Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Neurotechnological Applications and the Protection of Mental Privacy: An Assessment of Risks

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Neuroethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The concept of mental privacy can be defined as the principle that subjects should have control over the access to their own neural data and to the information about the mental processes and states that can be obtained by analyzing it. Our aim is to contribute to the current debate on mental privacy by identifying the main positions, articulating key assumptions and addressing central arguments. First, we map the different positions found in current literature. We distinguish between those who dismiss concerns about mental privacy and those who endorse them. In this latter group, we establish a further disagreement between conservative and liberal strategies to protect mental privacy. Then, we address the first discussion by articulating and criticizing different skeptical views on mental privacy. Finally, we try to identify what are the unique features of neural data and examine how they may be connected to the ways in which neurotechnological mindreading could put mental privacy at risk. We suggest that even if neural data is unique, it may not require new strategies to protect people from its misuse. However, identifying the special features and risks of neurotechnological mind-reading is necessary for the second discussion on mental privacy to properly take off.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. https://www.wired.com/story/neuralink-brain-implant-elon-musk-transparency-first-patient-test-trial/

References

  1. Andrews, A., and P. Weiss. 2012. Nano in the brain: Nano-neuroscience. ACS Nano 23 (10): 8463–8464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alivisatos, A.P., M. Chun, G.M. Church, K. Deisseroth, R. Greenspan, P.R.J. McEuen, M.L. Roukes, T.S. Sejnowski, P. Weiss, and R. Yuste. 2013. The brain activity map. Science 339: 1284–1285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Alivisatos, A.P., M. Chun, G.M. Church, et al. 2015. A national network of neurotechnology centers for the brain initiative. Neuron 88 (3): 445–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Koch, C., and R.C. Reid. 2012. Neuroscience: Observatories of the mind. Nature 483: 397–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Quaglio, G., P. Toia, and E. Moser. 2021. The International Brain Initiative: Enabling Collaborative Science. The Lancet Neurology 20 (12): 985–986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chase, H.W., M.A. Boudewyn, C.S. Carter, et al. 2020. Transcranial direct current stimulation: A roadmap for research, from mechanism of action to clinical implementation. Molecular Psychiatry 25 (2): 397–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chaudhary, U., N. Birbaumer, and A. Ramos-Murguialday. 2016. Brain-computer interfaces for communication and rehabilitation. Nature Rev Neurol. 12 (9): 513–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Espay, A.J., P. Bonato, F. Nahab, et al. 2016. Technology in Parkinson disease: Challenges and opportunities. Movement Disorders 31 (9): 1272–1282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Garnaat, S.L., S. Yuan, H. Wang, et al. 2018. Updates on transcranial magnetic stimulation therapy for major depressive disorder. Psychiatric Clinics of North America 41 (3): 419–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. McFarland, D.J. 2020. Brain-computer interfaces for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Muscle and Nerve 61 (6): 702–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ababkova, M. Yu., Pokrovskaia, N. N., and Tros-tinskaya, I. R. 2018. Neuro-Technolo-gies for Knowledge Transfer and Expe-rience Communication. The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences (EpSBS). XXXV, 10–18.

  12. Doya, K., A. Ema, H. Kitano, M. Sakagami, and S. Russell. 2022. Social impact and governance of AI and neurotechnologies. Neural networks : The official J Int Neural Netw Soc. 152: 542–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fernandez, A., N. Sriraman, B. Gurevitz, et al. 2015. Pervasive neurotechnology: A ground-breaking analysis of 10,000+ patent filings transforming medicine, health, entertainment and business. San Francisco: SharpBrains.

    Google Scholar 

  14. López-Silva, P., and L. Valera. 2022. Protecting the Mind: Challenges in Law, Neuroprotection, and Neurorights. Amsterdam: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. López-Silva, P., and R. Madrid. 2021. Sobre la conveniencia de incorporar los neuroderechos en la constitución o en la ley. Revista Chil De Derecho y Tecnol 10 (1): 53–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Privitera A.J, and Du, H. 2022. Educational neurotechnology: Where do we go from here?, Trends in Neuroscience and Education, Volume 29, 100195, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2022.100195.

