Different regions and institutions are experimenting with distinct approaches towards neurotechnology regulations. Comparing them helps us identify strengths and pitfalls.
Key examples:
Accounting for the fast-evolving technology and science, the regulatory debate needs to focus on protecting the integrity of the human mind and privacy overall, rather than focusing on the protection of the specific data category.
Legal scholars are also warning that the idea of building privacy protections on categories of ‘sensitive data’ is unsustainable. These categories are often arbitrary and unable to capture the reality of an inference-driven economy. Virtually any type of data, however innocuous, can be combined or analyzed to reveal sensitive attributes, such as health conditions, beliefs or political opinions. As technology and data analysis capacity evolve, so will the information that may eventually be decoded. Regulations that protect only certain data types risk being under-inclusive, shielding some risks while ignoring others.
Leave a Reply