Brain Data in Context: Are New Rights the Way to Mental and Brain Privacy?

The potential to collect brain data more directly, with higher resolution, and in greater amounts has heightened worries about mental and brain privacy. In order to manage the risks to individuals posed by these privacy challenges, some have suggested codifying new privacy rights, including a right to "mental privacy." In this paper, we consider these arguments and conclude that while neurotechnologies do raise significant privacy concerns, such concerns are-at least for now-no different from those raised by other well-understood data collection technologies, such as gene sequencing tools and online surveillance. To better understand the privacy stakes of brain data, we suggest the use of a conceptual framework from information ethics, Helen Nissenbaum's "contextual integrity" theory. To illustrate the importance of context, we examine neurotechnologies and the information flows they produce in three familiar contexts-healthcare and medical research, criminal justice, and consumer marketing. We argue that by emphasizing what is distinct about brain privacy issues, rather than what they share with other data privacy concerns, risks weakening broader efforts to enact more robust privacy law and policy.

Rights and Wrongs in Talk of Mind-Reading Technology

This article examines the idea of mind-reading technology by focusing on an interesting case of applying a large language model (LLM) to brain data. On the face of it, experimental results appear to show that it is possible to reconstruct mental contents directly from brain data by processing via a chatGPT-like LLM. However, the author argues that this apparent conclusion is not warranted. Through examining how LLMs work, it is shown that they are importantly different from natural language. The former operates on the basis of nonrational data transformations based on a large textual corpus. The latter has a rational dimension, being based on reasons. Using this as a basis, it is argued that brain data does not directly reveal mental content, but can be processed to ground predictions indirectly about mental content. The author concludes that this is impressive but different in principle from technology-mediated mind reading. The applications of LLM-based brain data processing are nevertheless promising for speech rehabilitation or novel communication methods.

public perceptions of the sensitivity of brain data

As we approach an era of potentially widespread consumer neurotechnology, scholars and organizations worldwide have started to raise concerns about the data privacy issues these devices will present. Notably absent in these discussions is empirical evidence about how the public perceives that same information. This article presents the results of a nationwide survey on public perceptions of brain data, to inform discussions of law and policy regarding brain data governance. The survey reveals that the public may perceive certain brain data as less sensitive than other 'private' information, like social security numbers, but more sensitive than some 'public' information, like media preferences. The findings also reveal that not all inferences about mental experiences may be perceived as equally sensitive, and perhaps not all data should be treated alike in ethical and policy discussions. An enhanced understanding of public perceptions of brain data could advance the development of ethical and legal norms concerning consumer neurotechnology.

Corrigendum: Towards an understanding of global brain data governance: ethical positions that underpin global brain data governance discourse

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fdata.2023.1240660.].

Towards an understanding of global brain data governance: ethical positions that underpin global brain data governance discourse

Introduction

The study of the brain continues to generate substantial volumes of data, commonly referred to as "big brain data," which serves various purposes such as the treatment of brain-related diseases, the development of neurotechnological devices, and the training of algorithms. This big brain data, generated in different jurisdictions, is subject to distinct ethical and legal principles, giving rise to various ethical and legal concerns during collaborative efforts. Understanding these ethical and legal principles and concerns is crucial, as it catalyzes the development of a global governance framework, currently lacking in this field. While prior research has advocated for a contextual examination of brain data governance, such studies have been limited. Additionally, numerous challenges, issues, and concerns surround the development of a contextually informed brain data governance framework. Therefore, this study aims to bridge these gaps by exploring the ethical foundations that underlie contextual stakeholder discussions on brain data governance.

Method

In this study we conducted a secondary analysis of interviews with 21 neuroscientists drafted from the International Brain Initiative (IBI), LATBrain Initiative and the Society of Neuroscientists of Africa (SONA) who are involved in various brain projects globally and employing ethical theories. Ethical theories provide the philosophical frameworks and principles that inform the development and implementation of data governance policies and practices.

Results

The results of the study revealed various contextual ethical positions that underscore the ethical perspectives of neuroscientists engaged in brain data research globally.

Discussion

This research highlights the multitude of challenges and deliberations inherent in the pursuit of a globally informed framework for governing brain data. Furthermore, it sheds light on several critical considerations that require thorough examination in advancing global brain data governance.

Workflow for health-related and brain data lifecycle

Poor lifestyle leads potentially to chronic diseases and low-grade physical and mental fitness. However, ahead of time, we can measure and analyze multiple aspects of physical and mental health, such as body parameters, health risk factors, degrees of motivation, and the overall willingness to change the current lifestyle. In conjunction with data representing human brain activity, we can obtain and identify human health problems resulting from a long-term lifestyle more precisely and, where appropriate, improve the quality and length of human life. Currently, brain and physical health-related data are not commonly collected and evaluated together. However, doing that is supposed to be an interesting and viable concept, especially when followed by a more detailed definition and description of their whole processing lifecycle. Moreover, when best practices are used to store, annotate, analyze, and evaluate such data collections, the necessary infrastructure development and more intense cooperation among scientific teams and laboratories are facilitated. This approach also improves the reproducibility of experimental work. As a result, large collections of physical and brain health-related data could provide a robust basis for better interpretation of a person's overall health. This work aims to overview and reflect some best practices used within global communities to ensure the reproducibility of experiments, collected datasets and related workflows. These best practices concern, e.g., data lifecycle models, FAIR principles, and definitions and implementations of terminologies and ontologies. Then, an example of how an automated workflow system could be created to support the collection, annotation, storage, analysis, and publication of findings is shown. The Body in Numbers pilot system, also utilizing software engineering best practices, was developed to implement the concept of such an automated workflow system. It is unique just due to the combination of the processing and evaluation of physical and brain (electrophysiological) data. Its implementation is explored in greater detail, and opportunities to use the gained findings and results throughout various application domains are discussed.

Is the European Data Protection Regulation sufficient to deal with emerging data concerns relating to neurotechnology?

Research-driven technology development in the fields of the neurosciences presents interesting and potentially complicated issues around data in general and brain data specifically. The data produced from brain recordings are unlike names and addresses in that it may result from the processing of largely involuntarily brain activity, it can be processed and reprocessed for different aims, and it is highly sensitive. Consenting for brain recordings of a specific type, or for a specific purpose, is complicated by these factors. Brain data collection, retention, processing, storage, and destruction are each of high ethical importance. This leads us to ask: Is the present European Data Protection Regulation sufficient to deal with emerging data concerns relating to neurotechnology? This is pressing especially in a context of rapid advancement in the fields of brain computer interfaces (BCIs), where devices that can function via recorded brain signals are expanding from research labs, through medical treatments, and beyond into consumer markets for recreational uses. One notion we develop herein is that there may be no trivial data collection when it comes to brain recording, especially where algorithmic processing is involved. This article provides analysis and discussion of some specific data protection questions related to neurotechnology, especially BCIs. In particular, whether and how brain data used in BCI-driven applications might count as personal data in a way relevant to data protection regulations. It also investigates how the nature of BCI data, as it appears in various applications, may require different interpretations of data protection concepts. Importantly, we consider brain recordings to raise questions about data sensitivity, regardless of the purpose for which they were recorded. This has data protection implications.