Advocating for neurodata privacy and neurotechnology regulation
Abstract
The ability to record and alter brain activity by using implantable and nonimplantable neural devices, while poised to have significant scientific and clinical benefits, also raises complex ethical concerns. In this Perspective, we raise awareness of the ability of artificial intelligence algorithms and data-aggregation tools to decode and analyze data containing highly sensitive information, jeopardizing personal neuroprivacy. Voids in existing regulatory frameworks, in fact, allow unrestricted decoding and commerce of neurodata. We advocate for the implementation of proposed ethical and human rights guidelines, alongside technical options such as data encryption, differential privacy and federated learning to ensure the protection of neurodata privacy. We further encourage regulatory bodies to consider taking a position of responsibility by categorizing all brain-derived data as sensitive health data and apply existing medical regulations to all data gathered via pre-registered neural devices. Lastly, we propose that a technocratic oath may instill a deontology for neurotechnology practitioners akin to what the Hippocratic oath represents in medicine. A conscientious societal position that thoroughly rejects the misuse of neurodata would provide the moral compass for the future development of the neurotechnology field.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Active Learning during Federated Learning for Object Detection
- Fairness-aware federated learning
- Decentralized Federated Learning
- Building a Personally Identifiable Information Recognizer in a Privacy Preserved Manner Using Automated Annotation and Federated Learning
- Preservation of Patient Level Privacy: Federated Classification and Calibration Models
- Efficient explainable federated learning
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.