Understanding the Data Flows and Privacy Risks of Brain-Computer Interfaces|Legit essays

Topic: Global laws & litigation,  BCI (Brain-Computer Interface) technology

1) Select a country or a region from the privacy laws around the world: Indicate which laws are present in this area and the level of maturity of these laws insofar as they pertain to privacy and the protection of people

Essay writing service:

• Excellent quality
• 100% Turnitin-safe
• Affordable prices

Order Now

2) Imagine that you are a lawyer working for the consumer protection organization in the selected country or region. BCI technology is being rolled out extensively in this country or region and you are trying to use the existing laws to protect people from the risks associated with it. What arguments do you use?

3) Where are the gaps between existing regulation and this innovation?

APA Format, 600 words, Due Feb 20th

NOVEMBER 2021

Understanding the Data Flows and Privacy Risks of Brain-Computer Interfaces

PRIVACY AND THE CONNECTED MIND

Authors

Jeremy Greenberg, Policy Counsel, Future of Privacy Forum Katelyn Ringrose, Policy Fellow, Future of Privacy Forum

Sara Berger, Research Staff Member and Neuroscientist, IBM Research Jamie VanDodick, AI Ethics Leader, Chief Privacy Office, IBM

Francesca Rossi, AI Ethics Global Leader, IBM Joshua New, Technology Policy Executive and Senior Fellow, IBM Policy Lab

Acknowledgments

The Future of Privacy Forum would like to thank the following individuals for their advice and expertise: Dr. Tamara Bonaci, Assistant Teaching Professor at the Khoury College of

Computer Sciences at Northeastern University; Dr. Laura Y. Cabrera, Dorothy Foehr and J. Lloyd Huck Chair in Neuroethics, Associate Professor, Center for Neural Engineering, The

University of Pennsylvania State University; and Dr. Peter Reiner, Professor of Neuroethics at the University of British Columbia.

Thank you to FPF Policy Interns: Samuel Adams, Noah Katz, and Hannah Schaller for their contributions to this paper. An additional thank you to IBM legal counsel, Ron Leviner, and

IBM Racial and Social Justice Scholar, Alex Baria, for their contributions to the paper, and to Guillermo Cecchi and Jeff Rogers from IBM for their suggestions.

FUTURE OF PRIVACY FORUM | IBM | PRIVACY AND THE CONNECTED MIND | NOVEMBER 2021 1

Executive Summary ______________________________________________ 2

Introduction ____________________________________________________ 4

Part I: BCIs are Devices That Can Both Record and Modulate an Individual’s Brain Signals Through the Collection and Processing of Neurodata __________ 5

Part II: BCIs Provide Benefits and Present Risks in a Number of Sectors Including Health, Gaming, Employment, Education, Smart Cities, Neuromarketing, and the Military ____________________________________ 11

Part III: A Mix of Technical and Policy Solutions Can Mitigate Risks __________ 26

Conclusion ____________________________________________________ 32

Endnotes _____________________________________________________ 33

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FUTURE OF PRIVACY FORUM | IBM | PRIVACY AND THE CONNECTED MIND | NOVEMBER 2021 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides an overview of the tech- nology, benefits, privacy and ethical risks, and proposed recommendations for promot-

ing privacy and mitigating risks associated with brain-computer interfaces (BCIs). BCIs are com- puter-based systems that directly record, process, or analyze brain-specific neurodata and translate these data into outputs that can be used as visu- alizations or aggregates for interpretation and reporting purposes and/or as commands to control external interfaces, influence behaviors, or modu- late neural activity. While neurodata can take many forms, this report discusses “neurodata” as data generated by the nervous system, which consists of electrical activity between neurons or proxies of this activity. Personal neurodata refers to neurodata that is reasonably linkable to an individual.

