|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Mercy Kachenge
Nairobi-UN report says neurotechnology is outpacing the law, threatening privacy, freedom of thought and fair trials.
A headset worn for gaming or a wellness device that tracks brain activity could one day end up as evidence in a courtroom. A new UN report warns that neurotechnology is advancing faster than the laws meant to protect human rights.
As devices that record and analyse brain signals move out of hospitals and laboratories and into consumer markets, workplaces and possibly justice systems, the UN is calling for stronger safeguards against the misuse of neural data.
Presenting the report to the General Assembly’s Third Committee on October 15, Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights Claudia Fuentes Julio warned that the spread of neurotechnology could threaten fundamental rights, particularly for people in marginalised communities.
The central concern is that data collected through gaming, wellness or productivity devices could eventually be accessed by authorities or presented in legal proceedings, without adequate protection for the people whose brain activity was measured. The issue is not only who owns the data, but how it is interpreted, who can access it, and whether it can be used to judge a person’s intentions, behaviour or credibility.
When brain signals enter the courtroom
Neurotechnology covers any technology that measures, monitors, analyses, predicts or influences the nervous system. These systems collect neural data: information about the structure, activity and functioning of the nervous system.
The technology has important medical uses, from supporting diagnosis to assisting people with disabilities. But its growing commercial use is raising new questions about consent and privacy. Wearable electroencephalography (EEG) devices, which measure the brain’s electrical activity, are already marketed for wellness, gaming and productivity. The report warns that the data they generate could be repurposed for uses far removed from the reason it was collected.
In court, the risk is that brain signals could be treated as direct proof of a person’s thoughts, intentions or truthfulness, despite the scientific limits on drawing such conclusions. The Secretary-General’s report cautions that treating neural signals as definitive indicators of what someone thinks or intends could undermine how human beings are understood and valued.
The distinction matters. Measuring brain activity is not the same as reliably establishing what a person is thinking, whether they are lying, or whether they meant to commit an offence. Legal judgments built on unvalidated interpretations could be unreliable or taken out of context.
The report urges close scrutiny of how neurotechnology is introduced into justice systems, especially when devices and data developed for medical purposes are adapted for other uses.
The consent problem
Commercialisation brings another challenge: private technology companies collecting highly sensitive information. Consumers may use a brain-monitoring device to improve their gaming or track their wellbeing without fully understanding how their neural data could be stored, shared, or used later. That data could reach third parties, including government authorities, which raises the question of whether existing privacy protections are adequate.
Consent is especially fraught when data collected for one purpose is later used for another. Someone who agrees to use a wellness device has not necessarily agreed to have their neural data examined in a criminal investigation or offered as evidence.
The report calls for stronger informed-consent requirements and heightened protection for neural data, which it describes as uniquely sensitive personal information. It also urges governments to set up clear accountability mechanisms and effective oversight.
The implications go beyond criminal cases. As neurotechnology enters workplaces, schools and public services, people could face pressure to submit to brain monitoring, with the results influencing decisions about their lives. For marginalised groups, the consequences could be especially severe, since unequal access to legal representation, limited bargaining power and discriminatory practices make it harder to challenge how sensitive data is collected or interpreted.
Innovation versus human rights
The UN is not rejecting neurotechnology outright. It recognises significant potential in healthcare and assistive applications, including tools that could help people overcome mobility and communication difficulties. The challenge is making sure innovation does not come at the cost of human dignity and fundamental freedoms.
The report calls for bans on coercive and abusive uses of neurotechnology, along with safeguards covering scientific validation, informed consent, independent oversight, accountability, and neural data protection. Together, these would set boundaries on when brain data can be collected, how it can be interpreted and when it can be used, and would counter the assumption that technological measurements are automatically objective or conclusive.
As artificial intelligence increasingly converges with neurotechnology, the potential uses of neural data will grow, making governance more urgent. Governments and justice systems must ensure that new tools meet appropriate standards of reliability and respect individual rights before they are used in decisions with serious consequences.
The question the report raises goes beyond whether technology can read signals from the brain. It is whether collecting those signals should give institutions more power to judge the people who produce them. Answering it will take laws that keep pace with innovation while recognising the limits of what brain data can legitimately establish.
