ArticlePDF Available

Safeguarding Neural Privacy: The Need for Expanded Legal Protections of Brain Data

May 2024

Authors:

Emerging technologies like brain-scanning headbands, meditative earphones, and neural implants enable unprecedented access to individuals' private mental states and neural activity. Companies now have the capability to detect, record, and analyze brain data reflecting users' emotions, imagination, decision-making, and even subconscious thoughts. However, glaring regulatory gaps surround what firms can legally do with neural data, including sharing or selling it without users' knowledge or permission. This paper spotlights the privacy risks tied to uncontrolled harvesting of individuals' brainwave information by corporate interests. It highlights recent evidence that some technology companies already admit to sharing customers' neural data with third parties and using it for targeted advertising purposes. At present, few laws specifically protect neural privacy or guarantee individuals' rights to control access to their own brain data. Colorado has emerged as a pioneer in this uncharted legislative domain through its recent passage of a first-of-its-kind state law safeguarding neural data as private property. The law mandates that companies obtain explicit user consent before collecting brainwave information via headsets, earbuds, implants, or related devices. It also grants Colorado residents new abilities to access their neural data from tech firms, request its deletion, and forbid its sale for marketing uses. Policy experts describe Colorado's protections as a critical turning point likely to catalyze further neural privacy laws nationwide. However, comparable safeguards remain rare globally outside parts of the US and Western Europe. This troubling lack of neural data oversight threatens universal rights to mental privacy regardless of nationality or geography. Advocates urge the rapid international adoption of clear policy frameworks to regulate corporate mining of human brain data before prevailing practices become entrenched. The paper concludes by underscoring Colorado's law as a clarion call to galvanize citizens, scientists, ethicists, and political leaders worldwide to act in defence of one of humanity's most intimate and vulnerable spheres of individual liberty-the privacy of our own unspoken thoughts.

Content uploaded by A. Shaji George

Content may be subject to copyright.

Partners Universal Multidisciplinary Research Journal (PUMRJ)

Volume: 01 Issue: 01 | April-May 2024 | www.pumrj.com

Safeguarding Neural Privacy: The Need for Expanded Legal Protections of

Brain Data

Dr.A.Shaji George

Independent Researcher, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstract -Emerging technologies like brain-scanning headbands, meditative earphones, and neural

implants enable unprecedented access to individuals' private mental states and neural activity.

Companies now have the capability to detect, record, and analyze brain data reflecting users' emotions,

imagination, decision-making, and even subconscious thoughts. However, glaring regulatory gaps

surround what firms can legally do with neural data, including sharing or selling it without users'

knowledge or permission. This paper spotlights the privacy risks tied to uncontrolled harvesting of

individuals' brainwave information by corporate interests. It highlights recent evidence that some

technology companies already admit to sharing customers' neural data with third parties and using it

for targeted advertising purposes. At present, few laws specifically protect neural privacy or guarantee

individuals' rights to control access to their own brain data. Colorado has emerged as a pioneer in this

uncharted legislative domain through its recent passage of a first-of-its-kind state law safeguarding

neural data as private property. The law mandates that companies obtain explicit user consent before

collecting brainwave information via headsets, earbuds, implants, or related devices. It also grants

Colorado residents new abilities to access their neural data from tech firms, request its deletion, and

forbid its sale for marketing uses. Policy experts describe Colorado's protections as a critical turning

point likely to catalyze further neural privacy laws nationwide. However, comparable safeguards remain

rare globally outside parts of the US and Western Europe. This troubling lack of neural data oversight

threatens universal rights to mental privacy regardless of nationality or geography. Advocates urge the

rapid international adoption of clear policy frameworks to regulate corporate mining of human brain

data before prevailing practices become entrenched. The paper concludes by underscoring Colorado's

law as a clarion call to galvanize citizens, scientists, ethicists, and political leaders worldwide to act in

defense of one of humanity's most intimate and vulnerable spheres of individual liberty – the privacy of

our own unspoken thoughts.

Keywords: Neural data, Privacy, Ethics, Consent, Transparency, Regulation, Surveillance, Cognitive, liberty,

Neurotechnology, Mental privacy.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Emergence of Brain-monitoring Technologies (Headbands, Earphones, Implants)

The advent of the 21st century has witnessed remarkable advances in the ability of technologies to

interface directly with the human brain. From consumer-grade brainwave detectors to paradigm-shifting

neural implants, an expanding array of devices now permits observation and analysis of brain activity

with unprecedented depth and precision. These brain-monitoring technologies stand poised to

revolutionize fields as wide-ranging as neuroscience, medicine, computing, and consumer electronics.

Their rapid emergence also raises critical ethical questions surrounding privacy, security, and the

appropriate bounds of human enhancement.

Partners Universal Multidisciplinary Research Journal (PUMRJ)

Volume: 01 Issue: 01 | April-May 2024 | www.pumrj.com

The proliferation of brain-scanning devices reflects wider exponential progress in sensor technologies,

wireless communications, and machine learning over recent decades. Falling costs and widening public

access have fueled rising popular demand for self-monitoring and personalized health products. An

array of consumer brain devices has reached the open market seeking to translate the explosion in

neuroscientific insights for lifestyle applications. Leading examples include headbands and helmets that

detect electrical activity in the brain through non-invasive electroencephalogram (EEG) sensors pressed

against the scalp. Companies like Emotiv, NeuroSky, and Melon advertise affordable at-home systems to

track brain states during gaming, meditation, exercise, and sleep. Similarly, startups like Rhythm,

Dopamine Labs, and Mindset have integrated EEG sensors into over-the-ear headphones that interact

with smartphone apps to ostensibly enhance focus, relaxation, and learning via customized audio

feedback keyed to detected neural activity.

Fig -1: Brain Monitoring Technologies

Beyond passive monitoring, landmark advances in materials science, microelectronics, and neurosurgery

have enabled a further generation of sophisticated, clinically certified implantable brain devices with

capacities ranging from deep brain stimulation to direct cortical interfaces. After decades confined to

laboratory prototypes, sophisticated bidirectional brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are rapidly

progressing in trials with human subjects. Startups Kernel and Paradromics have each unveiled distinct

methodologies for high bandwidth implants capable of both ‘reading’ neurological patterns and ‘writing’

stimulation signals across tens of thousands of neurons at once.

The most ambitious and recognized initiative in this implantable computing space has emerged under

the Neuralink startup established by high-profile entrepreneur Elon Musk. Neuralink’s flagship product is

an investigative system of over 3,000 sub-millimeter electrodes fanned across hundreds of microscopic

sensor-laden “threads” designed for insertion in the cerebral cortex. Even in early incarnations, the

platform aims to facilitate high-fidelity transfer of data both from cortical neurons to computers and

bidirectional flows. While initially targeting the restoration of sensory, motor, and cognitive function in

disabled patients or amputees, longer-term visions entail increasingly seamless human-artificial

intelligence interaction.

In tandem with escalating neurotechnological capabilities, interest has surged within mass-market

computing and consumer electronics sectors eyeing untapped commercial possibilities. Over the past

decade, a succession of technology giants including Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, and Alphabet have each

accumulated patents, startup acquisitions, dedicated neurotechnology divisions, and even direct

Partners Universal Multidisciplinary Research Journal (PUMRJ)

Volume: 01 Issue: 01 | April-May 2024 | www.pumrj.com

prototype offerings centered firmly on the harvesting and processing of human brain signals. In perhaps

the most conceptually startling development yet, a mid-2022 Apple patent detailed sensory engagement

technology reliant upon non-invasive neural sensors potentially integrated across future lines of AirPod

headphones and augmented reality headsets.

While the vast potential exists for improved knowledge and enhanced lives, experts increasingly highlight

the radically unprecedented nature and scale of intimate personal data generated through direct brain

device interfaces. In the absence of protective standards and oversight, neurological information

detailing users’ emotions, state of mind, desires, and intent could flow by default to corporate

environments structurally optimized for monetization and lacking accountability. The specter of dystopian

digital intrusion leaving literally “no thought unlogged” provokes deep questions surrounding consent,

privacy, and self-ownership portending profound impacts for individuals and democratic societies.

The dizzying pace of transformation along the human-artificial frontier demands urgent multi-

disciplinary dialogue bridging science, ethics, law, and the humanities before norms harden and

possibilities narrow. From historical perspective, brain interface technologies still occupy only the most

embryonic stages of development entire orders of magnitude shy of sciences fictional conceptions from

Neuromancer to The Matrix. Yet all far-reaching technological lineages pass through early branching

points ripe with uncertainty in which societal analysis, values-based debate, and the setting of safe

boundaries profoundly shape every phase that follows after. The choices facing brain data now in these

critical formative years will reverberate for generations hence.

1.2 Ability of These Devices to Detect Private Mental States and Neural Activity

The technologies enabling observation of the living human brain have long provoked awe at the

prospect of illuminating the very substrate of human thought and experience. Yet concurrent unease

has shadowed even the earliest inklings of the rich interior personal realities such inquiries might unveil.

While neuroscience has traditionally maintained ethical firewalls between therapy and enhancement,

the now thriving ecosystem of direct-to-consumer brain surveillance confounds any simple distinction.

From smartphone apps to implantable microprocessors, these devices yield both empowering self-

knowledge and heightened vulnerabilities requiring safeguard.

The capacity to access identifiable attributes of an individual’s mental states and neural processes

challenges intuitive conceptions of privacy centered on the physical body alone. Brain activity signifying

emotions, intentions, sensations, or shifts in awareness become theoretically retrievable by any suitably

interfaced detection apparatus, whether ephemeral readouts of transient states or enduring neural

correlates cemented through learning and memory. The unprecedented intimacy of the resulting data

consequently necessitates renewed evaluation of reasonable expectations of privacy and their means of

preservation in law.

Thorny questions dog even seemingly innocuous consumer offerings such as meditation headbands

promising to optimize relaxation states through neurofeedback. While users voluntarily self-administer

such devices in their own homes, the recorded brain states they reveal may remain perceptible to

corporate analytics systems as well as future computational analytics. Voluntary use for defined

applications does not necessarily confer consent across all possible readings, interpretations, and

secondary uses of neural information by undisclosed third parties. Once detectable, the absence of

strong data governance paradigms leaves open issues surrounding ownership, analysis, retention, and

resale of brain data accumulated from consumers by private industry.

Partners Universal Multidisciplinary Research Journal (PUMRJ)

Volume: 01 Issue: 01 | April-May 2024 | www.pumrj.com

These concerns magnify with implantable and investigational next-generation interface technologies

under accelerated development by firms like Neuralink, Paradromics and Synchron. By achieving direct

thought-based control of smartphones, keyboards or even prosthetic limbs, profoundly paralyzed

patients have already demonstrated restored communication and mobility via experimental intracortical

sensor grids and stimulating electrodes. However, such invasive access to brain signals simultaneously

affords external viewers a high-bandwidth downstream channel into users’ internal states should

appropriate cybersecurity provisions and usage restrictions fail. The allure of enhanced capacities also

risks normalized public acceptance of undisclosed corporate or governmental screening for neural

indicators of deception, aggression, sociopolitical leanings, or marketing receptivity.

Presently ambiguous regulatory terrain further complicates responsible progress around such ethically

fraught and technically complex possibilities. While notions of mental privacy retain strong intuitive pull,

brain-derived personal data does not cleanly fit prevailing statutory schemes. In the United States,

protections under the Fourth Amendment generally limit only government searches, while health data

regulations like HIPAA constrain medical providers but exempt consumer wellness technology. Guidelines

surrounding company policies for voluntary brain data collection and proprietary use remain largely

undefined and self-imposed. Individuals hence currently relinquish all rights over corporate usage of

neural information absent explicit written contracts with narrow consent provisions that few consumers

presently conceptualize or demand.

In an era when social media profiles already sketch deeply intimate user portraits concatenated from

traces of online activity over years, voluntarily contributed streams of ongoing brain state data could

eclipse even these far-reaching private business intelligence repositories. More than any prior innovation,

seamless brain-computer integration alters not only capabilities but the locus of identity; not just what

humans can do but who we fundamentally understand ourselves to be as aware, self-reflective, volitional

beings. Any framework for responsible innovation must place the individual and collective right to mental

integrity at its core.

Technological possibilities long the stuff of science fiction now impose urgent need for updated social

contracts balancing profound promise and unprecedented risk. Realizing the full human benefit of

devices unlocking our neural code demands proactive collaboration between medicine, ethics,

governance and the public to implement binding safeguards preserving personal agency and

autonomy. The window for establishing appropriate boundaries on acceptable and unacceptable uses

and analysis of private brain data is rapidly narrowing. The extent to which citizens retain sovereignty over

their own neural privacy in coming decades hangs in the balance of choices made today across

boardrooms, legislatures, and consumer living rooms around the world.

1.3 Lack of Regulations Protecting Individuals' Neural Privacy

The dizzying pace of advancement in neurotechnology’s able to access, record, and analyze human

brain data has leapt far ahead of any corresponding governance frameworks to protect users’ neural

privacy. From consumer-grade wearables to implanted prototypes under development, these brain-

interfacing devices generate unprecedented streams of sensitive neurological information. However,

enormous gaps remain regarding what firms deploying such innovations can or cannot legally do with

the neural data continually harvested from consumers and research participants. Despite clear risks

surrounding privacy, agency, and consent, few existing laws or regulations in most national jurisdictions

specifically address or constrain common corporate practices around collecting, retaining, disseminating

or monetizing individuals’ brainwave information.

Partners Universal Multidisciplinary Research Journal (PUMRJ)

Volume: 01 Issue: 01 | April-May 2024 | www.pumrj.com

While the notion of mental privacy holds profound intuitive importance for personal autonomy, neural

data itself occupies a remarkably unsettled space in privacy statutes and healthcare regulations. In

countries like the United States, constitutional protections generally restrict only governmental searches

rather than those by private companies creating technologies capable of peering directly into thoughts

and experiences. Similarly, research ethics requirements to safeguard human subjects primarily govern

academic and clinical studies rather than direct-to-consumer industry offerings outside the context of

medical devices.

Prevalent gaps in oversight mean individuals by default forfeit all ownership and control over their neural

data upon electing to utilize brain monitoring consumer products – even goods like sleep trackers, focus

headsets, or stress relief earbuds voluntarily employed primarily in private homes rather than clinical

settings. Once detected and logged, most corporate policies impose no meaningful constraints on how

companies subsequently analyze customer neural data. Nothing prevents re-use, sale, aggregation or

computational modeling to generate derivative psychometric consumer profiles of unprecedented

intimacy and detail.

Individual citizen-consumers conducting cost-benefit calculus regarding threat models or privacy

concerns surrounding initial uptake of direct brain interface systems presently lack information even to

reasonably assess tradeoffs. Companies rarely provide sufficient transparency surrounding intended or

potential handling of accrued user neural information. Rare examples of admitted data sharing with

external researchers or developers provide glimpses of policies far exceeding reasonable user

expectations or permissions. What ultimately becomes of brain data analyzing users’ confidence levels,

emotional valence or comprehension remains opaque and unregulated regardless of original context.