BCI devices can be either invasive or non-invasive. Invasive BCIs are installed directly into—or on top of—the wearer’s brain through a surgical procedure. Today, invasive BCIs are typically used in the health context. Non-invasive BCIs rely on external elec- trodes and other sensors or equipment connected to or monitoring the body for collecting and modulating neural signals. Consumer-facing BCIs use various non-invasive methods, including headbands.

Some BCI implementations raise few, if any, pri- vacy issues. For example, individuals using BCIs to control computer cursors might not reveal any more personal information than typical mouse us- ers, provided BCI systems promptly discard cursor data. However, some uses of BCI technologies raise important questions about how laws, policies, and technical controls can safeguard inferences about individuals’ brain functions, intentions, moods, or identity. These questions are increasingly urgent in light of the many potential applications expanded use of BCIs in: › Healthcare – where BCIs could monitor

fatigue, diagnose medical conditions, stimulate or modulate brain activity, and control prosthetics and external devices.

› Gaming – where BCIs could augment existing gaming platforms and offer players new ways to play using devices that record and interpret their neural signals.

› Employment and Industry – where BCIs could monitor workers’ engagement to improve safety during high-risk tasks, alert workers or supervi- sors to dangerous situations, modulate workers’ brain activity to improve performance, and provide tools to more efficiently complete tasks.

› Education – where BCIs could track student attention, identify students’ unique needs, and alert teachers and parents of student progress.

› Smart Cities – where BCIs could provide new avenues of communication for construction teams and safety workers and enable potential new methods for connected vehicle control.

› Neuromarketing – where marketers could incorporate the use of BCIs to intuit consumers’ moods and to gauge product and service interest.

› Military – where governments are researching the potential of BCIs to help rehabilitate soldiers’ injuries and enhance communication.

This report focuses on the current privacy impacts of BCIs, as well as the data protection questions raised by realistic, near-future use of BCIs. While the potential uses of BCIs are numerous, BCIs cannot at present or in the near future “read a person’s complete thoughts,” serve as an accurate lie detec- tor, or pump information directly into the brain. It is important for stakeholders in this space to delineate between the current and likely future uses and far- off notions depicted by science fiction creators, so that we can identify urgent concerns and prioritize meaningful policy initiatives. We take seriously the concerns raised by futuristic potential developments and keep them in mind as we make recommenda- tions, but in this paper we focus on the immediately pressing need to address issues already faced and likely to be faced in the upcoming decade.

Although the report primarily focuses on the privacy concerns—including questions about the trans- parency, control, security, and accuracy of data— involving existing and emerging BCI capabilities, these technologies also raise important technical considerations and ethical implications, related to, for example fairness, justice, human rights, and personal dignity.1 These concerns are equally crit- ical and complex, so this report highlights where

FUTURE OF PRIVACY FORUM | IBM | PRIVACY AND THE CONNECTED MIND | NOVEMBER 2021 3

additional ethical and technical concerns emerge in various use cases and applications of BCIs. Greater in-depth discussion of areas beyond privacy war- rant additional research and careful consideration, and we hope to turn to those issues in future efforts.

To promote privacy and responsible use of BCIs, stakeholders should adopt technical guardrails including:

› Providing on/off controls when possible— including hardware switches if practical;

› Providing users with granular controls on devices and in companion apps for managing the collec- tion, use, and sharing of personal neurodata;

› Providing heightened transparency and control for BCIs that specifically send signals to the brain, rather than merely receive neurodata;

› Designing, documenting, and disclosing clear and accurate descriptions regarding the accuracy of BCI-derived inferences;

› Operationalizing industry or research-based best practices for security and privacy when storing, sharing, and processing neurodata;

› Employing appropriate privacy enhancing technologies;

› Encrypting personal neurodata in transit and at rest; and

› Embracing appropriate protective and defensive security measures to combat bad actors.

