3. Human rights impacted by neurotechnology Despite article 18(2) expressly stating that a person shall not be subject to coercion which impedes their ability to adopt a belief, there is nothing in the UN Human Rights Committee’s General Comment on Article 18 that would extend to considering this in respect of neurological interference to coerce a decision – nor any mention of technological means of doing so.118 With an increasing understanding of the brain, it is possible that neurotechnologies in coordination with other technology (geotracking, data gathering etc) may one day be capable of not only coercing or manipulating a person’s decisions, but also discerning their internal thoughts or beliefs. It is concerning that, despite the protection in Article 18, this could lead to persecution based on a person’s belief. 3.3 Right to equality and non‑discrimination Emerging technologies (such as AI and FRT) already pose a serious risk to equality and non‑discrimination, as bias and discrimination can be entrenched in algorithms. In addition to the risk of algorithmic bias within neurotechnologies themselves, there is also the risk that neurotechnology may deepen social and economic divides in a way that violates the right to equality and non‑discrimination. Particularly, article 25 UDHR stipulates: Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well‑being of himself and of his family. Article 2 also states: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms … without distinction of any kind such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. To prevent deepening inequality, the right to equal access to mental augmentation has been proposed by the Neurorights Foundation and the Neurotechnology Ethics taskforce.119 While neurotechnology devices can restore and improve brain function, these products can be expensive and limited only to those who can afford them (in particular those which are implantable and used for medical devices, as opposed to cheaper non‑implantable consumer‑focused products).120 This limits access to potentially life‑changing enhancements. However, it is also worth noting that there are more affordable non‑implantable consumer‑oriented neurotechnology products, which are priced within a range of $300 AUD to $800 AUD.121 While these products must be accessible, they must also be commercially viable to reach the broadest market – a balance between the public health benefit of the technology and its commercial viability is necessary. The cost of access to neurotechnology may deepen the equity gaps in society. For example, people with disability have higher rates of poverty122 and may be disproportionately impacted by price. As an example, after an implanting company shut down, and its software was no longer accessible, some users incurred an approximate cost of $40,000 USD to replace their ATI‑made neurostimulator implant that was rendered obsolete.123 Inherent bias created by the cost of more expensive products (especially those which require implantation) may cause companies to operate under a social media business model, which allows free services in exchange for collection and use of data. There is the potential for neurotechnology companies to similarly advertise discounted products if customers consent for them to use their neural data. Already vulnerable communities may be faced with making decisions effectively to compromise their right to privacy to access beneficial technology. Australian Human Rights Commission 17