New computers could delete thoughts without your knowledge, experts warn
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'
Ian Johnston Science Correspondent April 26, 2017 14
hours ago
“Thou canst not touch the freedom of my mind,” wrote the
playwright John Milton in 1634.
But, nearly 400 years later, technological advances in
machines that can read our thoughts mean the privacy of our brain is under threat.
Now two biomedical ethicists are calling for the creation
of new human rights laws to ensure people are protected, including “the right
to cognitive liberty” and “the right to mental integrity”.
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.
And medical researchers have 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 ethicists, writing in a paper in the journal Life
Sciences, Society and Policy, stressed the “unprecedented opportunities” that
would result from the “ubiquitous distribution of cheaper, scalable and easy-to-use
neuro-applications” that would make neurotechnology “intricately embedded in
our everyday life”.
However, such devices are open to abuse on a frightening
degree, as the academics made clear.
They warned that “malicious brain-hacking” and “hazardous
uses of medical neurotechnology” could require a redefinition of the idea of
mental integrity.
“We suggest that in response to emerging neurotechnology
possibilities, the right to mental integrity should not exclusively guarantee
protection from mental illness or traumatic injury but also from unauthorised
intrusions into a person’s mental wellbeing performed through the use of
neurotechnology, especially if such intrusions result in physical or mental
harm to the neurotechnology user,” the ethicists wrote.
“The right to mental privacy is a neuro-specific privacy
right which protects private or sensitive information in a person’s mind from
unauthorised collection, storage, use, or even deletion in digital form or
otherwise.”
And they warned that the techniques were so sophisticated
that people’s minds might be being read or interfered with without their
knowledge.
“Illicit intrusions into a person’s mental privacy may
not necessarily involve coercion, as they could be performed under the
threshold of a persons’ conscious experience,” they wrote in the paper.
“The same goes for actions involving harm to a person’s mental
life or unauthorised modifications of a person’s psychological continuity,
which are also facilitated by the ability of emerging neurotechnologies to
intervene into a person’s neural processing in absence of the person’s
awareness.”
They proposed four new human rights laws: the right to
cognitive liberty, the right to mental privacy, the right to mental integrity
and the right to psychological continuity.
Professor Roberto Andorno, an academic at Zurich
University’s law school and a co-author of the paper, said: “Brain imaging
technology has already reached a point where there is discussion over its
legitimacy in criminal court, for example as a tool for assessing criminal
responsibility or even the risk of re-offending.
“Consumer companies are using brain imaging for
'neuromarketing' to understand consumer behaviour and elicit desired responses
from customers.
“There are also tools such as 'brain decoders' which can
turn brain imaging data into images, text or sound.
“All of these could pose a threat to personal freedom
which we sought to address with the development of four new human rights laws.”
And 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.
“Our proposed laws would give people the right to refuse
coercive and invasive neurotechnology, protect the privacy of data collected by
neurotechnology, and protect the physical and psychological aspects of the mind
from damage by the misuse of neurotechnology.”
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.”
Comments
Post a Comment