Do We Have a Right to Mental Privacy and Cognitive Liberty?
The rapid expansion of neuroimaging and related technologies suggests that we'd better answer that question—quickly
This question has particular social relevance since many neurotechnologies have moved away from a solely clinical setting and into the commercial domain, where they are no longer subject to the strict ethical guidelines of clinical research. Today, companies like Google and Verizon use neuroimaging technology and other neuromarketing research services to detect consumer preferences and hidden impressions on their advertisements or products.
According to a new article, as neurotechnology disseminates outside the clinical setting, we are facing a societal challenge: determining what rights individuals are entitled to exercise in relation to their mental dimension. According to the authors—myself from the University of Basel and Roberto Andorno from the University of Zürich—this challenge might require the reconceptualization of existing human rights and even the creation of new neurospecific human rights.
A right to cognitive liberty, widely discussed among neurolawyers, would entitle individuals to make free and competent decisions regarding their use of neurotechnology. A right to mental privacy would protect individuals against the unconsented intrusion by third parties into their brain data as well as against the unauthorized collection of those data. Breaches of privacy at the neural level could be more dangerous than conventional ones because they can bypass the level of conscious reasoning, leaving individuals without protections from having their mind involuntarily read.
Last week Facebook unveiled a plan to create brain-computer speech-to-text interface to translate thoughts directly from brain signals to a computer screen, bypassing speech and fingertips.
With interconnected neurotools becoming potentially ubiquitous, novel possibility for misuse will arise—cybersecurity breaches included.
In addition, research shows that connected medical devices are vulnerable to sabotage. Neuroscientists at Oxford University suggest that the same vulnerability affects brain implants, a phenomenon labeled “brainjacking.” Such possibilities of misuse might urge a reconceptualization of the right to mental integrity. This right, recognized by international law (Article 3 of the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights) as a right to mental health,
Finally, a right to psychological continuity might preserve people’s personal identity and the continuity of their mental life from unconsented external alteration by third parties.
See the full story here: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/do-we-have-a-right-to-mental-privacy-and-cognitive-liberty/