“The protection of mental privacy in the area of neuroscience - Societal, legal and ethical challenges” - a document by the European Union that I came across after reading about the California state law:
2 Likes
Interesting frame: …“more & more attractive for ‘healthy’ populations.”; or, the use of cosumer-grade devices[as opposed to military-grade].
The MIT article focuses on the “fact” that they may be able to read your mind[s].
California is the second state to give mental protection. Since this is MIT press; the first state isn’t mentioned, as that would have been common sense. And high brows, are anything - but common.
I like the framer’s attitude of: not trusting brain data gatherers.
And he questions the definition of what neural data is, by broadening it to include “cognitive biometrics”
Not included is really where this is headed: Brainwave signatures, as the go-to biometric measure; being used by industry, government, and black markets.
.
2 Likes
I trust a government to protect our mental privacy about as much as I expect a herd of pigs to fly.
4 Likes