Re: Making your mind up

I'll reply to your post later but this article just popped up on my
newsfeed and I thought you might find it interesting. It's paywalled
so I've copied the full article below in case you don't have access -
sorry, I haven't time to edit it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/17/science/colorado-brain-data-privacy.html

Your Brain Waves Are Up for Sale. A New Law Wants to Change That.

In a first, a Colorado law extends privacy rights to the neural data
increasingly coveted by technology companies.

Share full article
A young man makes a small, spherical helicopter levitate above a
trade-show table using a device on his forehead that reads his brain
waves. Several people watch.
Siddharth Hariharoan tries to control a toy helicopter with his mind
through the MindWave Mobile, a device by NeuroSky that reads brain
waves. Credit... Winni Wintermeyer for The New York Times
By Jonathan Moens

April 17, 2024
Consumers have grown accustomed to the prospect that their personal
data, such as email addresses, social contacts, browsing history and
genetic ancestry, are being collected and often resold by the apps and
the digital services they use.

With the advent of consumer neurotechnologies, the data being
collected is becoming ever more intimate. One headband serves as a
personal meditation coach by monitoring the user’s brain activity.
Another purports to help treat anxiety and symptoms of depression.
Another reads and interprets brain signals while the user scrolls
through dating apps, presumably to provide better matches. (“‘Listen
to your heart’ is not enough,” the manufacturer says on its website.)

The companies behind such technologies have access to the records of
the users’ brain activity — the electrical signals underlying our
thoughts, feelings and intentions.

On Wednesday, Governor Jared Polis of Colorado signed a bill that, for
the first time in the United States, tries to ensure that such data
remains truly private. The new law, which passed by a 61-to-1 vote in
the Colorado House and a 34-to-0 vote in the Senate, expands the
definition of “sensitive data” in the state’s current personal privacy
law to include biological and “neural data” generated by the brain,
the spinal cord and the network of nerves that relays messages
throughout the body.

Advertisement

“Everything that we are is within our mind,” said Jared Genser,
general counsel and co-founder of the Neurorights Foundation, a
science group that advocated the bill’s passage. “What we think and
feel, and the ability to decode that from the human brain, couldn’t be
any more intrusive or personal to us.”

“We are really excited to have an actual bill signed into law that
will protect people’s biological and neurological data,” said
Representative Cathy Kipp, Democrat of Colorado, who introduced the
bill.

Senator Mark Baisley, Republican of Colorado, who sponsored the bill
in the upper chamber, said: “I’m feeling really good about Colorado
leading the way in addressing this and to give it the due protections
for people’s uniqueness in their privacy. I’m just really pleased
about this signing.”

The law takes aim at consumer-level brain technologies. Unlike
sensitive patient data obtained from medical devices in clinical
settings, which are protected by federal health law, the data
surrounding consumer neurotechnologies go largely unregulated, Mr.
Genser said. That loophole means that companies can harvest vast
troves of highly sensitive brain data, sometimes for an unspecified
number of years, and share or sell the information to third parties.

Advertisement

“We’ve never seen anything with this power before — to identify,
codify people and bias against people based on their brain waves and
other neural information,” said Sean Pauzauskie, a member of the board
of directors of the Colorado Medical Society, who first brought the
issue to Ms. Kipp’s attention. Mr. Pauzauskie was recently hired by
the Neurorights Foundation as medical director.

The new law extends to biological and neural data the same protections
granted under the Colorado Privacy Act to fingerprints, facial images
and other sensitive, biometric data.

Among other protections, consumers have the right to access, delete
and correct their data, as well as to opt out of the sale or use of
the data for targeted advertising. Companies, in turn, face strict
regulations regarding how they handle such data and must disclose the
kinds of data they collect and their plans for it.

“Individuals ought to be able to control where that information — that
personally identifiable and maybe even personally predictive
information — goes,” Mr. Baisley said.

Advertisement

Experts say that the neurotechnology industry is poised to expand as
major tech companies like Meta, Apple and Snapchat become involved.

“It’s moving quickly, but it’s about to grow exponentially,” said Nita
Farahany, a professor of law and philosophy at Duke.

From 2019 to 2020, investments in neurotechnology companies rose about
60 percent globally, and in 2021 they amounted to about $30 billion,
according to one market analysis. The industry drew attention in
January, when Elon Musk announced on X that a brain-computer interface
manufactured by Neuralink, one of his companies, had been implanted in
a person for the first time. Mr. Musk has since said that the patient
had made a full recovery and was now able to control a mouse solely
with his thoughts and play online chess.

While eerily dystopian, some brain technologies have led to
breakthrough treatments. In 2022, a completely paralyzed man was able
to communicate using a computer simply by imagining his eyes moving.
And last year, scientists were able to translate the brain activity of
a paralyzed woman and convey her speech and facial expressions through
an avatar on a computer screen.

“The things that people can do with this technology are great,” Ms.
Kipp said. “But we just think that there should be some guardrails in
place for people who aren’t intending to have their thoughts read and
their biological data used.”

Advertisement

That is already happening, according to a 100-page report published on
Wednesday by the Neurorights Foundation. The report analyzed 30
consumer neurotechnology companies to see how their privacy policies
and user agreements squared with international privacy standards. It
found that only one company restricted access to a person’s neural
data in a meaningful way and that almost two-thirds could, under
certain circumstances, share data with third parties. Two companies
implied that they already sold such data.

“The need to protect neural data is not a tomorrow problem — it’s a
today problem,” said Mr. Genser, who was among the authors of the
report.

The new Colorado bill won resounding bipartisan support, but it faced
fierce external opposition, Mr. Baisley said, especially from private
universities.

Representative Cathy Kipp, Democrat of Colorado, wearing a mask and a
black blazer, talks to a woman while standing among the seats of the
State Capitol in Denver.
Representative Cathy Kipp, Democrat of Colorado, center, introduced
the new bill. Credit... David Zalubowski/Associated Press
Testifying before a Senate committee, John Seward, research compliance
officer at the University of Denver, a private research university,
noted that public universities were exempt from the Colorado Privacy
Act of 2021. The new law puts private institutions at a disadvantage,
Mr. Seward testified, because they will be limited in their ability to
train students who are using “the tools of the trade in neural
diagnostics and research” purely for research and teaching purposes.

Advertisement

“The playing field is not equal,” Mr. Seward testified.

The Colorado bill is the first of its kind to be signed into law in
the United States, but Minnesota and California are pushing for
similar legislation. On Tuesday, California’s Senate Judiciary
Committee unanimously passed a bill that defines neural data as
“sensitive personal information.” Several countries, including Chile,
Brazil, Spain, Mexico and Uruguay, have either already enshrined
protections on brain-related data in their state-level or national
constitutions or taken steps toward doing so.

“In the long run,” Mr. Genser said, “we would like to see global
standards developed,” for instance by extending existing international
human rights treaties to protect neural data.

In the United States, proponents of the new Colorado law hope it will
establish a precedent for other states and even create momentum for
federal legislation. But the law has limitations, experts noted, and
might apply only to consumer neurotechnology companies that are
gathering neural data specifically to determine a person’s identity,
as the new law specifies. Most of these companies collect neural data
for other reasons, such as for inferring what a person might be
thinking or feeling, Ms. Farahany said.

“You’re not going to worry about this Colorado bill if you’re any of
those companies right now, because none of them are using them for
identification purposes,” she added.

But Mr. Genser said that the Colorado Privacy Act law protects any
data that qualifies as personal. Given that consumers must supply
their names in order to purchase a product and agree to company
privacy policies, this use falls under personal data, he said.

Advertisement