California has passed a new law that protects brain data of consumers. Some people think that it’s not enough.
“While it introduces important safeguards, significant ambiguities leave room for loopholes that could undermine privacy protections, especially regarding inferences from neural data,” Marcello Ienca posted on X. Nita Farrahany, futurist and legal ethics professor at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, says that there is ambiguity in the definition of “nonneural data.” “The bill’s language suggests that raw data
may be protected, but inferences or conclusions–where privacy risks are most profound–might not be,” Farahany wrote in a post on LinkedIn.Ienca and Farahany are coauthors of a recent paper on mental privacy. They and Patrick Magee from Duke University argue in the paper that neural data should be broader to include “cognitive data” which includes physiological and behavioral data as well as brain data. This could include anything that can be detected by biosensors to determine a person’s state of mind. Eye-tracking devices could reveal your intentions. For example, a purchase you may make or the choice you are likely to make. These data can be used to reveal otherwise private information. Researchers have used EEG data in recent research to predict volunteer’s sexual orientation or whether recreational drug use. It’s important that we protect mental privacy. As Farahany, Ienca, and Magee put it: “By choosing whether, when, and how to share their cognitive biometric data, individuals can contribute to advancements in technology and medicine while maintaining control over their personal information.”
Now read the rest of The Checkup[collected from a person’s brain]Read more from MIT Technology Review’s archive
Nita Farahany detailed her thoughts on tech that aims to read our minds and probe our memories in a fascinating Q&A last year.
Targeted dream incubation, anyone? There are many ways your brain data can be used against (or exonerate) you. Brain data showed that a person accused of assaulting an officer was actually having a seizure. Neuroscientists are wondering how it might be used to read thoughts, memories, and dreams within the next 100 years.
