New computers could delete thoughts without your knowledge, experts warn

New human rights laws are required to protect sensitive information in a person’s mind from ‘unauthorised collection, storage, use or even deletion’

Technological advances in machines that can read our thoughts mean that the privacy of our brain is under threat.

Now, two biomedical scientists are calling for the creation of new human rights laws to ensure people
are protected. The new laws include the right to mental privacy and the right of humans to control their own mental processes.

Scientists have already developed devices capable of telling whether people are politically right-wing
or left-wing. In one experiment, researchers were able to read people’s minds to tell with 70 per cent
accuracy whether they planned to add or subtract two numbers.

Facebook also recently revealed it had been secretly working on technology to read people’s minds so they could type by just thinking.

Medical researchers have also managed to connect part of a paralysed man’s brain to a computer to allow
him to stimulate muscles in his arm so he could move it and feed himself.

The scientists also stressed the «unprecedented opportunities» that would result from the distribution
of cheaper and easier to use applications that would make neurotechnology* part of our everyday lives.

However, the academics made it clear that these devices were open to abuse on a frightening level.

And they warned that the techniques were so sophisticated that people’s minds could be read or interfered with without their knowledge.

They said that illegal intrusion into a person’s mind could happen not because they were persuaded to
allow it, but because they weren’t aware it was happening.

Professor Roberto Andorno, an academic at Zurich University’s law school and a co-author of the paper, said that brain imaging technology had already reached a point where there had been discussion about whether it could be used in a criminal court, for example when assessing the risk of a criminal re-
offending.

He also said that consumer companies were using brain imaging for ‘neuro-marketing’ to understand consumer behaviour and to achieve desired responses from customers.

He added that there were also tools such as ‘brain decoders’ which can turn brain imaging data into images, text or sound.

His colleague Marcello Ienca, of the Institute for Biomedical Ethics at Basel University, said: «The mind is considered to be the last refuge of personal freedom and self-determination, but advances in neural engineering, brain imaging and neurotechnology put the freedom of the mind at risk.»

He admitted such advances might sound like something out of the world of science fiction.

But he added: «Neurotechnology featured in famous stories has in some cases already become a reality, while others are inching ever closer, or exist as military and commercial prototypes.»

«We need to be prepared to deal with the impact these technologies will have on our personal freedom.»

Questions

Why are scientists calling for new human rights laws related to neurotechnology?
→ Because advances in brain-reading technology could threaten mental privacy and allow people’s thoughts to be accessed or manipulated without consent. What examples does the article provide to demonstrate the capabilities of modern neurotechnology?
→ Researchers have identified political tendencies, predicted mathematical intentions, enabled communication through thought, and helped a paralysed man move his arm using brain-computer connections. Why is Facebook mentioned in the article?
→ Because it reportedly worked on technology that could allow users to type simply by thinking, highlighting the commercial interest in mind-reading technology. What benefits of neurotechnology do the scientists acknowledge?
→ They recognise its potential to improve medical treatments, increase accessibility for disabled people, and create useful everyday applications. Why do the researchers believe these technologies could be abused?
→ Because they may allow individuals or organisations to access, influence, or even alter people’s thoughts without their awareness. What concern does Professor Roberto Andorno raise regarding the legal system?
→ He warns that brain imaging technology could potentially be used in criminal courts to assess whether someone might commit crimes again. How are companies already using brain imaging according to the text?
→ Companies are using it in neuromarketing to better understand consumer behaviour and influence purchasing decisions. What are ‘brain decoders’ and why are they significant?
→ Brain decoders are tools capable of transforming brain activity into images, text, or sound, demonstrating how advanced neurotechnology has become. What does Marcello Ienca mean when he describes the mind as “the last refuge of personal freedom”?
→ He means that people traditionally consider their thoughts completely private and central to individual autonomy. What overall warning does the article present about the future of neurotechnology?
→ The article warns that society must prepare for the ethical and legal consequences of technologies that could fundamentally threaten personal freedom and mental privacy.