ON FULL HUMAN BRAIN READING
Will the last protective wall disappear?
It probably won’t be very long before artificial intelligence allows brain scanners to accurately and in detail report what images, thoughts and (memories of) feelings are stored in human brains. That raises all sorts of questions.
First of all, it would be wonderful if this new technology could help detect and treat diseases. For individuals, it might be helpful if, for example, they could easily transfer images located in their brain to a desktop computer or smartphone or whatever “device” will be available by then.
Every leap forward has positive aspects. There is no need to worry or fear about that. The question is what threats are attached to such a development.
The most important private domain available to an individual is between his ears: the area of the brain. In it one can think and fantasize freely. The brain contains all memories. To what extent an individual shares that “data” (facts, images, fantasies, experiences, religious beliefs, political views, etc.) with others he normally decides for himself. Hardly anyone will be comfortable if their entire ‘body and soul’ could be known to everyone. The consequences of this kind of data becoming public (without the person concerned wanting it) could be serious. For the person involved, “learning” about his own data in this way could also be a (particularly) unpleasant confrontation with himself.
The basic principle should be that everything that is in the form of data in the brain belongs to the domain of mental integrity, and that every individual can and may claim protection of his physical and mental integrity. Violation of that integrity should be punishable, and violations may only occur if strict legal criteria are met.
An ethical-legal question, for instance, is whether the state, for example regarding the investigation of criminal offences, should have the possibility, in addition to enforced blood sampling, DNA acquisition and fingerprinting, to make a scan (full copy) of all the data stored in a person’s brain. Leaving aside for a moment how a sifting should take place because we are talking about an astronomical amount of data and what interpretation discussions are possible (how do you interpret my sense of the color red?), the risk is run that persons (investigating officers) take note of, for example, political or religious views that are deemed unwelcome and that could lead to repercussions.
A similar question arises when it comes to research by doctors on patients: how far may such research go and how will abuse of obtained data be prevented?
The above is of course not exhaustive, but it is evident that a serious discussion must be held in good time because in addition to privacy, various other (fundamental) rights to which (groups of) individuals are entitled are at stake. It is therefore good that an organization such as UNESCO has already taken an initiative to come up with recommendations for States regarding the ethical side of neurotechnology.
Karel Frielink
(lawyer / legal scholar)
(26 August 2024)
.