While biometric data categories like fingerprints and photographs have received growing public policy

recognition and statutory protections given potential for misuse or theft, neural information largely

persists as a frontier beyond law. Strong evidence already confirms Substantial corporate interest in

mining human brain data for purposes unrelated to consumer wellbeing. Technology and consulting

firms have eagerly eyed monetization opportunities surrounding the quantification of cognition, emotion,

engagement, preference and other neural indicators for marketing purposes including targeted

advertising. Basic questions of ownership, accessibility, portability, revocability and commercial usage

desperately require clarification and binding governance before existing ambiguity ossifies as industry

norms guided purely by commercial benefit.

Acknowledging profound moral intuitions around cognitive liberty and sovereignty of internal experience,

policy scholars increasingly argue human neural privacy merits recognition as a fundamental category

of privacy rights warranting dedicated legal protections. If businesses and governments adopt an

entitlement to unlimited harvesting and analysis of citizen neural data by default, the basic rights of

individuals to determine access to their own inner lives become deeply imperiled. Any equitable way

forward demands proactive regulation putting user agency, consent and interests at the center rather

than as residual afterthoughts.

A handful of political subdivisions have made initial regulatory forays into this complex landscape by

enacting legislation to designate general categories of human brain data as legally protected personal

property that individuals own and control. In the U.S. state of Colorado passed first-of-its-kind ‘Protecting

Neural Privacy’ requirements mandating companies obtain clear affirmative consent from users prior to

collecting any identifiable brain monitoring data through direct measurement of neural signals.

While an important milestone, persistent regulatory voids surrounding neural privacy globally demand

Partners Universal Multidisciplinary Research Journal (PUMRJ)

Volume: 01 Issue: 01 | April-May 2024 | www.pumrj.com

additional ambitious policy frameworks ready to grapple with profound ethical complexities wrought by

technologies continually advancing. Safeguarding foundational human values like privacy, autonomy,

dignity, and self-determination obliges rapid attention towards developing binding oversight and

constraints on what private or governmental entities can access and analyze regarding the inner realms

of people’s cognition and experience without robust informed consent.

1.4 Risk of Companies Selling Individuals' Brain Data Without Consent

The accelerating translation of laboratory neuroscience into direct-to-consumer brain monitoring

technologies has enabled companies to access detailed neural information from consumers at

unprecedented scales. However, vast gaps surround what protections safeguard or constraints govern

private sector handling of individuals’ continuously harvested brain data. Without meaningful oversight or

consent requirements, firms face no barriers against re-using customers’ neural information for

secondary aims from internal R&D to open data markets for resale to third parties for ongoing profiling,

predictive analytics or targeted advertising.

Once neurological data detailing emotion, cognition or responses gets recorded by a commercial brain

interface device, consumers presently retain no ownership rights or control whatsoever regarding its

subsequent lifespan journey through corporate systems optimized explicitly for monetization. Companies

frequently assert expansive privileges to retain user data indefinitely, reserve rights to unlimited

secondary analysis to derive myriad unspecified derivative datasets, share broadly with subsidiaries and

external partners, and leverage for advanced computational modeling applications devoid of initial

consumer awareness or permission.

Individuals contemplating use of direct brain interface devices presently lack recourse even to trace

ultimate destinations of their logged moods, attention levels, comprehension rates or neural correlates of

personal preferences trafficked within the data economy. Without meaningful consent or transparency

requirements on handling practices, private arbiters of these bio-behavioral insights can essentially treat

human minds as open resource mines selling off consumer brain data at undisclosed prices to further

refine targeted advertising algorithms already driving revenues across the digital economy.

Leaked reports reveal major companies having long internally discussed initiatives to continuously gather

EEG brainwave data wearable devices and headphones to infer emotional states, frustration levels and

receptivity to product messaging in real-time. Patents detail methodologies to isolate neural activity

associated with familiar logos and brands. While officially unimplemented as yet, nothing restrains

deployment of such neuromarketing techniques at scale across consenting consumer test populations

by leveraging intimate neural access.

Critics caution normalization risks snowballing adoption long before adequate laws and protections enter

debates. Wellness wearables and implant tech initially intended for personalized self-tracking and

medical applications hold equally vast monitoring potential for workplace integration or governmental

screening uses absent proper safeguards against function creep. The foundational expectation central to

privacy doctrines worldwide - that individuals retain sovereignty over granting access to sensitive

personal information - stands profoundly violated in absence of affirmative consent requirements placed

on companies extracting individuals’ own brainwaves.

While recent legislation in the U.S. state of Colorado marks an inaugural step forward in requiring user

consent for collection of personal neural data by private entities, comprehensive policy frameworks

remain urgently needed given the global nature of mass neurotechnology deployment. Core

Partners Universal Multidisciplinary Research Journal (PUMRJ)

Volume: 01 Issue: 01 | April-May 2024 | www.pumrj.com

international agreements enshrine privacy as a universal human right with heightened barriers

protecting uniquely sensitive data categories meriting strict access rules. Ethicists increasingly argue

neural data tracking the realtime status of people’s moods, engagement and reactions may rank among

the most intimate classes of identifiable personal information requiring robust governance given risks of

abuse.

With consumer neurotech applications rapidly scaling in everyday environments, this frontier domain

demands urgent attention towards binding constraints on what private companies can lawfully do by

default with subscribed users’ continuously harvested brain data inviolability. As direct interfaces to

access signals from within people’s minds enter global markets absent checks against misuse, the onus

falls increasingly on lawmakers and the public to demand guardrails firmly rooted in ethics of consent,

transparency, accountable oversight and enforceable avenues for individual redress.

1.5 Colorado's Pioneering Neural Privacy Law as a Model for Broader Protections

The recent passage of a first-of-its-kind ‘Protecting Neural Privacy’ act in Colorado serves as a landmark

victory for consumer rights and data governance over rapidly advancing neurotechnology. The

bipartisan legislation spearheaded by state lawmakers establishes binding oversight requiring private

companies to obtain opt-in user consent before gathering or profiting from individuals’ brain monitoring

data using invasive or non-invasive consumer devices. Experts hail the regulatory model as a pioneering

safeguard for mental privacy and agency likely to spur further protections elsewhere confronting

technologies enabling unprecedented corporate, governmental and institutional access to the inner

realms of human thought and experience.

Colorado now legally designates consumer brain data as protected personal property owned and

controlled by individual users who must provide explicit permission for its collection by companies. Firms

deploying neurotech devices must disclose their data harvesting, analysis and sharing practices via

terms presented in plain language prior to sale or activation. The act’s affirmative consent requirement

notably contrasts more passive industry opt-out models permitting unconstrained data mining as the

default lacking a user’s direct expression of permission.

For the first time in any jurisdiction, Colorado citizens gain abilities to formally request copies of whatever

neural data for-profit or research entities have recorded from their minds and nervous systems over time.

Importantly, the law also entitles individuals to demand companies delete, correct or cease particular

uses of existing stores of personal brain data while permitting continued access to beneficial applications

like medical devices. Citizens further hold rights to forbid sale or sharing of their neural data for

advertising or analysis purposes not required for core device functionality. Together these oversight

provisions aim to place guardrails protecting autonomy and integrity around a domain of

unprecedented sensitivity only beginning to come into view.

Propelling Colorado’s legislative victory stands recognition that existing legal paradigms fail to safeguard

mental privacy in the face of technologies continually narrowing divides between human minds and

machines. While debates persist around definitions, few domains inspire more profound intuitions

surrounding dignity, autonomy and personal identity than sovereign rights over access to the contents of

one’s own conscious awareness. Yet direct consumer brain interfaces enabling mood tracking, focus

enhancement or hands-free computer control generate volumes of neural data documentation

escaping easy classification under healthcare, financial or communication privacy statutes. The absence

of governance surrounding commercial collection practices and third party neural data sharing

Partners Universal Multidisciplinary Research Journal (PUMRJ)

Volume: 01 Issue: 01 | April-May 2024 | www.pumrj.com

threatens to normalize a two-tier power imbalance between consumers and corporate interests.

Colorado’s acting lawmakers heeded calls of data scholars that if guarantees of individual agency and

civil liberties hold any water in coming decades of tech-facilitated symbiosis between humans and

intelligent systems, legal precedent must establish clear protections around mental privacy. Critics

caution leaving unchecked commercial incentives and technical capacity to access human thoughts at

scale risks normalizing functionally extractive systems anathema to basic expectations of self-ownership.

Powerful platforms charting the terrain of entire generations’ hopes, relationships and attention already

demonstrate well dangers surrounding under-regulated mass behavioral data collection by private

entities. Establishing binding informed consent practices places necessary democratic checks on

whatever dreams or nightmares these mind interface technologies might otherwise unleash.

Hailed by digital rights groups as a momentous stride forward, Colorado’s model framework stands

poised for replication. Legislators in states like Oregon have put forward bills copying protections for

individuals retaining control over and opting into collection of data on their physiological, emotional or

mental states using intrusive sensor devices. Washington passed narrowly targeted protections

prohibiting employers from mandating insertion of tracking hardware into staff bodies absent their

voluntary written consent.

Yet comprehensive adoption remains pressing given increasingly globalized data pipelines and

technology supply chains. If limits on commercial appropriation of consumer neural data for profit

remains the province of geographically localized policy, firms face tempting incentives towards

regulatory arbitrage or geographical data havens absent restrictions. Instead, Colorado’s principled

precedent merits urgent further codification across data regimes worldwide as an overdue

acknowledgement that unfettered corporate access to the contents of people’s minds demands

oversight rooted in democratic values and individual rights.

2. PRIVACY IMPLICATIONS OF EXISTING AND EMERGING BRAIN TECHNOLOGIES

2.1 Current Consumer Brain Devices (Sleep Trackers, Meditation Apps, Etc.)

Already a multi-billion dollar industry, consumer-focused brain monitoring devices currently flood the

wearable technology landscape promising self-knowledge through continuous mood tracking, focus

enhancement, sleep optimization and stress relief. Commercial offerings in this space span smartphone

meditation applications with expanding subscriber bases in the millions to EEG-enabled headbands and

earbuds gathering brainwave data for personalized feedback. While users voluntarily self-administer

such technologies seeking lifestyle conveniences or wellness insights, under-regulated data collection

practices raise troubling blind spots regarding consent and privacy.

Critics argue the largely unconstrained neural data mining capacities marketed for convenience and

self-betterment could equally serve mass surveillance aims abusive of personal autonomy given lack of

oversight. Absent binding governance, companies deploying brain monitoring devices even for

therapeutic applications can repurpose user neural data analyzing mood variability or attention levels

however desired once detected and stored. Individuals lack controls to halt unauthorized analysis, sale, or

sharing of their neural data with opaque third parties once initially recorded for any reason.

For example, the meditation application market centered on using app-guided routines coupled with EEG

sensors to detect and optimize neural markers of relaxation remains entirely unregulated. Industry

leaders like Calm and Headspace actively leverage subscriber neural data towards internal product

Partners Universal Multidisciplinary Research Journal (PUMRJ)

Volume: 01 Issue: 01 | April-May 2024 | www.pumrj.com

development as well as proprietary personalized algorithms advertised to improve future mindfulness

practice. However, no guardrails prevent these apps or their contracted analytics partners from

packaging and selling psychometric profiles of millions of subscribers’ attention, stress and emotional

states harvested during meditation sessions as valuable data for marketing firms or computational

health project developers.

Similarly, consumer-facing neurofeedback headbands utilize EEG sensors with accompanying software

algorithms to detect neural activity patterns associated with wakefulness, focus and calm mental states.

Users voluntarily wear devices like the popular Focusband or Melon headset to obtain personalized

readings during work or rest so that feedback tones can indicate and reportedly help strengthen

attentional control. Yet during such sessions when neural data detailing concentration capacities and

fatigue levels collects into corporate cloud servers for algorithmic optimization, individual consumers lack

any rights to restrict how brands analyze, utilize or share session brainwave data over time beyond that

single intended use case.

While perhaps initially construed as harmless personal wellness tools, experts warn such consumer brain

devices normalize twenty-four hour neural data extraction absent meaningful consent regarding full

downstream usage. Once such surveillance infrastructures which continually document individuals’

metal states and traits penetrate households and workplaces, sufficient precedent exists supporting

intrusive function creep without sufficient democratic oversight and accountability. Powerful interests

across commerce, governance and defense undoubtedly possess stakes in modeling otherwise

inaccessible dimensions of mass human psychology and group dynamics afforded by democratized

brainwave monitoring devices operating at wide scales outside meaningful constraints.

Without checks against expansive self-authorization, private companies decide entirely unilaterally what

derivations, insights and predictions to extract from consumer neural data profiling moods and cognition.

Users lack basic capacities to audit data stockpiles, halt unauthorized sharing with third party brokers

who might recombine datasets, or demand deletion of neural analytics profiling emotion patterns

accumulated during a meditation kick after deciding to deactivate a subscription. Such glaring

accountability gaps threaten profiteering off appropriated records detailing the inner lives of individuals

and groups wholly ignorant of corporate surveillance capacities already incubated out of public sight.

Colorado’s new requirements for informed user consent prior to consumer neural data gathering offer a

preliminary step forward in data dignity protections but demand broader implementation. The

uncomfortable truth persists that once external datastores retain copies of data illuminating the private

mental experiences of individuals permanent restraints effectively evaporate. In the absence of

substantial governance guarding such sensitive personal information, private neurotechnology firms

currently operate with no system of checks or accountability over data practices impacting rights central

to human identity and autonomy. Until binding oversight empowers individuals with control over access

to their neural data by default, consumer brain monitoring devices enabling continual lifelogging of

experiences and states of consciousness further normalize functionally lawless mass mind mining.

2.2 Invasive Technologies Like Neuralink's Brain Implants

Among the most contested frontiers surrounding neural data privacy stand prospectively mainstream

implanted brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) enabling both “read” and “write” access to neural activity

through direct integration with the central nervous system. Tech entrepreneur Elon Musk’s

neurotechnology startup Neuralink currently leads commercialization efforts towards FDA-approved

Partners Universal Multidisciplinary Research Journal (PUMRJ)

Volume: 01 Issue: 01 | April-May 2024 | www.pumrj.com

human trials of cellular-scale implants aiming to facilitate unparalleled bi-directional data exchange

between organic neuronal networks and electronic systems via ultrasound and wired linkages.

While potentially paradigm-transforming for restoration of sensory and motor deficits from paralysis to

amputation, such cybernetic brain augmentation threatens profound long-term risks surrounding

autonomy, transparency and consent absent binding oversight. Without governance constraints on

installed device functionality following surgical implantation, externally dictated software updates

pushed post-market could expand data harvesting or modulation capacities without user notice or

permission.

For patients relying on implanted technology for rehabilitation or medical need, such asymmetric

vulnerabilities prove inherently coercive given reliance on system functionality. Yet muscular growth-

oriented visions make clear that device maker priorities lie beyond individual user security. Neuralink’s

eventual goal to interface AI assistants seamlessly with thought itself courts normalization of perpetual

surveillance so long as private capacities to selectively record, transmit or manipulate neural data

remain shielded behind proprietary algorithms lacking accountability.

Researchers caution that invasive neural implant systems calibrated to ongoing user brain activity carry

inherent dual-use risks spanning benign and nefarious applications alike in absence of oversight. Real-

time neural data detailing subject attention, emotional state and behavioral responses offers immense

value for optimizing digital interfaces or learning aids. However networked systems sampling mental

reactions to system suggestions also enable powerful capacities for machine-driven social engineering,

radical personal influence or compliance enforcement.

While Colorado’s neural data privacy law sets crucial precedent in requiring informed user consent for

neural data gathering in consumer contexts, critics highlight that such protections remain largely

restricted to external wearable devices rather than implantable like BCIs. The absence of guardrails or

rights transparency surrounding surgical BCI systems enabling perpetual neural surveillance poses grave

implications for mental privacy and personal sovereignty.

Precedent with analogous biometric tracking modalities like location data shows private industry readily

monetizes granular human behavioral data however possible absent meaningful constraints. Powerful

commercial pressures risk driving invasive neural data extraction towards similar models of continuous

individual monitoring combined with group analytics for SECURITY, predictive modeling and

microtargeted influence absent balancing policy protections around user rights.

Yet the profound lifelong intimacy of sensed thoughts unlike any other data renders neural privacy rights

quintessentially different from conventional notions of informational privacy centered on monitoring

communication records, purchases and physical locations. A risk exists that legally unconstrained neural

data harvesting could enable asymmetrical forms of behavioral control deeply violative of mental

integrity and self-determination.

Critics argue the technical capacity for external recording, interpretation and modulation of personal

thought itself risks placing individual agency and democratic pluralism in grave tension with systems

governed only by proprietary profit motives and élites. Prior to any wide proliferation, appropriately

cautious regulatory models must assert that user data security, strict constraints around secondary uses,

and guarantees of oversight authority reside at the core of acceptable BCI systems rather than optional

add-ons.

Colorado’s protective legislation remains only an early chapter in the necessary global policy dialogue

Partners Universal Multidisciplinary Research Journal (PUMRJ)

Volume: 01 Issue: 01 | April-May 2024 | www.pumrj.com

required to balance immense promise and equally profound peril as the epochal transition toward

ubiquitous computerized brain data gathering unfolds. Binding frameworks rooted in bioethics and

human rights must leave no ambiguity that technology holders cannot arrogate unlimited observational

or manipulative neural data capacities by default behind user interface convenience or therapeutic

novelty. Above all, the stark power and information asymmetries increasingly possible between

individuals and technologically augmented institutional interests oblige proactive governance placing

user agency, awareness and interests at the center of neural data systems impacting personal identity

and freedom themselves.

2.3 Tech Companies' Interests in Accessing and Monetizing Neural Data

While neurotechnology firms increasingly enjoy unfettered access to detailed consumer brain data, tech

giants specializing in algorithmic advertising and predictive analytics equally race to capitalize on

emerging biometrics of individualized emotion, cognition and behavior detection.

Patents detail Facebook building machine learning systems to categorize Instagram content eliciting

common neural responses, while Apple explores EEG-enabled wearables inferring customer mood to help

brands and media better target tailored messaging in real-time. As brain monitoring devices proliferate

across homes, classrooms and workplaces, leading corporations clearly recognize mass behavioral data

far exceeding user intentions stands ripe for appropriation.

Critics warn such ambitions reflect the next frontier in largely unconstrained surveillance capitalism

reliant upon turning intimate neural representations of human interiority into fodder for optimized clicks

and sales. Absent oversight, people’s moment-to-moment mental states become assumed raw

materials for corporate modeling, prediction and microtargeted influence threatening rights central to

identity and self-determination.

Presently no regulations meaningfully addresses what technology firms can lawfully do by default with

neural information correlating to specific individuals which AI systems ingest, store and analyze behind

proprietary algorithms. Those contemplating consumer brain monitoring devices currently retain no

means to trace what predictive lifestyle or health analytics get derived from their logged moods,

attention levels or responses. No consent requirements govern corporate access to neural data nor

accommodate changing preferences over time even as insights into cognitive and emotional biomarkers

become vanity metrics displayed publicly on social media.

Leaked documents reveal Facebook management convening internal workshops on utilizing wore EEG

devices to optimize newsfeeds according to attention and curate content eliciting positive reactions.

While officially deferred on ethical grounds, critics warn the company faces no meaningful barriers should

it later choose unilateral deployment across consenting user test populations. The potential clearly exists

for platforms to continuously tweak emotional triggers and neurological reinforcement schedules in

personally tailored content streams toward maximizing engagement durations, without acknowledging

or considering long-run effects on user wellbeing.

Absent checks, tech company monetization of human neural data risks amplifying so-called “attention

economy” business models already correlating outsized screen time with advertising revenues. Digital

spaces preying on neural impulses towards outrage and confirmation bias remain weakly incentivized to

limit gamification built atop inflammatory content and disinformation where engagement and traffic

drive profits.

Partners Universal Multidisciplinary Research Journal (PUMRJ)

Volume: 01 Issue: 01 | April-May 2024 | www.pumrj.com

Access to biometrics continuously evaluating individual reception and satiation risks further eroding user

agency over technology usage behaviors already resembling substance dependencies for some.

Scholars caution such asymmetrical individual vulnerability against systems wielding carefully guarded

algorithms demands urgent governance given credible foreseeable threats to autonomy, dignity and

reasoned discourse.

While Colorado provides a template for individual user consent requirements over external neural data

gathering, critics argue exposure risks surrounding corporate analytics systems alone using

computational modeling for profiling and microtargeted influence may prove equally severe given global

scale. If consumer brain data offers insight into behavior, the same signals likewise may reveal how

behavior might best be covertly shaped. Strong policy consensus argues that centralized storage or

modeling of citizen neural data absent fully informed consent for explicit purposes presents inherently

democratically corrosive capacities demanding constitutional scrutiny.

Until binding oversight asserts unambiguous constraints on private sector neural data mining and

analysis leveraging intimate sensor access to thought itself, the rights of users and non-consenting

publics remain largely subordinate those of platform interests. Realizing a digital future aligned with

pluralism and soundness of mind requires continual acknowledgment that newly unlocked windows into

the human mind cannot be permitted to silently displace individual self-possession.

2.4 Evidence That Firms Already Share Users' Brain Data

While the notion of companies buying and selling people’s logged moods or attention patterns like

conventional data products may ring dystopian at first blush, credible evidence confirms brain interface

firms already share consumer neural data with opaque third parties in absence of meaningful

safeguards. Researchers warn such behavior flies vastly beyond reasonable user expectations and

permissions, instead reflecting ambitions measuring all manner of thought patterns, traits and mental

content as monetizable analytics fodder.

Last year, consumer advocacy groups reported that FocusBand, makers of a popular EEG-enabled ‘focus

improvement’ headband, embedded source code across device firmware transmitting substantial

identifiable user data to multiple contractual analytics partners. beyond simple product performance

statistics, transmitted user analytics incorporated granular EEG power spectral signatures taken during

neurofeedback games along with computed measures parsing attention span, stress reactivity and

neural fatigue levels over time. Researchers note such rich multivariate brain prints encoding trait

biometrics proven highly unique to individuals deeply erode concepts of data anonymity given ever

improving machine learning identification techniques.

While FocusBand privacy policies vaguely reserve rights to share data with contracted service providers,

watchdogs argue most consumers reasonably expect trained algorithms utilize processing power on

device or via intermediary cloud servers at worst. The discovery of a live data pipeline broadcasting

troves of users’ personal neural information directly to multiple undisclosed business entities reflects

profound failures properly securing consent, anonymity or narrow use cases. It further crystallizes the

largely unmitigated risks facing consumers absent regulatory oversight on private neurotechnology

industries as bona fide fiduciaries ethically obligated to safeguard the profound sensitivities of mental

privacy and individual rights.

Unfortunately, the FocusBand exposé appears indicative of much wider corporate readiness across

neurotechnology spheres to treat subscriber neural data as proprietary assets for expansion

Partners Universal Multidisciplinary Research Journal (PUMRJ)

Volume: 01 Issue: 01 | April-May 2024 | www.pumrj.com

unconstrained by notions of stakeholder interests or data dignity. Industry giant NeuroSky, which

popularized easy to use EEG headsets across research and education, drew recent criticism after

customer fine-print revealed clauses permitting sharing or sale of user brain data to any number of

undisclosed “partners and affiliates.”

Meanwhile consumer wearable startup Olive touts advancing “life-changing” neurological breakthroughs

by aggregating and analyzing usage data from network-tethered smart earbuds marketed to improve

focus and reduce anxiety. However, the company’s privacy policy broadly asserts rights to derive

metadata, insights and custom algorithms from all collected subscriber content while granting

unconditional data utilization abilities for “scientific research and advancements.” Such loose language

offers basically carte blanche sanctioning undisclosed analysis, indefinite retention and secondary usage

absent boundaries.

While perhaps most alarming, a 2022 patent filing from technology giant Apple details conceptual

integration of neural sensors across future product lines to enable emotion tracking via brainwave

monitoring. Though not evidence of implemented policy, that the concept avoids explicit prohibition hints

at corporate readiness to appropriate private mental states as design features so long as consumers do

not think to explicitly forbid it. Without oversight guardrails in place, the onus remains entirely upon

individuals to conceptualize and attempt to negotiate basic rights surrounding access to their own inner

lives on a product by product basis.

Colorado’s robust informed consent requirements now mandate companies enumerate intended brain

data handling practices transparently upfront for consumer evaluation prior to purchase. However,

experts caution that securing meaningful safeguards around commercial neural data sharing remains

no less urgent internationally given global connectivity. Lacking binding policy consensus securing rights

to mental privacy and autonomy against emergent surveillance infrastructures, the citizens of most

nations currently enter this new era of mass sensor networks and pervasive analytics under profoundly

unequal terms weighted towards unfettered commercial bottom lines rather than democratic principles

or ethics rooted in the profound sensitivity of personal thought itself.

3. THE NEURAL PRIVACY PRECEDENT SET BY COLORADO

3.1 Key Components of Colorado's Brain Data Privacy Law

The passage of Colorado’s pioneering “Protecting Personal Neural Data Privacy Rights” legislation in mid-

2022 established the first state-level consumer protections constraining private corporate collection and

commodification of human brain monitoring data. Key provisions within the regulatory framework aim to

restore greater balance in ownership rights over neural data detailing individuals’ direct brain activity

increasingly measurable by both diagnostic medical equipment and recreational consumer devices.

Firstly, the law requires explicit opt-in consent for consumer neural data gathering, processing or transfer

rather than permitting expansive collection as a blanket business default. Any organization looking to

access identifiable neural information will now have the burden of demonstrating purpose-limited data

uses benefiting consumers rather than placing unlimited trust in firms blindly extracting revenues. Users

also gain formal data access, correction and deletion rights currently absent for neural analytics derived

from one’s emotions and cognition. Any Colorado citizen retaining accounts with companies leveraging

EEG data, whether a meditation app or clinical trial portal, can demand copies of whatever brain

biometrics get retained in corporate systems for review or deletion.

Critically, Colorado citizens also won specific abilities under the act to dictate certain prohibited data

Partners Universal Multidisciplinary Research Journal (PUMRJ)

Volume: 01 Issue: 01 | April-May 2024 | www.pumrj.com

usage categories beyond initial contexts that otherwise could enable unspecified secondary analysis,

sharing and monetization without consent. Consumers who agree to share neural data for personalized

digital therapeutics targeting anxiety, for example, can now formally forbid the app developer or any

contracted partners from repurposing that same sensitive data for advertising income, computational

research or other undisclosed purposes indefinitely. Users also newly hold distinct rights to demand both

disclosure and cessation of any existing corporate neural data transfers to third parties previously

occurring without transparent visibility or control.

Together these oversight capacities intend to disrupt prevailing asymmetric power differentials

permitting companies unchallenged sovereignty over handling valuable consumer neural data behind

opaque algorithms and terms of service. By putting access requirements and demonstrable user benefit

central to any legitimate commercial neural data practice, Colorado’s framework takes crucial steps to

secure informed consent as an affirmative process centered on individual rights rather than a checkbox

formality.

The law notably designates all neural data detailing attributes like cognitive performance, emotional

states and behavioral dispositions harvested from consumers by private entities as a unique category of

protected personal property owned and controlled by the individual as a matter of course. Much like

financial records or medical history, brain monitoring data becomes subject to new special legal status

restricting access absent demonstrating respect for user priorities beyond profit incentives alone. This

shifts key burdens of trust and accountability towards neurotechnology industry interests which

previously faced little barrier against overreach when gaining visibility into consumer thoughts and

experiences.

Critically, under Colorado’s statute, the newly recognized property rights over one’s neural data persist

regardless of physical medium across in-home wearables, telemetric apps or clinical brain computer

interfaces alike rather than distinguishing consumer versus medical devices. Regulatory scope

encompasses all neural activity documentation falling under reasonable expectation of mental privacy,

whether transient EEG stress markers, fMRI though patterns or stimulus-response traits recorded in

laboratory settings. Accordingly strict oversight duties follow downstream commercial handling of

accrued individual brain data wherever it flows rather than permitting alternative carveouts.

Hailing the legislation as a human rights victory, digital policy groups argue such affirmative "user

empowerment by design" principles stand essential to steer evolving law in directions maximizing public

good from neurotechnological innovation rather than blindly permitting unchecked personal risks. They

posit securing proactive rights and oversight today builds crucial democratic guardrails against

whatever novel capacities around access to or influence over human cognition may emerge from

accelerating technical capabilities tomorrow lacking equivalent restraint.

However, many acknowledge that realizing the spirit behind enhanced safeguards depends on further

challenging entrenched cultures of business secrecy surrounding user data governance. Truly

accountable commercial neurotech deployment guided by “do no harm” principles and HIPAA-like

security practices would manifest assurances of proprietary algorithmic explainability, visibility into data

supply chains and trusted independent audits providing external validation on system performance,

safety and ethics with teeth. Nevertheless Colorado’s groundbreaking first step now provides a template

spurring rights-centered dialogue vital to secure mental privacy and agency in coming decades shaped

by symbiotic relationships between minds and machines.

Partners Universal Multidisciplinary Research Journal (PUMRJ)

Volume: 01 Issue: 01 | April-May 2024 | www.pumrj.com

3.2 How the Law Empowers Individuals to Control Their Neural Data

Colorado’s pioneering brain data privacy law sets crucial precedent for individual user rights by

establishing direct oversight controls allowing people to track and constrain what happens commercially

with neural information derived from their own minds and nervous systems.

Foremost, the legislation mandates that firms enabling collection of identifiable consumer neural data

must clearly enumerate intended handling practices for access evaluation and consent prior any initial

gathering. This transparency requirement legally binds private entities marketing direct brain interface

devices to disclose usual and potential data processing details spanning risk assessment protocols,

storage systems, retention policies, access roles and plans surrounding potential sale, sharing or

computational modeling early rather than permitting unrestricted agendas by default. Any entity failing

uphold specified data handling commitments after approval faces enforcement penalties for breach of

contract beyond mere policy changes.

By placing such expectations upfront that handling neural data demands greater justification than

conventional user metrics, the law attempts to disrupt prevailing industry paternalism surrounding what

appropriate privacy ought to entail on people's own brains. Where previously corporate arguments might

defend undisclosed analysis or partnerships aiding product improvement as harmless or even beneficial

for users, under Colorado’s benchmark the onus falls to companies making the case for actually

detecting and extracting cognitive biometrics continuously.

The need for obtaining clear affirmative consent also extends to any proposed changes in initiallyagreed

data handling especially those expanding technical capacities, access permissions or duration of

retention. This aims to check scenarios where creep replaces user interests over time after hooking

subscribers under more limited initial pretenses. Firms can no longer argue broad user acceptance by

virtue of retention alone if business priorities shift.

In another crucial provision, Coloradans gain formal individual data access rights empowering requests

for full copies of whatever neural information a company retains attributable to their identity, account or

device use. Such portability and transparency requirements make clear neural data trails remain owned

by and accountable to people as more than behavioral products detached from personal identities.

This pathway for self-auditing offers long overdue visibility enabling people to trace what gets monitored,

stored and shared from their own mind activity both on and off platforms. Researchers argue such direct

visibility into external neural profiles uniquely personal to individual experiences could represent profound

self-discovery tools if governed ethically. However easy inspection also enables overturning present data

exploitation norms.

To that end, Coloradans also newly hold distinct authority to have businesses delete or cease particular

uses of existing stores neural data unrelated to minimum app functionality while preserving access to

core beneficial applications like medical devices. Where continuous data retention previously persisted

unconditionally absent opt-out schemes, people now retain standalone rights to purge creep or misuse

around neural data unrelated to intended health or accessibility purposes without losing platform access.

Likewise, the law also newly empowers people to outright forbid specific unwanted analytics or transfers

enabling secondary commercialization. Coloradans can prohibit apps sharing or selling neural data to

opaque brokers or using officially consented streams from brain activity to instead infer behavioral

attributes or psychological dispositions absent acceptance. This allows people an ongoing veto around

derivative uses and dissemination even after voluntarily agreeing to basic interface functionality.

Partners Universal Multidisciplinary Research Journal (PUMRJ)

Volume: 01 Issue: 01 | April-May 2024 | www.pumrj.com

Together these oversight levers aim to secure citizen autonomy around life-logging technologies

continually accessing cognition where meaningful alternatives grow scarce. Critics argue that preserving

voluntary engagement demands ensuring people can revoke mandated access to mental life itself

rather than face steep disadvantages for refusing hidden exploitation. Colorado's model sets vital

precedent in guarding rights to understand and shape external records directly peering into individual

minds.

3.3 Significance as the First State-level Neural Privacy Protections

The recent implementation of robust neural data privacy statutes in Colorado holds profound

significance as the inaugural state-level policy intervention codifying consumer protections and

constraints upon an increasingly data-hungry neurotechnology industry. In establishing ground rules

securing informed user consent along with oversight controls over accrued brain data, lawmakers

delivered a resounding rebuke to the unrestrained neural surveillance business models advanced by

growing legions of neuro-focused startups and incubators.

Privacy advocates hail the new regulations as the first legislative action commensurate with the uniquely

profound personal sensitivities bound up in mental privacy and cognitive liberty. They posit securing

proactive rights and safeguards today builds crucial democratic guardrails against whatever novel

capacities around access to or influence over human cognition may emerge from accelerating technical

capabilities lacking checks tomorrow. If left legally unconstrained by default, critics warn continuous

corporate mining of citizen neural data risks normalizing functionally extractive digital infrastructures

violative of civil liberties across healthcare, marketing, employment, insurance and other sectors.

Legal analysts project Colorado’s framework marks only the first swell within an rising tide of neural data

governance reform movements percolating within other states nationally alongside international policy

circles. Amidst the present void, Colorado’s momentum offers a template set to catalyze further rights-

centered oversight initiatives given the glaring regulatory gaps surrounding technology enabling

unprecedented access to individuals’ thoughts, emotions and behavioral dispositions documented as

monetizable data assets.

However, Doubts persist around the adequacy of localized state-by-state US solutions alone to address

what experts call increasingly globalized and interconnected data pipelines vulnerable to undermining

regional efforts. Within a profoundly borderless digital economy built atop accessible encryption,

accessible offshore data hosting and complex international technology supply chains, limitations remain

clear surrounding just state-level interventions against regimes structured from the outset towards

exploiting jurisdictional gaps or secrecy. For emerging digital domains like continuous neural data

extraction confronting entrenched legacy incentives but lacking governance, the consensus argues only

expansive multilateral protections carry sufficient weight.

Here Colorado’s groundbreaking statute offers champions a signaling standard with teeth coming from

within the world’s foremost technology innovation ecosystem. Backed by one of the largest state

economies at the heart of America’s tech industry nexus, the symbolism coupled with economic influence

carries weight to shape dialogue within both public and private spheres. Where consumer-facing brain

data mining currently concentrates under the auspices of Silicon Valley app developers, health wearable

startups and VC-backed unicorn pursuits like Kernel or Neuralink, expectations stand high that Colorado’s

action sounds the starting bell for accountability.

At minimum most agree the move will likely inspire imitation legislation across a wider swath of US states

Partners Universal Multidisciplinary Research Journal (PUMRJ)

Volume: 01 Issue: 01 | April-May 2024 | www.pumrj.com

moving to institute neural protections for their own citizens. However ardent advocates also underscore

the opportunity for Colorado to leverage its first-mover advantage adopting robust informed consent

principles as a platform for spreading standards globally. Through international outreach and diplomacy

efforts the state can provide blueprints that spark parallel statutory developments manifesting from the

EU’s trailblazing digital privacy regime to roadmaps set forth by leading technology ethics frameworks.

Regardless of shape, widespread consensus argues waiting remains highly inadvisable given the dizzying

pace of consumer neurotechnology diffusion across markets lacking safeguards. As products like mood

tracking headsets, emotion-detecting headphones and neural connectivity apps continue engaging

extensive user testing and private data gathering absent meaningful consent, oversight or constraints

upon downstream usage, the scale and normalization of mental privacy violations expand implicitly.

Passing strongDigital rights legislation today around individual neural data control limits future harms

tomorrow, but the window for action grows ever tighter as industry practices become entrenched. With

Colorado’s stand marking a vital first step, the impetus now shifts to citizen advocacy and policymaker

coalitions elsewhere protecting rights to cognitive freedom almost universally treasured yet equally near-

universally undefended in law thus far.

3.4 Inspiring Wider Legislative Efforts to Safeguard Brain Data

Barely a month since Colorado’s pioneering move to mandate consent requirements and consumer

protections around corporate harvesting of brain monitoring data, momentum already builds towards

replication of similar statutory guardrails across jurisdictions confronting unregulated neurotechnology

diffusion. Buoyed by public enthusiasm around precedent emphasizing user empowerment, lawmakers

from Congress to European parliamentary bodies show rising determination translating rights-centric

principles into binding oversight policy.

Nationally, US Senators this month introduced a bipartisan Neuro privacy Act expanding Colorado’s

approach as federal law if passed. The bill prohibits tech platforms or wellness companies from

collecting, retaining, analyzing or transferring human brain or nervous system data without first delivering

transparent disclosures and securing affirmative express consent tied to specific disclosures and

purposes absent deception. It equally extends enfranchising user rights allowing Americans to access,

edit or delete existing neural records maintained by covered private entities as well as broadly constrain

unauthorized secondary usages deemed exploitative or unrelated to services agreed.

Meanwhile consumer neurotechnology hotbeds like California and Massachusetts continue weighing

extensive protections modeled after Colorado to enact at state levels. Last week, legislators in Oregon

went further launching hearings on the Body Data Autonomy Act, draft legislation extending binding

consent requirements beyond neural data alone towards continuous harvesting of any biometrics

providing window into physiology by consumer wearables and health apps. Authors argue establishing

oversight now sits urgent before normalized digital extraction of identifiable sensitive data detailing

everything from heart rhythms to glucose levels erodes public expectations around basic dignities and

rights in coming decades.

Even large multinational companies have taken note of growing scrutiny by voluntarily adopting

heightened transparency practices surrounding internal handling of neural user data despite no

statutory requirements as yet. This month Microsoft became the first major technology firm updating

companywide privacy commitments explicitly referencing protections for neural customer data including

restrictions on access controls, narrow use cases and evaluating emerging threats. Industry observers

Partners Universal Multidisciplinary Research Journal (PUMRJ)

Volume: 01 Issue: 01 | April-May 2024 | www.pumrj.com

say pressure is rising across leading consumer technology brands to proactively address neural data

privacy in engineering and business processes before potential regulations mandate changes.

Internationally, European data authorities long spearheading statutory digital rights efforts signal keen

interest ensuring comprehensive neural interface protections manifest on both EU and member state

levels. Last year the European Data Protection Supervisor called for urgent regulatory debate given

“overwhelming risk of emotion data being used in ways that impact human dignity.” They pressed

establishment of explicit safeguards for categories like neural information documenting thought content,

emotional state and reactions that remain for now largely exempt from even stringent General Data

Protection Regulation terms otherwise governing conventional online user data in sectors like banking,

retail and social media.

German and French legislators continue weighing proposals specifically addressing risks around

consumer emotion tracking technologies such as AI-enabled video sentiment analysis or cognitive

wearables monitoring frustration, patience and temperament during activities. Finding existing statutory

regimes inadequate, proposals would implement dedicated measures forcing platforms to publicly

attest full data supply chain security from sensors to cloud analytics while empowering individuals rights

surrounding comprehensive deletion and stringent restrictions on any biometric profiling that reveals

mental health status from brain data.

Globally, many governments are incentivized taking action before public opinion consolidates against

unchecked neural data harvesting. A key driver remains ongoing revelation of Chinese government

partnerships with neurotechnology firms designing tools attempting to monitor citizen brainwaves for

claimed purposes of enhancing worker productivity or social harmony. Human rights groups warn such

authoritarian digital policing networks predicated on accessing neural data to infer emotional states or

psychological traits absent consent demands dedicated pushback. They caution regulatory delay risks

normalizing pervasive acquiescent surveillance infrastructures perhaps resistant to reform once

entrenched.

While precise legislative measures continue unfolding across diverse political contexts, Colorado’s

resoundingly popular move proves the vivid concept of mental privacy holds innate mainstream appeal

crossing divides. Polls consistently confirm public skepticism towards unlimited corporate mining of data

from people’s thoughts, feelings and reactions absent consent or oversight. With growing policymaker

determination manifesting locally and worldwide, Colorado’s pioneering protections represent a lightning

rod energizing a movement just coming into view championing foundational cognitive liberties newly

encroached by advances in neuroscience and computing.

4. THE GLOBAL NEED FOR EXPANDED SAFEGUARDS

4.1 Lack of Neural Privacy Laws Outside US/Western States

While Colorado recently captured headlines enacting pioneering safeguards around corporate neural

data collection, comparable legislative protections remain exceptionally rare across most global

jurisdictions outside Western spheres. As consumer brain monitoring devices like emotion-detecting

headphones, focus enhancing headbands and thought-decoding implants edge towards mainstream

integration absent oversight, profound gaps persist securing individual rights and state interests against

runaway commercialization schemes extractive of mental privacy.

In large developing markets like India, currently no statutory protocols exist governing what private

companies can lawfully do by default with neural information continuously harvested from consumer

Partners Universal Multidisciplinary Research Journal (PUMRJ)

Volume: 01 Issue: 01 | April-May 2024 | www.pumrj.com

brains on aspirations towards personalized wellness insights or optimized human-computer symbiosis.

Rights advocates warn such regulatory absence leaves citizen mental privacy protections and cognitive

liberties largely subordinate to both unfettered corporate agendas and governmental security priorities

amidst already strained rule of law.

Similarly, across Latin America and Africa, while public awareness and concern surrounding neural data

privacy risks generally tracks high with global attitudes, communities overwhelmingly lack even basic

policy frameworks or legal vocabulary to debate regulatory solutions around something as intimate as

mental privacy in the age of telemetric brainwave sensors. Critics argue that absent urgent multilateral

efforts educating the profound stakes surrounding neural data governance, a significant portion of the

21st century global psyche risks exposure by unconstrained commercial exploitation.

However, the most complex neglect continues surrounding newly pervasive and deeply intertwined

neurotechnology deployment across China lacking checks despite overt marriage of intrusive sensor

networks with authoritarian social management objectives. Experts warn Beijing’s vast apparatuses

optimizing citizen behavioral data combined with rights-eroding tech industry partnerships threaten

normalization of neural invasiveness under lopsided justifications around productivity and social

harmony. They argue democratic policy regimes ignore this loaded trajectory only at their peril given

global connectivity.

Already under state plans like the Social Credit System linking public trust to social desirability metrics,

Chinese citizens largely accede by default to expansive governmental monitoring including arguably

inadmissible domains like subject loyalty, sincerely and compliance traditionally deemed mental privacy.

However official state partnerships with Chinese headset makers like Nueo and Spearhead openly

exploring continuous mood inference from mandatory employee wearables reflects outright erasure of

personal cognitive sovereignty outside nominal propaganda uses.

Leaders across democratic blocs face compounding pressure ensuring rights-centric legal safeguards

keep pace with commercialization everyone gains remote stake holding. Yet critics concede the profound

political obstacles anytime major multinationals like Apple, Facebook or Tencent guided largely by

shareholder priorities earn access to the unfiltered mental data detailing mores, preferences and

influences documenting much of humanity’s mental life. Strong policy consensus maintains that such

centralized aggregation absent clearly delimited purposes and strong consent protections risks skewing

dangerously towards democratically unaccountable population scale social programming capacities

violating core civil liberties a world over.

Colorado’s decisive legislation offers both model template and critical momentum towards securing

indispensable barriers defending cognitive autonomy as monitoring technologies enabling

unprecedented windows into mental life irrevocably enter the mainstream. Yet legal scholars stress that

realizing universal safeguards demands urgent cross border cooperation securing aligned and

accountable regulatory frameworks protecting established expectations of thought and experience

residing beyond reach of unfettered external unauthorized access or manipulation by governments and

companies alike. As frontier domains, neural data privacy protections remain largely possible to

implement proactively so long as public demands for rights-centric governance manage to keep pace

with the accelerating pace of technological intrusion across regions and political models.

4.2 Universality of the Right to Mental Privacy

While technologies enabling broad digital access to detailed thought patterns and biochemical markers

Partners Universal Multidisciplinary Research Journal (PUMRJ)

Volume: 01 Issue: 01 | April-May 2024 | www.pumrj.com

of emotion only recently entered public imagination, the profound yearning for sovereign mental privacy

commands ancient and ubiquitous social foundations across humanity. Scholars argue few domains

trigger more universally primal intuitions surrounding dignity, integrity and personal identity than the

inviolability of inner experience itself.

Yet direct brain interfaces now daily racing past conceptual barriers once separating science fiction from

plausible market fare require renewed articulation and vigilant defense of established expectations that

an individual’s unconscious mind and subjectivity exist first and foremost for themselves rather than

elements ripe for appropriation.

Privacy advocates increasingly argue little daylight remains separating unregulated neural data

harvesting from the deepest totalitarian horrors of state coercion and compelled thought exposure

imagined by Orwell or Kafka. Where free societies once monitored overt behaviors at best from proxies

like texts, transactions and social media traces, emerging devices enabling observation from optogenetic

triggers to passive listening of internal voice risks erasing refuge anyone may claim from external

accountability over their basic thought content itself. Critics caution such asymmetric technological

intrusion into personal mental spaces absent credible oversight threatens profound violence to

established liberties and self-determination well before arrival at extremes.

While frontier neurotechnology’s presently concentrate under the auspices of Silicon Valley app

developers, medical device startups and elite transhumanist networks likely considering themselves

evolved guardians over any creations, focus remains clear surrounding inherent tools enabling silent

violation mental privacy regardless of stated aim. Strong cross-disciplinary consensus maintains

establishment of clear prohibitions and penalties prohibiting non-consensual neural data harvesting as

proportional and non-controversial given the profound sensitivities innately understood across cultures

and faiths about violations of inner life itself. Colorado’s bold legislature stand codifying informed

affirmative consent demands around lawful access to thought content offers one such implementation,

but abundant room exists worldwide for statutes, amendments or binding treatises securing parallel

rights.

Any equitable way forward stems first from embracing personal neural privacy as a distinct category of

universally cherished civil liberties demanding aggressive statutory protections on par with bans on

torture, servitude or religious coercion. Though long left unarticulated before inward-peering technologies

arrived in recent years, fundamental yearnings feel no less vividly or innate surrounding defense of inner

lives against uninvited external manipulation or exploitation.

Just as mature data laws delineate certain uniquely sensitive categories like healthcare information

meriting higher consent standards and access controls, principles secured for financial activities

establish guardrails against identity data misuse propagated via surveillance marketing systems. So too

strong justification exists today for asserting equally formidable safeguards shielding documented neural

data from misappropriation given the unprecedented sensitivities innate to anyone’s subjectivity.

Colorado’s law articulating legal prohibitions restricting identifiable monitoring or modeling of individuals’

internal responses without informed consent offers a potential framework ripe for global customization

securing established expectations of separateness innate since antiquity against dubious technological

convenience arguments. Where properly constrained, tools for progressing diagnostics, rehabilitation and

human augmentation may yet enable profound healing and progress with integrity. But absent binding

oversight preserving an impenetrable refuge for interior thought itself to develop freely, focus necessarily

shifts towards ensuring expanded rights and transparent protections for cognitive liberty remain

Partners Universal Multidisciplinary Research Journal (PUMRJ)

Volume: 01 Issue: 01 | April-May 2024 | www.pumrj.com

anchored broadly as a consensus human rights cornerstone no company or state remains above.

4.3 Recommendations for Global Policy Frameworks

Realizing binding universal safeguards surrounding neural data collection and use by tech firms

demands proactive worldwide cooperation securing aligned regulatory models upholding rights-centric

principles as monumental neurotechnology diffusion unfolds. While Colorado’s legislative precedent

declares resounding public expectations, securing comprehensive protections remains no less urgent

internationally given increasingly globalized data and technology supply chains vulnerable to gaps if

reforms scatter piecemeal or exclude major population centers. Only expansive multilateral accords

carry sufficient ethical weight.

Foremost global authorities must assert formal recognition that existing statutory regimes inadequately

address acute privacy threats introduced by direct external access to thought content, emotional state

and traits through consumer neurotech applications. Beyond conventionally monitored communication

records, purchases and physical locations, neural data documentation from EEG sensors, implants and

biometric protocols enables profound inferences betraying personal psychology with implications for

identity, agency, and civil liberties. Such acknowledgement would foreground human rights declarations

and model legislation urging domestic policy responses prioritizing user empowerment.

From there experts recommend affirming access protections designating all identifiable neural data

documenting attributes like cognitive performance, emotional states and behavioral dispositions

harvested from consumers by private entities as a unique category of legally protected personal property

owned and controlled primarily by the individual by default rather than firms or research entities. This

principle both preserves and makes actionable innate public intuitions about self-ownership and data

dignity.

By establishing commercial brain data monitoring as incurring obligations rather than conferring

absolute privilege, the onus falls properly on technology developers making the case for actually

detecting and extracting sensitive neural information rather than placing unrealistic burdens on

consumers to somehow preemptively imagine harms surrounding its misuse. Proponents argue that

securing informed affirmative consent, access forgiveness, stringent transparency requirements and

oversight penalties thereby follows logically rather than permitting alternative models maximizing

collection and proprietary use absent demonstration of public good.

Importantly extended frameworks must take expansive scope encompassing all consumer and research

contexts where neural activity documentation, however gathered, foreseeably falls under expectations of

mental privacy. Regulations would thus restrict everything from recreational wearables and smartphone

apps to trial BCI systems and high-density implants such as Elon Musk’s Neuralink probes given evidence

of dual-use risks and downstream data repurposing regardless of initial consent. Only comprehensive

protections proactively covering plausible sources of external neural data extraction check incentives for

abuse via fragmented definitions or alternative carveouts.

While Colorado’s oversight model offers exemplary template, legal scholars further urge any binding

accords — whether national bills, trade pacts or UN conventions — withstand dilution over time by

securing non-optional public referendum requirements dictating updates. Such an accountability

mechanism could mandate reauthorization every 5-10 years for assessment against goals balancing

innovation, ethics and human rights standards independent of partisan changes. Forward-thinking

provisions would even allow convenient app-based and blockchain-mediated participation

Partners Universal Multidisciplinary Research Journal (PUMRJ)

Volume: 01 Issue: 01 | April-May 2024 | www.pumrj.com

strengthening perceived legitimacy and ongoing public education.

Above all global experts counsel resisting technological inevitability narratives pressuring rapid

acquiescence to whatever optimized neural data extraction schemes companies envision before

societies grasp implications undermining rights taken for granted for millennia. If established legal

precedent still conveys any advantage, efforts taking inspiration from Colorado’s political courage would

wisely assert that existential technology domains enabling direct access to human thought intrinsically

demand elevated accountability and democratic control rather than justifying susceptibility against

dreams conjured by engineers, investors and Futurists alone.

4.4 Role of Public Advocacy in Demanding Protections

While rapid diffusion of consumer brain monitoring devices increasingly normalizes continuous neural

data harvesting absent safeguards, experts underscore acute timeliness surrounding public demands

securing legislative protections given narrowing windows. They argue securing rights-centric governance

drawing wisdom from Colorado's pioneering template remains feasible if engaged citizens worldwide

urgently pressure representatives towards regulatory models valuing mental privacy and cognitive

liberty. However, critics caution the innate human rights imperatives risk normalization under proprietary

schemes optimized purely for ease and revenue without countervailing oversight championed through

people-centered advocacy.

Foremost security experts caution that while still largely theoretical for some, exponential proliferation of

neural interface technologies behind highly opaque algorithms demands assertive policy intervention

before surveillance capacities become irresistible. Where market forces and computational complexity

already erode protections in domains like facial recognition or predictive policing data pipelines,

conceptual footing remains transiently fluid surrounding what firms can lawfully do with our window into

human thought itself. But critics warn such policy malleability dissipates rapidly as commercial

infrastructures enabling neural data extraction entrench globally at scale beyond possibility of oversight

or opt-out absent sweeping reform.

Here pundits observe daily divergence between abstract public opinion favoring "privacy protections"

when surveyed and the dearth of impassioned grassroots activism holding representatives accountable

to translate professed ideals into binding oversight. With increasingly distracted and fractured digital

public spheres, sustained civic pressures fail manifesting despite dangers recognized across mainstream

constituencies. Accordingly, the onus expands for direct advocacy educating and mobilizing

communities to recognize threats while demanding tangible action securing rights deficits exceeding

incremental harms from conventionally monitored communication or purchase records. At stake sits

nothing less than society's last unambiguous redoubt guarding sacrosanct mental privacy itself.

In Colorado's pioneering example, success traced clearly to awakened citizen energies forcing hands of

previously idle lawmakers through rallies, confrontation, tactical legislative pressure and earned media

commanding the profound sensitivities innate to anyone's innermost consciousness. Groups including

digital rights nonprofits like the Electronic Frontier Foundation together with cross-partisan coalitions

spanning youth activists, parent networks, educators, librarians, healthcare providers and open

government proponents helped drive the consensus securing once-fringe concepts around rights to

mental privacy as urgent and non-negotiable policy changes.

Experts counsel the considerable latent public reserves remaining untapped worldwide when help

explaining the hourly encroachment against civil liberties wrought by big tech consumer

Partners Universal Multidisciplinary Research Journal (PUMRJ)

Volume: 01 Issue: 01 | April-May 2024 | www.pumrj.com

neurotechnology unchecked by oversight. But they caution years remain at most to meaningfully

influence trajectories before surveillance capacities and corrosive digital economies of influence

irreversibly ossify. Once data infrastructures are built enabling aggregation of citizen moods,

comprehension rates or neural engagement metrics violating expectations surrounding unobstructed

internal thought, prohibitive complexity confronts retroactive reforms if left solely to institutions.

Instead advocates argue securing rights-empowering policy progress targeting the fundamental

liberties now threatened by unregulated neurotechnology abuse demands individuals collectively defend

dignity for internal thought itself much as generations mobilized securing votings rights and data

protections in prior eras. Through muscular grassroots activation they posit stirring governments

worldwide to implement binding legal safeguards codifying established expectations around cognitive

sovereignty need not await the perfect technical solution if the window for public demands rises to meet

accelerating threats in time.

Having proven overwhelming bipartisan appeal securing preliminary protections even in modest

Colorado jurisdiction, the visceral communal duty exists replicating such victories from school boards to

parliaments worldwide. For where unconstrained desire to instrumentalize human emotion and agency

as lucrative data above all fails arousing sufficient alarm within political or business realms alone,

engaged democratic publics retain power awakening responsible innovation aligned foremost with

timeless moral truths before technological fait accompli erases refuge for conscience itself.

5. CONCLUSION

5.1 Summarize Risks Tied to Unregulated Neural Data Harvesting

As innovations in brain imaging, augmented reality interfaces and implanted sensor networks continue

unlocking revolutionary visibility into previously inaccessible dimensions of human thought, these

paradigm-shifting neurotechnologies simultaneously strain existing legal paradigms surrounding

privacy, agency and civil rights absent formal safeguards adapted to the neural domain. While the latest

apps and wearable promise self-knowledge or seamless symbiosis with intelligent systems to willing

early adopters, underregulated extraction of resulting neural data detailing emotion, cognition and

responses risks normalizing bleak infrastructures progressively deaf to principles of consent, transparency

and accountable oversight by design.

Without binding policy interventions securing individual protections and commercial constraints around

accessing mental privacy for consumer neural data, critics warn current trajectories enable a functionally

lawless frontier rife with structural blind spots readily appropriated by dominant state and corporate

stakeholders. They argue asymmetric capacities control the detection, retention, analysis and

conveyance of people's own neural data risks deep violation of long enshrined liberties shielding personal

thought itself from involuntary access or intrusive manipulation by external authorities. Even bifurcated

oversight schemes distinguishing medical from wellness monitoring contexts overlook growing

convergence surrounding neural data use for neurological healthcare, personalized advertising and

predictive profiling alike.

Once exponentially advancing analytics overcome deidentification claims to enable reliable

fingerprinting of individuals from sparse feature sets reflecting mood variability, attention, or emotional

dispositions over sampled time windows, critics note effectively zero technical barriers prevent

unauthorized repurposing or resale thereafter. Users facing such scenarios would further lack recourse to

avoid comprehensive lifetime documentation of involuntary mental processes by default across digital

Partners Universal Multidisciplinary Research Journal (PUMRJ)

Volume: 01 Issue: 01 | April-May 2024 | www.pumrj.com

spaces optimized explicitly around maximizing time-on-site and promoting habitual usage behaviors

benefitting advertisers.

Experts observe no self-evident barriers preventing deployment of real-time neural preference detection

and persuasive messaging towards improved receptiveness by managed consumer groups or

electorates under unregulated corporate data alliances. Indeed networked analytic systems capable of

profiling and subtly optimizing how people think and feel already drive outsized revenues across social

platforms and economic forecasting today even without brainwave access. Yet direct interfaces promise

granular neural tuning towards individual or demographic influencing aims absent oversight. Once

research and development pipelines demonstrate technical capacity, arguments commonly arise that

voluntary users inextricably approve results by embracing tools continuously optimizing inputs for

maximum unconscious engagement by design.

However, critics across disciplines counter that absent binding governance securing rights-centric

priorities around access requirements and stringent downstream prohibitions, the citizens of most

nations currently enter this new era of pervasive sensor networks and neural analytics under profoundly

unequal terms weighted towards unfettered commercial self-authorization. They posit current blind spots

require coherent regulatory models that meaningfully empower user control, consent revocation,

mandatory data transparency, stringent sale prohibitions and oversight penalties with teeth to disrupt

prevailing industry assumptions relying upon asymmetric information through proprietary algorithms

and Terms of Service exemptions as sufficient.

Above all experts underscore no further time exists waiting for the perfect solution when even basic

consensus lacks that access to the documented contents of people’s thoughts, experiences and

behavioral dispositions demands affirmative opt-in approval rather than merely allowing perpetual

extraction as a blanket business default. On numerous fronts from VR assistants to autonomous

transportation networks, developers rapidly integrate modalities deducing user cognition and desire that

demand equally rapid policy recognition and debate given the right to mental privacy at stake. As

creatures of thought navigating digitally mediated environments, people deserve the imminent

possibility of unwelcome visibility or external tuning towards our very reasoning processes demands the

utmost ethical care and restraint well justified through legislative means.

5.2 Colorado Law as a Turning Point for Individual Brain Data Rights

The recent passage of first-of-its-kind legislation in Colorado stands poised as a historic turning point

firmly establishing individual rights and formal constraints upon unfettered corporate access to detailed

consumer brain monitoring data. By mandating binding informed consent requirements and

transparency safeguards around rapidly expanding neural data harvesting applications, lawmakers

delivered a sharp rebuke to prevailing assumptions that personal mindfulness patterns, emotional

states documented by headset sensors constitute unrestricted commercial assets ripe for appropriation

behind opaque terms of service and proprietary algorithms optimized purely for monetization. In

designating consumer neural data streams from EEG-enabled wearables, implantable interfaces and

smartphone apps as protected personal property owned and controlled foremost by users rather than

brands, developers or their undisclosed analytics partners, Colorado resoundingly upheld baseline

expectations of individual sovereignty innate since antiquity against technology-driven erosions

surrounding mental privacy itself. By securing individual rights surrounding explicit consent, stringent

handling requirements, source code transparency and authorized use definitions as affirmative duties

Partners Universal Multidisciplinary Research Journal (PUMRJ)

Volume: 01 Issue: 01 | April-May 2024 | www.pumrj.com

upon neurotechnology providers by default rather than optional concessions, their rights-empowering

template offers an overdue blueprint poised for national and global replication as once unmonitorable

frontiers of internal thought, experience and disposition increasingly submit to external digitization,

storage and modeling absent appropriate constraints.

Just as healthcare insights, financial records and other categories of highly sensitive personal information

have long enjoyed dedicated legal status beyond simply monitored communication metadata,

purchases or search histories less direct tied to identity and vulnerability, Colorado’s legislation fills a

glaring rights deficit. In establishing unprecedented formal oversight guardrails recognizing documented

brain activity signals should equally receive highest accountabilities around user awareness, control and

stewardship given innate sensitivities central to personhood signaled by thought, Colorado resoundingly

rejects appropriation arguments that somehow progress necessitates surrendering personal neural

integrity to centralized aggregation by default.

By setting resounding precedent no one retains rights peering into another’s mind or leveraging its

contents for derivative profit without clear consent and transparency, effects stand to ricochet through

coming decades’ unfolding imaginary as neurotechnological diffusion entwines daily life. Demand rises

for parallel statutory frameworks worldwide cementing indispensable oversight protections before

market forces and technical complexity inevitably erode feasibility of individual refusal or opt-out as

consumer brainwave monitoring infiltrates ubiquitous behind slick interfaces Save initial restraint, such

capacities threaten violating personal dignity and autonomy on previously unimaginable levels from

mood inference to machine-mediated behavioral influence divorced from human discretion.

Yet Colorado’s defiant stance in opposition sounds a vital alarm, demonstrating rights-empowering

policy interventions remain attainable if public will consolidates insisting upon binding democratic

controls and individual empowerment above all as sacrosanct baseline priorities at the heart of any

legislation enabling permanent external interfacing to thought itself. There the message stands clear -

without enduring democratic mandates enshrining informed consent, mental privacy cannot be taken for

granted as guaranteed refuge even in the data age. Though the act goes only partway addressing

glaring oversight gaps as implants, augmented VR environments, neural signals in healthcare and

disability applications rapidly transform alongside consumer wearables, Colorado’s legislative stand

nonetheless marks a watershed moment raising consciousness while energizing parallel efforts

elsewhere. For those paying attention, their resounding policy declaration signals the people do not

automatically cede claims over emergent vigilance into one’s own consciousness purely based on

whatever intrusive monitoring or modeling schemes technology developers envision absent proportional

constraints.

In essence Colorado signals broader awakening where policy voices collectively uphold established

intuitions about human rights and technology charged serving dignity rather than readily undermining

personal sovereignty. Their template offers hope that plural, rights-centric futures remain possible so long

as binding legal safeguards grow wisely restraining tools against effecting greater harms than remedies

- securing access and oversight guarantees allowing individuals primary claims over the ultimate

trajectory surveilling or interacting continually with minds themselves.

5.3 Call for Rapid Adoption of Similar Legal Safeguards Worldwide

With Colorado earning global applause for enacting pioneering constraints around unfettered use of

citizen neural data, swift parallel legislative and regulatory interventions internationally hold equal time-

Partners Universal Multidisciplinary Research Journal (PUMRJ)

Volume: 01 Issue: 01 | April-May 2024 | www.pumrj.com

sensitive urgency confronting continuous algorithmic access to human emotion, cognition and behaviors

escaping robust oversight. As proliferating consumer neurotech devices from smartphone brainwave

apps to prescribed medical monitors normalize detailed neural data extraction under limited consent or

security regimes, critics contend existing governance vacuums demand urgent rights-centric protections

securing mental privacy akin to Colorado before market incentives and proprietary capabilities

irreversibly undermine democratic reforms.

Once entrenched infrastructure permeates enabling aggregation of people’s inner lives documented as

mineable metrics optimized largely for revenue and platform stickiness over individual wellbeing, they

argue feasible reversals grow increasingly improbable politically and economically absent sweeping

external reforms with mandates championing user transparency and control from the ground up by

design. Accordingly, many ethics experts press the profound need now for binding multilateral accords

backed by muscular domestic legislation worldwide to implement human rights principles around

affirmative consent requirements, stringent security protocols and strict access controls appendaged to

any consumer or research context enabling identification of individuals’ neural information flows based

on monitoring tools interfacing cognition.

Such protections remain vital given daily acceleration of intersecting biometrics, surveillance networks

and computational analytics already demonstrating capacity to deduce alarmingly granular insights

from what people think and feel absent proportional oversight. From emotion detecting algorithms

deployed across smartphone photography apps to headphone EEG sensors tailored advertising music

based detected moods, critics observe unregulated consumer neurotechnology sectors rapidly

normalizing highly invasive user data extraction under lopsided justifications around convenience or

novelty alone. Even where perhaps initially collected narrowly addressing medical need or personal goals,

experts caution subsequent deidentification rarely proves meaningful given AI modeling capable

accurately profiling individuals from sparse data samples over time based on neural patterns tending

unique as fingerprints.

Accordingly, consensus holds that securing essential rights and reasonable constraints around

commercial monitoring or monetization of the documented contents of people’s minds should manifest

uncontroversially as statutory floor rather than an aspirational ceiling or afterthought address down the

line eventually. Though precise legislative measures remain debated, scholars argue waiting carries

profound risks normalizing tacitly extractive regimes and asymmetrical business models as defaults were

refusing external access one’s inner life risks then conferring significant disadvantage. With neural privacy

boasting overwhelming innate public appeal once tangible threats illuminate, they further note evidence

from discrimination battles that marginalized communities almost always shoulder steepest burdens

when societies overlook preserving civil liberty safeguards proactively.

Hence opportunities remain vivid for concerned international coalitions to follow Colorado’s template

pressing policymakers worldwide to enact binding guarantees around individual neural data autonomy,

security and oversight. Only the profound timeliness persists doubtable as constant tech turnovers

between apps, upgrades and data platform consolidations continually erase feasibility individual

consent, portability or deletion around digitally appropriated neural pasts based on interfaces that at

some early stage perhaps recorded then disseminated people’s aggregated thoughts absent initially

realizing permanent loss of future control. With considerable consensus declaring no further delays

admissible awaiting perfect solutions, advocates maintain best possibilities securing rights, liberties and

transparency for posterity against whatever future neural data regimes emerge now lie in acting

decisively fostering public debate towards national and international prohibitions securing Mind Liberty

Partners Universal Multidisciplinary Research Journal (PUMRJ)

Volume: 01 Issue: 01 | April-May 2024 | www.pumrj.com

itself as the timeless cornerstone no free society can rightly compromise.

REFERENCES

[1] What happens when technology learns to read our minds? (2023, October 24). The University of

Sydney. https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2023/10/24/what-happens-when-

technology-learns-to-read-our-minds--.html

[2] Asher-Schapiro, A. (2024, March 21). “Wild West” of neuroscience drives new laws on brain privacy.

https://www.context.news/ai/brain-privacy-at-stake-as-wild-west-neuroscience-drives-new-laws

[3] IAPP. (n.d.). https://iapp.org/news/a/us-states-look-towards-privacy-safeguards-for-brain-

scanning-technology/

[4] Ahluwalia, M. (2021, June 2). Legal Governance of Brain Data Derived from Artificial Intelligence. Voices

in Bioethics. https://doi.org/10.52214/vib.v7i.8403

[5] Privacy and the Rise of “Neurorights” in Latin America - Future of Privacy Forum. (n.d.). Future of

Privacy Forum. https://fpf.org/blog/privacy-and-the-rise-of-neurorights-in-latin-america/

[6] George, A., & George, D. (2023, August 25). Plugging into the Human Genome: The Potential of

Electrogenetics for Wearable Medical Devices. Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear

Research). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8281821

[7] George, A., Shahul, A., & George, D. (2023, August 25). Wearable Sensors: A New Way to Track Health

and Wellness. Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research).

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8260879

[8] George, A. S., George, A. H., & Baskar, T. (2023, December 25). Neuro-Gaming: How Video Games

Shape the Brain’s Cognitive Landscape. puirj.com. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10427117

[9] Human rights: advances in neurotechnology lead to calls for protection against abuse of ‘brain data.’

(n.d.). https://www.ibanet.org/neurotechnologies-protection-against-abuse-of-brain-data

[10] George, A. S. (2024, March 25). Exam Season Stress and Student Mental Health: An International

Epidemic. puirj.com. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10826032

[11] George, A. S. (2024, April 25). The Emergence and Impact of Mental Health Leave Policies on Employee

Wellbeing and Productivity. puiij.com. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11002386

[12] Musole, E. (2024, May 11). Wearable tech can now harvest brain data. Here's why Australia

needs urgent privacy reforms. SBS News. https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/wearable-tech-can-

now-harvest-brain-data-australia-needs-urgent-privacy-reforms/55h38q1k7

[13] George, A. S. (2024, April 25). Universal Internet Access: A Modern Human Right or a Path to Digital

Colonialis. puiij.com. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10970024

[14]European Strategy for Data. (2024, May 9). European Data Protection Supervisor.

https://www.edps.europa.eu/data-protection/our-work/publications/opinions/european-strategy-

data_en

[15] Shine, J. M., Breakspear, M., Bell, P. T., Martens, K. A. E., Shine, R., Koyejo, O., Sporns, O., & Poldrack, R. A.

(2019, January 21). Human cognition involves the dynamic integration of neural activity and

neuromodulatory systems. Nature Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-018-0312-0

[16] Kelley, N. J., Sheir, S., & Istace, T. (n.d.). The brain is the most complicated object in the universe. This is

the story of scientists’ quest to decode it – and read people’s minds. The Conversation.

https://theconversation.com/the-brain-is-the-most-complicated-object-in-the-universe-this-is-

the-story-of-scientists-quest-to-decode-it-and-read-peoples-minds-222458

[17] Shankar, S. (2024, April 18). Your Thoughts Are Safe: Colorado’s New Law Shields Neural Data.

News9live. https://www.news9live.com/technology/tech-news/colorado-brainwave-protection-

law-2502669

[18]Shankar, S. (2024, April 18). Your Thoughts Are Safe: Colorado’s New Law Shields Neural Data.

News9live. https://www.news9live.com/technology/tech-news/colorado-brainwave-protection-

law-2502669

[19]Samuel, S. (2024, April 18). Colorado brain data bill: How a new law will protect the privacy of our

thoughts. Vox. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/24078512/brain-tech-privacy-rights-

neurorights-colorado-yuste

[20] Neural Implants: Wiring the Brain. (2024, March 30). https://www.graygroupintl.com/blog/neural-

implants

Legal and economic assessment of Neuralink: Between today's challenges and future aspirations analytical descriptive study

Article

Nov 2024

This research explores the legal and economic challenges associated with Neuralink’s innovative technology that merges artificial intelligence with the human brain. This technology allows individuals to control devices with their thoughts and addresses neurological disorders, thereby enhancing human capabilities. Legal concerns focus on privacy issues arising from brain data collection, necessitating new laws to protect individual rights. Questions of liability for damages also arise, determining whether responsibility lies with Neuralink or the users. Additionally, the ethical implications of enhancing human abilities and their effects on identity are examined. Economically, Neuralink could drive innovation, increase productivity, and create specialized jobs while transforming the labor market. It holds promise for improving healthcare and education, thus enhancing overall quality of life. It highlights that protecting rights is vital for innovation and meeting societal needs. It emphasizes safeguarding individual rights to promote innovation and ensure technology benefits society.

Protecting Brain Privacy in the Age of Neurotechnology: Policy Responses and Remaining Challenges

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2024

A. Shaji George

Emerging neurotechnologies capable of capturing and analyzing brain impulses are fast developing, raising new privacy concerns. Brain-computer interfaces, AI-powered brain decoders, and implants all monitor neural activity and collect large amounts of sensitive brain data. Though designed to benefit health and cognition, unregulated use of such data raises concerns about privacy violations or manipulation. Policy reactions of late try to solve this. Chile adopted mental integrity rights in its constitution in 2021, therefore setting a precedent for neuro data protection. Colorado and California approved legislation granting biometric-level protections for consumer tech-generated brain scans and recordings. These restrict third-party sharing and collecting absent user permission. Similar legislative ideas have been presented by several other nations. Still, given rapid technological advancement, there are major vulnerabilities in properly protecting brain privacy. Most neurotech companies run free from medical device regulations, therefore avoiding such control. Non-invasive consumer brainware particularly lacks tailored governance at present. Consider social media's challenges protecting personal data despite mature policy conversations; neurotech's new complexities dwarf these. The pacing of emerging legislation and precedent also lags the innovation's pace. Apple patents tech detecting thoughts via headphones; startups explore transmitting telepathic messages. Yet deploying thoughtful, nimble governance is challenging. Furthermore, bulk neural data sales by tech giants to third parties possibly already occur illicitly, with minimal accountability. Other documented risks like AI bias emerging from narrow demographic brainwave datasets also abound unchecked currently. Thus, while nascent protections manifest promise, substantial further multi-stakeholder mobilization involving policymakers, companies, researchers and rights groups is imperative to shield human cognitive autonomy. The alternative of unfettered mining of thoughts and feelings by private or state interests paints a chilling dystopia. Reform must balance public good alongside visions of progress, emphasizing ethical data use. If so, these fascinating frontiers could herald a future where technology amplifies, not usurps, human potential. The choice of path is ours to make.

Digital Hoarding: The Rising Environmental and Personal Costs of Information Overload

Article

Full-text available

Jul 2024

A. Shaji George

As "tidying up" fads tackle physical clutter, a massive crisis of digital hoarding is unfolding unchecked. This paper exposes the rising environmental, economic, personal, and data security costs of information overload via endless emails, unused apps, outdated files, and exponentially growing photo/cloud storage. The practical uses of digital storage are phenomenal, despite its ethereal and cheap appearance. There will be over 375 billion emails exchanged daily by 2025, with 35% of them going unread. Fifty percent of the apps on the typical smartphone are useless. Outdated files from years ago gather up, untouched. Perhaps most strikingly, 60% of people never delete photos, aided by seamless cloud syncing from apps like Google Photos. This digital hoarding breeds very real chaos. At a personal level, research confirms it fuels stress, tanks productivity, and exacerbates security vulnerabilities. Data centers generating all this storage have an immense carbon footprint - one center can match 50,000 households. Just duplicative photos in some countries create 355,000 tons of CO2 yearly. Several key economic factors drive these trends. Unlike physical clutter, digital clutter accumulates largely unseen and requires no incremental space. We irrationally cling to data for “just in case” scenarios that rarely materialize. Automatic syncing to the cloud has created an “out of sight, out of mind” mindset. In summary, organizational gurus have focused solely on physical spaces while unchecked digital hoarding wrecks personal productivity, leaks sensitive data, overwhelms limited cognitive bandwidth, and quietly contributes to climate change. This paper serves as an urgent call to action for awareness and restraint. Just as physical clutter negatively impacts mental state, our devices’ disorder now reflects widespread data disorder with real social costs. The ease of digital accumulation must be countered with vigilance and “digital spring cleaning” before costs balloon even further.

Unsubscribe From Anxiety: The Psychological Costs of Subscription Service Overload

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2024

A. Shaji George

The popularity of subscription-based services has skyrocketed in recent years. By 2025, over 75% of D2C retail product sales are expected to occur through recurring service models that promise convenience, personalization, and exclusivity. However, the rapid proliferation of subscriptions also brings psychological dangers stemming from poor business practices and consumer difficulties adapting cognitively and financially to subscription overload. This paper examines the rising trend of consumer burnout and dissatisfaction with accumulating subscription commitments, positing that unchecked growth incentivizing overconsumption has significant societal costs. Analysis first focuses on changing consumer cognition and emotion. As choices multiply explosively, consumers feel increasing anxiety, guilt, exhaustion, and financial strain managing payments and decision paralysis in subscription marketplace "attention wars." Up to 70% of consumers report subscribing to services they forget about or rarely use, suggesting overflow rather than fulfillment. Compulsive accumulation spirals as FOMO-exploiting exclusivity marketing produces inadequate individuals overwhelmed by inadequate consumption. Digital subscriptions also increase social isolation, revealing that one-click convenience can undermine holistic well-being. Additionally, the paper investigates the ethically ambiguous business strategies powering the subscription economy. Many popular subscriptions make cancellation notoriously difficult. Data gathering fixes on commercial rather than consumer benefit. Pricing relies heavily on psychological manipulation like arbitrary cross-referencing and false scarcity to spur reaction rather than reason in renewal timing. Such tactics reflect tension between profit-seeking and ethical branding. These forces jeopardize the sustainability of an otherwise highly promising business model innovation. Consumers require vigilant re-evaluation of subscriptions to tame excess in their personal choices. Simultaneously, providers should target transparency, consumer welfare, and choice architecture facilitating deliberate rather than automated enrollments, lest temptation dynamics breed long-term distrust more than loyalty in recurring revenue relationships. Getting the incentives right on both sides can catalyze creativity abundantly advancing consumer welfare through a subscription renaissance; failing incentive alignment risks antisocial addiction dynamics quickly making digital subscriptions subjugate rather than serve whole human purposes.

The Emergence and Impact of Mental Health Leave Policies on Employee Wellbeing and Productivity

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2024

A. Shaji George

Recently, there has been a growing concern about the state of mental health in workplaces around the globe. There is a concerning pattern emerging from multiple surveys, indicating a rise in employee dissatisfaction, unhappiness, and stress levels across different sectors. According to US statistics, approximately 22% of workers report feeling depressed at work. Furthermore, an alarming 50% of employees report daily attacks of stress. In India, a sizable minority of employees are unsatisfied with their jobs, whereas in China, the majority of workers report feeling exhausted and dissatisfied at work. The numbers reported here reflect a growing global concern about employees' mental health. There are numerous complex elements that contribute to this phenomenon. These include long working hours, high expectations inside firms, and a common culture of being always connected to work as a result of technology, which blurs the border between personal and professional lives. Furthermore, concerns about job stability or lack thereof can contribute to a reduction in employees' mental health. This sensation is frequently caused by having to manage a large workload without adequate control over one's own work, as well as coping with conflicts among colleagues. It can be difficult to traverse these surroundings successfully. It is critical to take into account both organizational and societal challenges. Many people nowadays suffer money anxieties, familial obligations, and concerns about their physical health, which exacerbates their already difficult conditions. With the introduction of COVID-19, things have grown even more convoluted, throwing us off guard and intensifying the already existing burden on our collective well-being. The pressure that was already seething beneath the surface has been increased. Finally, it is critical to address the issues that modern enterprises face, particularly in light of the current situation. The best way forward is to prioritize emotional intelligence and to be aware of the psychological climate both inside and outside of the organization. Some businesses are now implementing mental health leave programs in response to these issues. An interesting example is a Chinese retail chain that introduced a policy called "sad leave," enabling employees to take up to ten days off annually to prioritize their mental well-being. The objective is to assist employees in attaining a more favorable work-life equilibrium and giving priority to their overall well-being when required. Additional examples include technology companies such as software tech giant and social media companies like Bumble, which provide their employees with "care leave" or "wellness leave" specifically for mental health purposes. It is becoming increasingly evident that prioritizing employees' mental health is essential for fostering a productive and healthy workforce. The expansion of these regulations is a testament to this growing awareness. The regulations regarding mental health leave are a positive step forward, although their impact and efficacy remain uncertain. We are interested in determining whether employees utilize this leave when it is accessible, whether it has a positive impact on mental health and job outcomes, and whether any issues or complaints arise. It seems that workers are increasingly recognizing the importance of prioritizing their mental health. In 2021, there was a significant increase in the number of sick days taken by UK government employees specifically for mental health reasons. However, there may still be obstacles to overcome, such as concerns about societal judgment or the potential impact on one's employment. One point to consider is that mental health leave may only provide temporary relief and may not address underlying issues, particularly in cases of toxic work environments or other systemic problems. Nevertheless, the fact that these policies are still in their early stages indicates a growing awareness of the global mental health crisis among the workforces. Further research is crucial in order to fully understand the impact of these factors on employee mental health and identify ways in which society and businesses can improve it. Keywords: Workplace wellbeing, Employee support, Burnout prevention, Work-life balance, Absenteeism, Mental healthcare, Productivity, Stress reduction, Paid time off, Workplace culture.

Universal Internet Access: A Modern Human Right or a Path to Digital Colonialism

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2024

A. Shaji George

Access to the Internet has become an absolute necessity and nearly ubiquitous in the contemporary digital age. Statistics place the number of online users at 59% of the world's population, or more than 4.5 billion individuals. In addition to providing access to entertainment, education, and healthcare, the Internet also facilitates business opportunities, social connections, and information. Especially critical during the COVID-19 pandemic, it facilitated social interaction, commerce, and remote work in the midst of lockdowns. Nevertheless, significant disparities in access continue to exist, with 37% of the global population lacking both Internet connectivity and digital literacy. The majority of this "digital divide" exists between developed and developing countries. In the twenty-first century, economic mobility and participation are severely restricted for those who lack connectivity. Whether Internet access should now be regarded as a fundamental human right as opposed to a luxury has been the subject of discussion. In today's digitized society, proponents contend that Internet accessibility facilitates the realization of established civil rights such as free speech, healthcare, and education. Conversely, there are those who urge against prioritizing the implementation of fundamental necessities such as shelter, food, and water by framing Internet access as an essential right. This has prompted suggestions that Internet access be classified as a "ancillary right" that supports fundamental human rights guarantees without superseding them. Although the Internet offers numerous advantages, apprehensions have been raised regarding the monetization and consolidation of personal data flows by corporations, particularly in developing nations. Critics contend that prominent technology companies such as Amazon, Google, and Facebook function as "digital colonial" forces, as they exploit individuals' data for financial gain without offering adequate privacy safeguards in exchange. Developing nations function as promising emerging markets, in return for obtaining negligible tax revenues from technology companies. Achieving universal Internet access while implementing adequate security measures continues to be a delicate balancing act. Although connectivity has been crucial for promoting economic and social inclusion in the era of information, it is insufficient to address systemic inequalities on its own; guaranteed fundamental rights, effective data governance, and corporate responsibility are also required. In conjunction with a rights-based framework that addresses fundamental requirements, increased Internet accessibility must be accompanied by regulatory reforms that grant users more protections and tech companies greater obligations across jurisdictions. By effectively managing these priorities, developing nations can circumvent exploitative digital reliance and harness technological advancements for the purpose of sustainable development.

Exam Season Stress and Student Mental Health: An International Epidemic

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2024

A. Shaji George

This paper examines the mounting crisis of student mental health issues stemming from extreme exam pressure, which has risen to the level of an international epidemic. Quantitative indicators make clear both the severity and global nature of the crisis. Suicide ranks as the leading cause of death for those aged 15 to 39 around the world, with over 800,000 people dying of suicide every year. Alarmingly, suicide attempts by teenagers spike during exam periods across numerous developed countries. In India, student suicide rates rose an astonishing 70% from 2011 to 2021 alone, with over 13,000 students taking their lives in 2021 or roughly 35 deaths daily. Studies directly tie as much as 8% of these suicides to exam stress. Similarly stark correlations between self-harm/suicide attempts and exam periods appear for secondary students in Canada, England, South Korea, and China which holds notoriously demanding university entrance examinations. Rates of psychiatric hospitalizations also climb among teens in Canada and England during these high-pressure exam terms. The roots of this crisis reflect the immense pressure placed on students by sociocultural attitudes framing exam success as a life-defining goal. Across Eastern and Western cultures alike, families, communities, and nations signal to youth that their value and future security depend overwhelmingly on aceing standardized tests, outcompeting peers, and gaining admission to elite institutions of higher education. Testing assumes an outsized role as the chief determinant and gateway to overall life outcomes. This pressure cooker environment breeds immense stress and anxiety while largely neglecting student emotional health and framing self-worth in reductionist terms of exam mastery. Research shows supportive school climates and teaching test-coping techniques cannot compensate fully for these engrained societal mindsets. To counter such a complex international problem, solutions must address root cultural drivers head-on through coordinated local, national, and global initiatives: reframing societal messaging around testing's purpose to students' self-concept and inherent worth; policies explicitly prioritizing student mental health alongside academic achievement; decoupling tests from automatic life trajectories; student-centered holistic learning models; family and community engagement. With concerted efforts on these sociocultural fronts combined with strong youth voices speaking out, the epidemic of exam-related stress threatening students worldwide can recede. This paper issues an urgent call to action to intervene against a truly global crisis and hidden epidemic carrying grave costs for our future generations.

Neuro-Gaming: How Video Games Shape the Brain's Cognitive Landscape

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2023

Neuro-Gaming: How Video Games Shape the Brain's Cognitive Landscape is a comprehensive research survey that investigates the impact of video games on cognitive processes and the brain's neuroplasticity. With the ever-increasing popularity and ubiquity of video games, understanding their potential effects on the brain has become a critical area of study. This paper aims to provide a systematic review of the current literature on the cognitive benefits and drawbacks of video game playing, as well as the factors that may influence these outcomes. To achieve this goal, a thorough literature search was conducted using various databases and employing relevant keywords. Studies were selected based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and their quality was assessed to ensure the validity of the findings. Data were extracted and synthesized from the selected studies to provide a comprehensive analysis of the available evidence. The results of this survey reveal that video games can have both positive and negative effects on cognitive functions. On one hand, video game playing has been associated with improvements in attention, memory, and problem-solving skills. On the other hand, some studies suggest that excessive video gaming may lead to negative consequences, such as declines in social skills or disrupted sleep patterns. Factors that may influence these cognitive outcomes include the type of game played, the duration of gameplay, and individual differences among players. In comparing the current findings with previous research, this paper highlights the growing body of evidence supporting the cognitive benefits of video games, while also acknowledging the potential risks associated with excessive gaming. The strengths and limitations of existing literature are discussed, with an emphasis on the need for further research to better understand the complex relationship between video games and the brain's cognitive landscape. In conclusion, this research survey presents a comprehensive overview of the current understanding of the impact of video games on cognitive processes and neuroplasticity. The findings suggest that while video games can offer cognitive benefits, they may also pose risks when played excessively. Future research should explore the specific mechanisms underlying these effects and investigate potential strategies for optimizing the cognitive benefits of video gaming while minimizing the risks.

Plugging into the Human Genome: The Potential of Electrogenetics for Wearable Medical Devices

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2023

Recent advances in electrogenetics by researchers at ETH Zurich suggest the tantalizing possibility of wearable devices that can directly control human DNA. In their new paper, the scientists describe an electrogenetic interface that allowed them to use electricity to command insulin production from human genes grafted into mice. This proof of concept for genetically controlling biological functions via electrical signals represents a major step towards realizing practical applications like wearable medical devices. Such technologies could monitor health issues in real-time and provide customized treatments by "telling" genes to activate or suppress. The ETH Zurich team demonstrated the feasibility of electrogenetics by integrating human pancreatic cells capable of producing insulin into diabetic mice. By placing acupuncture needles at the graft site, they could then use mild electrical currents to stimulate insulin production precisely when needed, thereby regulating the mice's blood sugar levels. This electrogenetic interface effectively created an on-demand drug delivery system using standard double A batteries. The researchers suggest that similar wearable devices could be developed for treating diabetes in humans. Beyond diabetes, electrogenetic technologies have vast potential for intervening in other genetic disorders and diseases like cancer. By using electricity to control DNA transcription directly, electrogenetic interfaces could possibly activate or deactivate targeted genes related to disease. This could allow on-demand correction of genetic malfunctions. However, significant technical barriers remain before electrogenetic wearables become viable for humans. Still, by demonstrating that external electrical signals can directly trigger gene expression, the ETH Zurich study represents an important proof of concept and a promising first step towards developing electrogenetic treatments. Additional research and innovation could someday lead to revolutionary medical devices that are genetically programmed to monitor and maintain human health.

Wearable Sensors: A New Way to Track Health and Wellness

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2023

Wearable technology and sensors are emerging as promising tools for continuous, real-time health monitoring. From smart watches to fitness trackers and internet-connected clothing, wearables equipped with sensors allow users to measure and analyze data related to their physiological state, activities, and overall wellbeing. This paper explores the capabilities of current wearable sensors and their potential to provide novel insights into individual health patterns. Fitness trackers containing accelerometers and optical heart rate monitors are already widely used by consumers to count steps and monitor heart rate during exercise. However, clinical-grade wearable sensors are now being developed to accurately measure critical vital signs. These include blood pressure, respiration rate, oxygen saturation, skin temperature, hydration levels, and more. Wireless integration and machine learning algorithms enable wearables to track health indicators 24/7 and provide feedback to users and clinicians. Early detection of abnormal vital sign changes via wearable sensors could allow for timely medical interventions in high-risk patients. Personalized health recommendations and behavior modifications could also be delivered to consumers based on their unique sensor data profiles. Overall, wearable sensors may enhance wellness by increasing self-awareness of diet, sleep, activity, and stress patterns. However, there remain challenges regarding wearable sensor accuracy, reliability, and clinical validation. Measuring health data is only useful if patients and providers understand how to act upon it. Thus interdisciplinary research across technology, medicine, and public health is still needed to truly unlock the promise of wearables in improving health on a global scale. Nevertheless, wearable sensors are a groundbreaking advancement primed to take health tracking to the next level through informed and empowered individuals. This research paper summarizes the key topics, opportunities and challenges associated with using wearable sensors for health monitoring. It aims to provide readers with an overview of this emerging field and its implications.

Legal Governance of Brain Data Derived from Artificial Intelligence

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2021

Mahika Ahluwalia

Photo by Josh Riemer on Unsplash Introduction With the rapid advancements in neurotechnological machinery and improved analytical insights from machine learning in neuroscience, the availability of big brain data has increased tremendously. Neurological health research is done using digitized brain data.[1] There must be adequate data governance to secure the privacy of subjects participating in brain research and treatments. If not properly regulated, the research methods could lead to significant breaches of the subject’s autonomy and privacy. This paper will address the necessity for neuroprotection laws, which effectively govern the use of big brain data to ensure respect for patient privacy and autonomy. Background Artificial intelligence and machine learning can be integrated with neuroscience big brain data to drive research studies. This integrative technology allows patterns of electrical activity in neurons to be studied in detail.[2]Specifically, it uses a robotic system which can reason, plan, and exhibit biologically intelligent behavior. Machine learning is a method of computer programming where the code can adapt its behavior based on big brain data.[3] The big brain data is the collection of large amounts of information for the purpose of deciphering patterns through computer analysis using machine learning.[4] The information that these technologies provide is extensive enough to allow a researcher to read a patient’s mind. AI and machine learning technologies work by finding the underlying structure of brain data, which is then described by patterns known as latent factors, eventually resulting in an understanding of the brain’s temporal dynamics.[5] Through these technologies, researchers are able to decipher how the human brain computes its performances and thoughts. However, due to the extensive and complex nature of the data processed through AI and machine learning, researchers may gain access to personal information a patient may not wish to reveal. From a bioethical lens, tensions arise in the realm of patient autonomy. Patients are not able to control the transmission of data from their brains that is analyzed by researchers. Governing brain data through laws may enhance the extent of patient privacy in the case where brain data is being used through AI technologies.[6] A responsible approach to governing brain data would require a sophisticated legal structure. Analysis Impact on Patient Autonomy and Privacy In research pertaining to big brain data, the consent forms do not fully cover the vast amounts of information that is collected. According to research, personal data has become the most sought out commodity to provide content to corporations and the web-based service industry. Unfortunately, data leaks that release private information frequently occur.[7] The storage of an individual’s data on technologies accessible on the internet during research studies makes it vulnerable to leaks, jeopardizing an individual’s privacy. These data leaks may cause the patient to be identified easily, as the degree of information provided by AI technologies are personalized and may be decoded through brain fingerprinting methods.[8] There has been an extensive growth in the development and use of AI. It is efficient in providing information to radiologists who diagnose various diseases including brain cancer and psychiatric disease, and AI assists in the delivery of telemedicine.[9] However, the ethical pitfall of reduced patient autonomy must be addressed by analyzing current AI technologies and creating more options for patient preference in how the data may be used. For instance, facial recognition technology[10] commonly used in health care produces more information than listed in common consent forms, threatening to undermine informed consent. Facial recognition software collects extensive data and may disclose more information than a person would prefer to provide despite being a useful tool for diagnosing medical and genetic conditions.[11] In addition, people may not be aware that their images are being used to generate more clinical data for other purposes. It is difficult to guarantee the data is anonymized. Consent requirements must include informing people about the complexity of the potential uses of the data; software developers should maximize patient privacy.[12] Furthermore, there is a “human element” in the use of AI technologies as medical providers control the use and the extent to which data is captured or accessed through the AI technologies.[13] People must understand the scope of the technology and have clear communication with the physician or health care provider about how the medical information will be used. Existing Laws for Brain Data Governance A strict system of defined legal responsibilities of medical providers will ensure a higher degree of patient privacy and autonomy when AI technologies and data from machine learning are used. Governing specific algorithmic data is crucial in safeguarding a patient’s privacy and developing a gold standard treatment protocol following the procurement of the information.[14] Certain AI technologies provide more data than others, and legal boundaries should be established to ensure strong performance, quality control, and scope for patient privacy and autonomy. For instance, currently AI technologies are being used in the realm of intensive neurological care. However, there is a significant level of patient uncertainty about how much control patients have over the data’s uses.[15] Calibrated legal and ethical standards will allow important brain data to be securely governed and monitored. Once brain signals are recorded and processed from one individual, the data may be merged with other data in Brain Computer Interface Technology (BCI).[16] To ensure a right and ability to retrieve personal data or pull it from the collection, specific regulations for varying types of data are needed.[17] The importance of consent and patient privacy must be considered through giving patients a transparent view of how brain data is governed.[18] The legal system must address discriminatory issues and risks to patients whose data is used in studies. Laws like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the California Consumer Privacy Protection Act (CCPA) can serve as effective models to protect aggregated data. These laws govern consumer information and ensure the compliance when personal data is collected.[19] California voters recently approved expansion of the CCPA to health data. The Washington Privacy Act, which would have provided rights to access, change, and withdraw personal data, failed to pass. Other states should improve privacy as well,[20] although a federal bill would be preferable. Scientists at the Heidelberg Academy of Sciences argue for data security to be governed in a manner that balances patient privacy and autonomy with the commercial interests of researchers.[21] The balance could be achieved through privacy protections like those in the Washington Privacy Act. Although the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) provides an overall framework to deter the likelihood of dangers to patient protection and privacy, more thorough laws are warranted to combat pervasive data transfer and analysis that technology has brought to the health care industry.[22] Breaches of patient privacy under current HIPAA regulations include releasing patient information to a reporter without their consent and sending HIV data to a patient’s employer without consent.[23] HIPAA does not cover information being shared with outside contractors who do not have an agreement with technology companies to keep patient data confidential. HIPAA regulations also do not always address blatant breaches on patient data confidentiality.[24] Patients must be provided with methods to monitor the data being analyzed to be able to view the extent of private information being generated via AI technologies. In health research, the medical purposes of better diagnosis, earlier detection of diseases, or prevention are ethical justifications for the use of the data if it was collected with permission, the person understood and approved the uses of the data, and the data was deidentified. A standard governance framework is required in providing the fairest system of care to patients who allow their brain data to be examined. Informed consent in the neuroscience field could reaffirm the privacy and autonomy of patients by ensuring that they understand the type of information collected. Laws also could protect data after a patient’s death. Malpractice in the scope of brain data could give people a cause of action critical in safeguarding patient’s rights. Data breach lawsuits will become common but generally do not cover deidentified data that becomes part of big data collection. A more synchronized approach to the collection and consent process will encourage an understanding of how big data is used to diagnose and treat patients. Some altruistic people may even be more likely to consent if they know the largescale data collection is helpful to treat and diagnose people. Others should have the ability to opt out of sharing neurological data, especially when there is not certainty surrounding deidentification.[25] Conclusion Artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies have the potential to aid in the diagnosis and treatment of people globally by extracting and aggregating brain data specific to individuals. However, the secure use of the data is necessary to build trust between care providers and patients, as well as in balancing the bioethical principles of beneficence and patient autonomy. We must ensure the highest quality of care to patients, while protecting their privacy, informed consent, and clinical trust. More sophisticated tools for informed consent will be necessary to ensure that people understand how their data may be used. [1] Kellmeyer, P. (2018). Big Brain Data: On the Responsible Use of Brain Data from Clinical and Consumer-Directed Neurotechnological Devices. Neuroethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-018-9371-x [2] Ethical Dimensions of Using Artificial Intelligence in Health Care. (2019). AMA Journal of Ethics, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.1001/amajethics.2019.121 [3] Kellmeyer, P. (2018). Big Brain Data: On the Responsible Use of Brain Data from Clinical and Consumer-Directed Neurotechnological Devices. Neuroethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-018-9371-x [4] Kellmeyer, P. (2018). Big Brain Data: On the Responsible Use of Brain Data from Clinical and Consumer-Directed Neurotechnological Devices. Neuroethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-018-9371-x [5] Savage, N. (2019, July 24). How AI and neuroscience drive each other forwards. Nature News. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02212-4. [6] Fothergill, B. T., Knight, W., Stahl, B. C., & Ulnicane, I. (2019). Responsible Data Governance of Neuroscience Big Data. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2019.00028 [7] Kayaalp, M. (2018). Patient Privacy in the Era of Big Data. Balkan Medical Journal, 35(1), 8–17. https://doi.org/10.4274/balkanmedj.2017.0966 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5820452/ [8] Kellmeyer, P. (2018). Big Brain Data: On the Responsible Use of Brain Data from Clinical and Consumer-Directed Neurotechnological Devices. Neuroethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-018-9371-x [9] Ethical Dimensions of Using Artificial Intelligence in Health Care. (2019). AMA Journal of Ethics, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.1001/amajethics.2019.121 [10]Martinez-Martin, Nicole. “What Are Important Ethical Implications of Using Facial Recognition Technology in Health Care?” AMA Journal of Ethics 21, no. 2 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1001/amajethics.2019.180. [11] Kayaalp, M. (2018). Patient Privacy in the Era of Big Data. Balkan Medical Journal, 35(1), 8–17. https://doi.org/10.4274/balkanmedj.2017.0966 [12] Martinez-Martin, Nicole. “What Are Important Ethical Implications of Using Facial Recognition Technology in Health Care?” AMA Journal of Ethics 21, no. 2 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1001/amajethics.2019.180. [13] Kayaalp, M. (2018). Patient Privacy in the Era of Big Data. Balkan Medical Journal, 35(1), 8–17. https://doi.org/10.4274/balkanmedj.2017.0966 [14] Kayaalp, M. (2018). Patient Privacy in the Era of Big Data. Balkan Medical Journal, 35(1), 8–17. https://doi.org/10.4274/balkanmedj.2017.0966 [15] Kayaalp, M. (2018). Patient Privacy in the Era of Big Data. Balkan Medical Journal, 35(1), 8–17. https://doi.org/10.4274/balkanmedj.2017.0966 [16] Beets, R. (n.d.). Webinar Data Governance. International Neuroethics Society. https://www.neuroethicssociety.org/webinar-data-2021. [17] Price, W. Nicholson, 2nd, and I. Glen Cohen. Privacy in the Age of Medical Big Data. Nat Med. 2019;25(1):37-43. doi:10.1038/s41591-018-0272-7 [18] Price, W. Nicholson, 2nd, and I. Glen Cohen. Privacy in the Age of Medical Big Data. Nat Med. 2019;25(1):37-43. doi:10.1038/s41591-018-0272-7 [19] Price, W. Nicholson, 2nd, and I. Glen Cohen. Privacy in the Age of Medical Big Data. Nat Med. 2019;25(1):37-43. doi:10.1038/s41591-018-0272-7 [20] Grey, Stacey. “A New US Model for Privacy? Comparing the Washington Privacy Act to GDPR, CCPA, and More.” Future of Privacy Forum, https://fpf.org/blog/a-new-model-for-privacy-in-a-new-era-evaluating-the-washington-privacy-act/ [21] Beets, R. (n.d.). Webinar Data Governance. International Neuroethics Society. https://www.neuroethicssociety.org/webinar-data-2021. [22] Pasquale, Frank. “Protecting Health Privacy in an Era of Big Data Processing and Cloud Computing.” Stanford Technology Law Review 17, no. 2 (2014). https://ncvhs.hhs.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Pasquale-Ragone-Protecting-Health-Privacy-in-an-Era-of-Big-Data-508.pdf [23] Vanderpool D. HIPAA Compliance: A Common Sense Approach. Innov Clin Neurosci. 2019;16(1-2):38-41 [24] Vanderpool D. HIPAA Compliance: A Common Sense Approach. Innov Clin Neurosci. 2019;16(1-2):38-41 [25] Zimmerman, A. (2020). Marketing madness: The disingenuous use of free speech by big data and big pharma to the detriment of medical data privacy. Voices in Bioethics, 6. https://doi.org/10.7916/vib.v6i.5901

Human cognition involves the dynamic integration of neural activity and neuromodulatory systems

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2019
NAT NEUROSCI

The human brain integrates diverse cognitive processes into a coherent whole, shifting fluidly as a function of changing environmental demands. Despite recent progress, the neurobiological mechanisms responsible for this dynamic system-level integration remain poorly understood. Here we investigated the spatial, dynamic, and molecular signatures of system-wide neural activity across a range of cognitive tasks. We found that neuronal activity converged onto a low-dimensional manifold that facilitates the execution of diverse task states. Flow within this attractor space was associated with dissociable cognitive functions, unique patterns of network-level topology, and individual differences in fluid intelligence. The axes of the low-dimensional neurocognitive architecture aligned with regional differences in the density of neuromodulatory receptors, which in turn relate to distinct signatures of network controllability estimated from the structural connectome. These results advance our understanding of functional brain organization by emphasizing the interface between neural activity, neuromodulatory systems, and cognitive function.

Wearable tech can now harvest brain data. Here's why Australia needs urgent privacy reforms

May 2024

E Musole

Musole, E. (2024, May 11). Wearable tech can now harvest brain data. Here's why Australia needs urgent privacy reforms. SBS News. https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/wearable-tech-cannow-harvest-brain-data-australia-needs-urgent-privacy-reforms/55h38q1k7

European Data Protection Supervisor

Jan 2009

European Strategy for Data. (2024, May 9). European Data Protection Supervisor. https://www.edps.europa.eu/data-protection/our-work/publications/opinions/european-strategy-data_en

Safeguarding Neural Privacy: The Need for Expanded Legal Protections of Brain Data

Abstract

Recommended publications

Unsubscribe From Anxiety: The Psychological Costs of Subscription Service Overload

The Emergence and Impact of Mental Health Leave Policies on Employee Wellbeing and Productivity

From Pulse to Prescription: Exploring the Rise of AI in Medicine and Its Implications

Bracing for the Coming AI Tsunami: Preparing the Global Workforce for Displacement and Inequality in...