Maybe you've heard about Neuralink, the company co-founded by Elon Musk that's developing a brain chip.
Or maybe you've heard of the SmartCap-made headband used by thousands of companies worldwide that uses EEG sensors to detect how tired a user is.
Almost certainly, you're familiar with the concept of an MRI, a form of medical imagining technology that uses radio waves and magnetic fields to create an image of the internal parts of the body — like the brain.
All of these are forms of neurotechnology, a specific kind of tech that interfaces with the brain or nervous system. Neurotechnology is a rapidly-booming field, expected to grow to a market size of $15.28 billion this year, according to some projections. But as this industry grows, so do questions — like the extent to which a person's cognitive privacy can or should be protected.
Nita Farahany is a professor of law and philosophy at Duke University and the faculty chair of the Duke M.A. in Bioethics and Science Policy. Her scholarship has focused on the social, ethical and legal implications of developing neurotechnologies, a topic she'll explore further during a talk on Monday: Farahany is the keynote speaker for Science and Technology Week at Illinois State University, presented by the College of Applied Science and Technology.
Farahany previewed her Monday talk — set for 7 p.m. at the Bone Student Center on campus — in an interview with WGLT that has been lightly edited for clarity.
Farahany: Last year I published a book called The Battle for Your Brain: Defending the Right to Think Freely in the Age of Neurotechnology. In that book, I do an updated dive into how neurotechnology is really going to impact the rest of us. It's clear that we're entering into a new era. That new era is when brain sensors, sensors that can pick up electrical activity in our brain, will start to be integrated in our everyday devices — like our watches, our earbuds and headphones, not unlike heart rate sensors or motion detectors that people already use as part of their fitness trackers.
But one of the major differences is it will be come a different way of interacting with technology. Instead of a mouse or keyboard, we'll use these brain sensors as our neural interface. You can think about typing and swiping rather than actually using your fingers. The book really charts that and shows the developments that have brought us to this place where these products have started to hit the market and go mainstream. So at my lecture, I'll be talking about some of my findings and the future of cognitive freedom for humanity.
WGLT: What are some of the gaps and limitations surrounding existing laws or protections of cognitive privacy?
Farahany: If you look at the way most products and services are being targeted to us, most digital products and services are largely free. And they're largely free because what they do is collect personal data from individuals to use to be able to then sell targeted advertisement. So the business model — and revenue — is primarily the selling of personal data, rather than us paying a fee or subscription. When it comes to these devices, it's the same thing that's starting to happen: The collection of the personal brain data from the devices to be able to create a deep understanding of what people are thinking and feeling. (That is then) going to be commodified and sold — and are already in some instances being commodified and sold — in order for advertisements, or drugs or devices or other products to be developed.
That really risks our privacy in ways that are really beyond the kinds of threats to privacy we've had to date. Our mental privacy is really the one space that we have to truly have the kind of place of self-reflection, introspection, the place that you can fantasize or imagine or dare to dream of a different life. Those are things that suddenly may no longer be your own to enjoy. What we need are a set of rights in place that really give people both a right to access and use the information... but also a right to mental privacy so that they can keep information in their brains private if they choose to do so.
WGLT: I feel I'm picking up on a sense of urgency. Is that accurate — is there a sense of urgency to what you're talking about?
Farahany: It's quite urgent because it's already happening. We only have a moment to get this right before it truly becomes widespread where the risks become invisible to us because it becomes the way that we interact with all of the rest of our technology, where we've already given up our rights to mental privacy, without ever having really thought about it before doing so.
WGLT: What can people do about this?
Farahany: Consumers have to start to really become more familiar with what's at stake. And part of that is by listening to segments like this. It's by attending lectures like next week. It's really about trying to understand what's at stake in the modern era.
The second is to start to reclaim their own cognitive freedom. The building blocks of cognitive freedom are basically being in touch with yourself introspection and introspection; honing your critical thinking skills, which are oftentimes being overwritten by spending a lot of time on social media platforms or digital technologies...; your relational intelligence, your relationship with other people and with yourself and with technology. Each of those are skills that we can build... not just by unplugging from our devices, but simple things like physical exercise. That's been shown to give people the kind of mental resilience they need against what some of the harmful effects of technology are. Or [there's] intentionally doing things like switching between reading books in hardcopy versus reading online, where you're able to engage better deep thinking. Also, there's spending time with other people in face-to-face conversations and not just virtual ones where you develop the deeper physical intimacy and connections that we need to build empathetic connections with other humans.
WGLT: Do you feel optimistic that there can be a movement for cognitive privacy and cognitive freedom that catches up before some of these things are even more ingrained than they already are?
I am an eternal optimist. And I think the only way that we find a pathway forward is if we stay optimistic, but stay realistic and grounded and having these conversations. So I'm an optimist because I see people increasingly interested in and looking for ways to be able to reclaim their cognitive freedom. I think there's a pathway to get there. So, I'm eternally optimistic, but I do think that we have to act quickly if we want to maintain that optimism and have it translate into a real impact for humanity.