  17. Ienca, M., and R. Andorno. 2017. Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology. Life Sci Soc Policy 13 (1): 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lavazza, A. 2018. Freedom of thought and mental integrity: The moral requirements for any neural prosthesis. Frontiers in Neuroscience 12: 82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wajnerman-Paz, A. 2021a. Is your neural data part of your mind? Exploring the conceptual basis of mental privacy. Minds Mach. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-021-09574-7.

  20. Ienca, M. 2021. On Neurorights. Front Human Neurosci. 15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2021.701258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Shen, F.X. 2013. Neuroscience, mental privacy, and the law. Harvard J Law Publ Policy 36: 653.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Wajnerman-Paz, A. 2021b. Is Mental Privacy a Component of Personal Identity?. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 604. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2021.773441.

  23. Wajnerman-Paz, A., and P. López-Silva. 2022. Mental Privacy and Neuroprotection: An Open Debate. In Protecting the Mind: Challenges in Law, Neuroprotection, and Neurorights, ed. P. López-Silva and L. Valera, 144–155. Amsterdam: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Yuste, R., J. Genser, and S. Herrmann. 2021. It’s Time for Neuro-Rights. Horizons: J Int Relations Sustain Dev. 18: 154–16.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Gilead, A. 2015. Can brain imaging breach our mental privacy? Rev Philo Psychol. 6 (2): 275–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Meynen, G. 2019. Ethical issues to consider before introducing neurotechnological thought apprehension in psychiatry. AJOB Neuroscience 10 (1): 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ryberg, J. 2017. Neuroscience, mind reading and mental privacy. Res Publica 23 (2): 197–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Göering, S., E. Klein, L. Sullivan, et al. 2021. Recommendations for responsible development and application of neurotechnologies. Neuroethics 14: 365–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-021-09468-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Göering, S., and R. Yuste. 2016. On the necessity of ethical guidelines for novel neurotechnologies. Cell 167 (4): 882–885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Borbón, D., and L. Borbón. 2021. A Critical Perspective on NeuroRights: Comments Regarding Ethics and Law. Front Human Neurosci 15: 703121. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2021.703121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Bublitz, J.C. 2022. Novel Neurorights: From Nonsense to Substance. Neuroethics 15: 7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-022-09481-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hertz, N. 2023. Neurorights – Do we Need New Human Rights? A Reconsideration of the Right to Freedom of Thought. Neuroethics 16: 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-022-09511-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ligthart, S., M. Ienca, G. Meynen, F. Molnar-Gabor, R. Andorno, C. Bublitz, P. Catley, L. Claydon, T. Douglas, N. Farahany, J. Fins, S. Goering, P. Haselager, F. Jotterand, A. Lavazza, A. McCay, A. Wajnerman Paz, S. Rainey, J. Ryberg, and P. Kellmeyer. 2023. Minding rights: Mpping ethical and legal foundations of ‘neurorights.’ Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2023: 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Susser, D., and L.Y. Cabrera. 2023. Brain data in context: Are new rights the way to mental and brain privacy?. AJOB neuroscience, 1–12.

  35. Zuñiga-Fajuri, A., L. Villavicencio, and D. Zaror-Millares. 2021. Neurorights in Chile: Between neuroscience and legal science. In Regulating Neuroscience: Transnational Legal Challenges, ed. M. Hevia, 165–179. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Baselga-Garriga, C., P. Rodriguez, and R. Yuste. 2022. Neuro rights: A human rights solution to ethical issues of neurotechnologies, 157–161. Protecting the Mind: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ienca, M., Fins, J. J., Jox, R. J., Jotterand, F., Voeneky, S., Andorno, R., ... & Kellmeyer, P. 2022. Towards a governance framework for brain data. Neuroethics, 15(2), 20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-022-09498-8.

  38. Yuste, R., S. Göering, and B.A.Y. Arcas. 2017. Four Ethical Priorities for Neurotechnologies and AI. Nature 551 (7679): 159–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, 2014. Gray matters. In Integrative approaches for neuroscience, ethics and society, vol 1. Bioethics Commission, Washington, DC.