Stakeholders should also adopt policy safeguards including:

› Ensuring that BCI-derived inferences are not allowed for uses to influence decisions about individuals that have legal effects, livelihood effects, or similar significant impacts—e.g. assessing the truthfulness of statements in legal proceedings, inferring thoughts, emotions or psychological state, or personality attributes as part of hiring or school admissions decisions, or assessing individuals’ eligibility for legal benefits;

› Employing sufficient transparency, notice, terms of use, and consent frameworks to empower users with a baseline of BCI literacy around the collection, use, sharing, and retention of their neurodata;

› Engaging IRBs and other independent review mechanisms to identify and mitigate risks;

› Facilitating participatory and inclusive community input prior to and during BCI system design, development and rollout;

› Creating dynamic technical, policy, and employee training standards to account for the gaps in current regulation;

› Promoting an open and inclusive research ecosystem by encouraging the adoption, where possible, of open standards for neurodata and the sharing of research data under open licenses and with appropriate safeguards in place. A similar open-skills approach could also be considered for a subset of direct-to-consumer BCIs; and

› Evaluating the adequacy of existing policy frameworks for governing the unique risks of neurotechnologies and identifying potential gaps prior to new regulation.

Key Terminology and Definitions

› Neurodata – Data generated by the nervous system,2 which consists of the electrical activities between neurons or proxies of this activity.

› Personal Neurodata – Neurodata that is reasonably linkable to an individual.

› Neurotech/Neurotechnology – Technology that collects, interprets, infers or modifies neurodata.

› Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) – Computer-based systems that directly record, process, or analyze brain-specific neurodata and translate these data into outputs that can be used as visualizations or aggregates for interpretation and reporting purposes and/or as commands to control external interfaces, influence behaviors, or modulate neural activity.

FUTURE OF PRIVACY FORUM | IBM | PRIVACY AND THE CONNECTED MIND | NOVEMBER 2021 4

INTRODUCTION

Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are a prime example of an emerging technology that is advancing new areas of human-machine inter-

action. Today, BCIs are primarily used in the health- care context for purposes including: rehabilitation, diagnosis, symptom management, and accessibility. While BCI technologies are not yet widely adopted in the consumer space, there is a recent interest and proliferation of new direct-to-consumer neuro- technologies. The emergence of such technologies across various sectors poses numerous benefits and raises significant questions about user privacy.

When connected to the Internet,3 BCIs can be clas- sified as a type of wearable or implanted instrument within the Internet of Bodies, a network of devices connected to, and generating information

SOLUTION

Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) technology is an emerging field that involves the direct communication between a human brain and a computer system. As this technology continues to advance, it raises a number of legal and ethical issues that will need to be addressed on a global scale.

One major area of concern is privacy. BCI technology involves the use of sensors that can read brain activity and extract information about a person’s thoughts, emotions, and intentions. This raises the possibility of the unauthorized access, use, and storage of personal data, which could have serious consequences for individuals’ privacy.

Another issue is informed consent. BCI technology can be used to monitor and manipulate brain activity, which raises questions about whether individuals are fully aware of the potential risks and benefits of using such technology. It is essential that individuals are fully informed of the implications of BCI technology, and that their consent is obtained in a way that is fully voluntary and informed.

There are also concerns around the potential misuse of BCI technology. It is possible that this technology could be used to control or manipulate individuals against their will. This could have serious implications for human rights and personal autonomy.

To address these issues, there will need to be a global framework of laws and regulations that govern the development and use of BCI technology. This framework will need to ensure that the technology is developed and used in an ethical and responsible manner, and that the rights of individuals are protected.

Litigation is likely to play a role in shaping the legal landscape around BCI technology. As the technology becomes more widely used, it is likely that legal disputes will arise around issues such as privacy, informed consent, and liability for harm caused by the use of the technology. These disputes will need to be resolved through the courts, which will help to establish legal precedents and clarify the legal rights and obligations of individuals and organizations that develop and use BCI technology.

In summary, BCI technology raises a number of legal and ethical issues that will need to be addressed th