring governments to recognize neurological diversity as a human right and to ensure that people with neurological conditions have access to healthcare, education, and employment opportunities. 
• More investments in the neuroeconomy, creating new job opportunities and driving innovation in BCIs, neuroimaging, and neuromodulation. However, this development could also raise ethical questions about who benefits from these technologies and who bears the costs.
• Tech development standards that call for greater transparency, including international frameworks regarding the collection and use of data.
• New neurotechnologies, such as wearable EEG devices or brain-training apps, empower individuals to monitor and control their brain activity.
• Challenges to the stereotypes and assumptions about the "normal" or "healthy" brain, highlighting the diversity of neurological experiences across different cultures, genders, and age groups. 
• Greater recognition of neurological disabilities in the workplace and the need for accommodations and support. 
• Ethical questions about using neurotechnologies in military or law enforcement contexts, such as brain-based lie detection or mind-reading. 
• Changes in how neurological conditions are diagnosed and treated, such as recognizing the importance of patient-centered care and personalized medicine. 

Questions to consider

• Would you trust to use neurotech devices?
• Do you think fears about neurorights violations are overhyped based on the infancy of this technology?