  40. López-Silva, P. 2022. The Concept of Mind in the Neuroprotection Debate. In Protecting the Mind: Challenges in Law, Neuroprotection, and Neurorights, ed. P. López-Silva and L. Valera, 9–18. Amsterdam: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  41. Bublitz, J.C. 2013. My mind is mine!? Cognitive liberty as a legal concept. In Cognitive Enhancement, ed. Franke, H. 233–264. Amsterdam: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6253-4_19.

  42. Farahany, N.A. 2012. Incriminating Thoughts. Stanford Law Review 64: 352–408.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Ligthart, S. 2023. Mental Privacy as Part of the Human Right to Freedom of Thought?. Forthcoming in M. Blitz and JC Bublitz (eds.), The Law and Ethics of Freedom of Thought, 2.

  44. Nawrot, O. 2019. What about the interior castle? Response to Ienca’s and Andorno’s new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology. Roczniki Teologiczne 66: 69–85. https://doi.org/10.18290/rt.2019.66.3-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Sententia, W. 2004. Neuroethical considerations: Cognitive liberty and converging technologies. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1013: 223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. López-Silva, P., and R. Madrid. 2022. Protegiendo la Mente: Un análisis al Concepto de lo Mental en la Ley de Neuroderechos. Revista de Humanidades de Valparaíso (20): 101–117. 

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. López Silva, P., Madrid, R. 2022b. Acerca de la protección constitucional de los neuroderechos : la innovación chilena [en línea]. Prudentia Iuris. 2022, 94. https://doi.org/10.46553/prudentia.94.2022.pp.39-68. Disponible en: https://repositorio.uca.edu.ar/handle/123456789/15662

  48. Muñoz, J.M. 2019. Chile–right to free will needs definition. Nature 574 (7780): 634–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Wellman, C. 1999. The Proliferation of Rights: Moral Progress or Empty Rhetoric? London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Margulis, S.T. 2003. On the status and contribution of Westin’s and Altman’s theories of privacy. J Soc Issues 59 (2): 411–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Jackson, F. 1986. What Mary didn’t know. The Journal of Philosophy 83 (5): 291–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Kriegel, U. 2015. The Varieties of Consciousness. Oxford: OUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  53. Nagel, T. 1974. What is it like to be a bat? Philosophical Review 83: 435–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Mahy, C.E., L.J. Moses, and J.H. Pfeifer. 2014. How and where: Theory-of-mind in the brain. Dev Cognitive Neurosci. 9: 68–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Miller, S. 2022. Advanced theory of mind. Oxford: OUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  56. Yuste, R. 2020. Si puedes leer y escribir la actividad neuronal, puedes leer y escribir las mentes de la gente. El País, December 4th, 2020. https://elpais.com/retina/2020/12/03/tendencias/1607024987_022417.html.

  57. Kay, K.N., T. Naseralis, and E. Prengler. 2008. Identifying natural images from human brain activity. Nature 452 (7185): 352–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Huth, A.G., S. Nishimoto, and A. Vu. 2012. A continuous semantic space describes the representation of thousands of object and action categories across the human brain. Neuron 76 (6): 1210–1224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Kay, K.N., T. Naselaris, R.J. Prenger, and J.L. Gallant. 2008. Identifying natural images from human brain activity. Nature 452 (7185): 352–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Huth, A.G., T. Lee, S. Nishimoto, et al. 2016. Decoding the semantic content of natural movies from human brain activity. Frontiers Syst Neurosci 10: 81. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2016.00081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Wen, H., J. Shi, and Y. Zhang. 2018. Neural encoding and decoding with deep learning for dynamic natural vision. Cerebral Cortex 28 (12): 4136–4160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Apperly, I. 2010. Mindreaders. London: Psychology Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  63. Custers, B.H.M. 2012. Predicting data that people refuse to disclose; how data mining predictions challenge informational self-determination. Privacy Observatory Magazine 3: 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Kosinski, M., D. Stillwell, and T. Graepel. 2013. Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences 110 (15): 5802–5805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Price, C.J., and K.J. Friston. 2005. Functional ontologies for cognition: The systematic definition of structure and function. Cognitive Neuropsychology 22 (3): 262–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Anderson, M. L. (2021). After phrenology: Neural reuse and the interactive brain. MIT Press.

