Risks to privacy
Neural data is more sensitive and valuable than all
other categories of personal data because of the
unprecedented ability to access internal thoughts.92
The collection of neural data may, in the future, make
it possible to track, analyse and predict the actions
and attitudes of individuals about anything from
political leaning, sexual orientation or health status.93
This makes the risk to privacy of the utmost concern.
Neurotechnology products record vast quantities
and varieties of neural data which may be accessed,
collected, stored and used/exploited without
genuine consent.94
The usage of such neural data could range from
marketing companies using ‘nudging’ techniques
to steer users towards certain products, employers
seeking to monitor employee concentration in the
workplace or more recently schools seeking to
ensure children are paying attention and learning
in class. The risks become more serious when
considering the usage of neural data by governments
– especially those with poor human rights records.
It has also been suggested that the decoding of
neural data will one day be able to reveal additional
information such as, for example, someone’s sexual
orientation, leading to possible discrimination and
prejudicial treatment.95 It is also possible that other
personal information, such as political affiliations
or religious commitments, could be inferred from
neurotechnologies in coordination with other
technologies. Sexual orientation is used below as an
example of the risks.
The 2020 update of the Global Legislation Overview
of the State‑Sponsored Homophobia Report
concluded that there were 67 Member States with
provisions criminalising consensual same‑sex
conduct, and six UN Member States that continue to
14
impose the death penalty for consensual same‑sex
conduct.96 This is in addition to the many countries
where individuals continue to face persecution and
violence on a daily basis because of their sexual
orientation or gender identity.
If mental privacy is not protected, the technology
could one day lead to a widespread ability to
identify, isolate and even kill people based on an
assessment of their perceived sexual orientation.
Further, the potential inaccuracy of such
neurological tools (particularly in their early
development) does not reduce the risk of
persecution and violence against individuals who
might be targeted by this technology – whether
on the basis of sexual orientation or other
characteristics.
Although the collection, maintenance and usage
of neural data raises ethical questions in isolation,
there are concerns about how this information will
be used in tandem with other forms of personal
data. For example, the gathering of seemingly
small and innocuous pieces of personal data
(browser history, location, purchase history etc)
can, accumulatively, provide a detailed profile of an
individual – dubbed the ‘mosaic effect’.97
Many wearable devices, such as smart watches, now
record bodily functions and are openly accepted
by consumers. While this allows for the collection
of information such as heart rate, geolocation
and movement, with the inclusion of neural data
this will also allow sensitive personal information
to be extracted or inferred about a person on an
unprecedented scale.98 Although only a very small
percentage of brain scans can currently be decoded,
the rapid advancement of AI (and other forms of
technology and data) will likely see this increase.
Protecting Cognition: Background Paper on Human Rights and Neurotechnology