  67. Poldrack, R.A., and T. Yarkoni. 2016. From brain maps to cognitive ontologies: Informatics and the search for mental structure. Annual review of psychology 67: 587–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Zuk, P., and G. Lázaro-Muñoz. 2019. Ethical analysis of “Mind Reading” or “Neurotechnological Thought Apprehension”: Keeping potential limitations in mind. AJOB neuroscience 10 (1): 32–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Cox, D.D., and R.L. Savoy. 2003. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) “Brain Reading”: Detecting and classifying distributed patterns of fMRI activity in human visual cortex. NeuroImage 19 (2): 261–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Haxby, J.V., M.I. Gobbini, M.L. Furey, et al. 2001. Distributed and overlapping representations of faces and objects in ventral temporal cortex. Science 293 (5539): 24252430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Hildebrandt, M. 2008. Defining profiling: a new type of knowledge?. In Profiling the European citizen (pp. 17–45). Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6914-7_2.

  72. Matz, S.C., R. Appel, and M. Kosinski. 2020. Privacy in the age of psychological targeting. Curr Opinion Psychol. 31: 116–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Hansson, S.O. 2004. Fallacies of risk. J Risk Res 7 (3): 353–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Mecacci, G., and P. Haselager. 2019. Five criteria for assessing the implications of NTA technology. AJOB Neuroscience 10 (1): 21–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Collingridge, D. 1982. The social control of technology. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Chapman, C.R., K.S. Mehta, B. Parent, and A.L. Caplan. 2020. Genetic discrimination: Emerging ethical challenges in the context of advancing technology. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 7 (1): 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Prince, A.E., and B.E. Berkman. 2012. When does an illness begin: Genetic discrimination and disease manifestation. The J Law, Med Ethics 40 (3): 655–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Craver, C. F. 2007. Explaining the brain: Mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. Clarendon Press.

  79. Bublitz, J.C. 2019. Privacy concerns in brain–computer interfaces. AJOB neuroscience 10 (1): 30–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. McCarthy-Jones, S. 2019. The autonomous mind: The right to freedom of thought in the twenty-first century. Front Artif Intell. 2: 19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Rainey, S., S. Martin, A. Christen, P. Mégevand, and E. Fourneret. 2020. Brain recording, mind-reading, and neurotechnology: Ethical issues from consumer devices to brain-based speech decoding. Sci Eng Ethics 26: 2295–2311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Senate of Chile. 2020a. Bulletin N°13.828–19. Available in: https://www.diarioconstitucional.cl/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/boletin-13828-19-nuroderechos.pdf.

  83. Senado de Chile. 2020b. Boletín 1382719. Available in: https://www.senado.cl/appsenado/templates/tramitacion/index.php?boletin_ini=13827-19.

  84. Câmara dos Deputados do Brasil. 2021. Projeto de Lei 1229/21 (Modifica a Lei n° 13.709, de 14 de agosto de 2018 (Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados Pessoais), a fim de conceituar dado neural e regulamentar a sua proteção.). Available at: https://www.camara.leg.br/propostas-legislativas/2276604.

  85. Borgatti, S.P. 2005. Centrality and network ow. Social Networks 27 (1): 55–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

AWP collaboration is funded by the project FONDECYT Iniciación nº 11220327 entitled ‘La Filosofía de la Neurociencia como marco conceptual para los Neuroderechos’ granted by the National Agency for Research and Development (ANID) of the Government of Chile.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Universidad de Valparaíso, Valparaíso, Chile

    Pablo López-Silva

  2. Millennium Institute for Research in Depression and Personality, Valparaíso, Chile

    Pablo López-Silva

  3. Instituto de Éticas Aplicadas, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

    Abel Wajnerman-Paz

  4. Neuroética Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Abel Wajnerman-Paz

  5. University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

    Fruzsina Molnar-Gabor

Authors
  1. Pablo López-Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abel Wajnerman-Paz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fruzsina Molnar-Gabor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abel Wajnerman-Paz.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

López-Silva, P., Wajnerman-Paz, A. & Molnar-Gabor, F. Neurotechnological Applications and the Protection of Mental Privacy: An Assessment of Risks. Neuroethics 17, 31 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-024-09565-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-024-09565-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation