Category Archives: Neurotechnology

Future 'mind reading' technology could allow hackers to steal or even delete data from our brains, unless new human rights laws are prepared to protect against exploitation and loss of privacy, researchers have warned.

New advances in neurotechnology could put the 'freedom of the mind' at risk, and to prevent this, researchers suggest four new laws - right to cognitive liberty, right to mental privacy, right to mental integrity and the right to psychological continuity.

"The mind is considered to be the last refuge of personal freedom and self-determination, but advances in neural engineering, brain imaging and neurotechnology put the freedom of the mind at risk," said Marcello Ienca, PhD student at the University of Basel in Switzerland.

"Our proposed laws would give people the right to refuse coercive and invasive neurotechnology, protect the privacy of data collected by neurotechnology, and protect the physical and psychological aspects of the mind from damage by the misuse of neurotechnology," said Ienca.

Advances in neurotechnology, such as sophisticated brain imaging and the development of brain-computer interfaces, have led to these technologies moving away from a clinical setting and into the consumer domain. While these advances may be beneficial for individuals and society, there is a risk that the technology could be misused and create unprecedented threats to personal freedom.

"Brain imaging technology has already reached a point where there is discussion over its legitimacy in criminal court, for example as a tool for assessing criminal responsibility or even the risk of re-offending," said Roberto Andorno,

"Consumer companies are using brain imaging for 'neuromarketing', to understand consumer behaviour and elicit desired responses from customers," said Andorno.

"There are also tools such as 'brain decoders' which can turn brain imaging data into images, text or sound," he said.

"All of these could pose a threat to personal freedom which we sought to address with the development of four new human rights laws," he added.

As neurotechnology improves and becomes commonplace, there is a risk that the technology could be hacked, allowing a third-party to 'eavesdrop' on someone's mind. In the future, a brain-computer interface used to control consumer technology could put the user at risk of physical and psychological damage caused by a third-party attack on the technology. There are also ethical and legal concerns over the protection of data generated by these devices that need to be considered. International human rights laws make no specific mention to neuroscience, although advances in biomedicine have become intertwined with laws, such as those concerning human genetic data. Similar to the historical trajectory of the genetic revolution, the researchers said that the on-going neurorevolution will force a reconceptualisation of human rights laws and even the creation of new ones.

The study was published in the journal Life Sciences, Society and Policy.

Excerpt from:

Future tech could jeopardise 'freedom of mind', say experts - Daily News & Analysis

Thou canst not touch the freedom of my mind, wrote the playwright John Milton in 1634. But, nearly 400 years later, technological advances in machines that can read our thoughts mean the privacy of our brain is under threat. Will your computer delete your thoughts without your knowledge or permission? Experts warn the public about the possibility of this happening sooner than we think.

The Independent reports that two biomedical ethicists are calling for the creation of new human rights laws to ensure people are protected, including the right to cognitive liberty and the right to mental integrity. Pretty alarming news considering that the legal system is still trying to figure out how to protect something as basic as religious freedom. Science is expanding at a speed that surpasses understanding and scientists have already developed devices capable of telling whether people are politically right-wing or left-wing. In one experiment, researchers were able to read peoples minds to tell with 70 per cent accuracy whether they planned to add or subtract two numbers.

Facebook alsorecently revealed it had been secretly working on technology toread peoples minds so they could type by just thinking.And medical researchers have managed to connect part ofa paralyzed mans brain to a computerto allow him to stimulate muscles in his arm so he could move it and feed himself.

The ethicists, writing ina paper in the journalLife Sciences, Society and Policy, stressed the unprecedented opportunities that would result from the ubiquitous distribution of cheaper, scalable and easy-to-use neuro-applications that would make neurotechnology intricately embedded in our everyday life.

However, such devices are open to abuseon a frightening degree, as the academics made clear. They warned that malicious brain-hacking and hazardous uses of medical neurotechnology could require a redefinition of the idea of mental integrity.

We suggest that in response to emerging neurotechnology possibilities, the right to mental integrity should not exclusively guarantee protection from mental illness or traumatic injury but also from unauthorized intrusions into a persons mental wellbeing performed through the use of neurotechnology, especially if such intrusions result in physical or mental harm to the neurotechnology user, the ethicists wrote.

The right to mental privacy is a neuro-specific privacy right which protects private or sensitive information in a persons mind from unauthorized collection, storage, use, or even deletion in digital form or otherwise.

And they warned that the techniques were so sophisticated that peoples minds might be being read or interfered with without their knowledge.

Illicit intrusions into a persons mental privacy may not necessarily involve coercion, as they could be performed under the threshold of a persons conscious experience, they wrote in the paper.

The same goes for actions involving harm to a persons mental life or unauthorized modifications of a persons psychological continuity, which are also facilitated by the ability of emerging neurotechnologies to intervene into a persons neural processing in absence of the persons awareness.

They proposed four new human rights laws: the right to cognitive liberty, the right to mental privacy, the right to mental integrity and the right to psychological continuity.

Professor Roberto Andorno, an academic at Zurich Universitys law school and a co-author of the paper, put out a serious warning:

We need to be prepared to deal with the impact these technologies will have on our personal freedom.

The Independent copy / TRUNEWS summary.

Please contact TRUNEWS with any news tips related to this story. Email: Info@trunews.com

Donate Today!

We believe Christians need and deserve their own global news network to keep the worldwide Church informed, and to offer Christians a positive alternative to the anti-Christian bigotry of the mainstream news media

See the rest here:

Will your computer delete your thoughts? - TRUNEWS

A neuroethicist and a human rights attorney have proposed that human rights be expanded to guard the sanctity of the human mind in the face of rapid advancements in neuroscience and neurotechnology.

The four rights that are specifically addressed in their research paper, published in the Journal of Life Sciences, Society and Policy are the right to cognitive liberty, the right to mental privacy, the right to mental integrity and the right to psychological continuity.

Rapid advancement in neurosciences has created unprecedented possibilities for accessing data from the human brain. Cutting edge neurodevices include neuroimaging, neurostimulators and brain-computer interfaces that can have clinical research, marketing and even military applications.

The researchers make the case that the growing use and rapid advancements in this type of technology present a legal, ethical and social challenge that may force a reconceptualization of certain human rights or even the creation of a new standard of human rights, which they term neurorights.

The first of the neurorights proposed is the right to cognitive liberty. This refers to the rights of an individual to choose whether or not to use emerging neurotechnologies, protecting them from being forced to use neurotech under coercion or without consent.

The second is the right to mental privacy, in which the team advocates expansion of privacy and data protection regulations to cover neural activity in addition to other types of information.

The third neuroright calls for a reinterpretation of existing guarantees of the right to mental integrity to account for the complexity of issues introduced by neurotechnology. Specifically, the paper focuses on the brain-computer interface, or BCI, which just a week ago was announced as an upcoming feature of Facebook. The Facebook BCI will allow users to post directly from their minds, and may be available as soon as two years from now.

However, a BCI may be manipulated or hijacked, and could involve direct manipulation of a persons neural computation. For this reason, mental privacy and the protection of brain data are at risk, not to mention a persons physical and mental health.

Finally, the right to psychological continuity addresses the right of a person to maintain an individual identity without third-party modifications. Some therapeutic applications of transcranial direct current stimulation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, and deep brain stimulation have been found to be beneficial to patients in research and therapy. In light of this, the right to psychological continuity would protect an individual from being subjected to this type of stimulation without consent, or by protecting the underlying neural functioning, should one choose to participate in this type of neurostimulation.

Marcello Ienca, co-author of the paper and a neuroethicist at the University of Basel, told the Guardian, The question we asked was whether our current human rights framework was well equipped to face this new trend in neurotechnology. They concluded that it was not, and that a reconceptualization of human rights is required to protect the individual in the face of the potential for unanticipated consequences or the misuse of neurotechnology.

The information in our brains should be entitled to special protections in this era of ever-evolving technology, he said. When that goes, everything goes.

More here:

Researchers advocate neurorights to protect brain data - The Stack

MegaMatcher Automated Biometric Identification System brochure Download

An 11-page brochure that contains complete information about MegaMatcher Automated Biometric Identification System. The brochure can be printed on both Letter and A4 paper, no paper size conversion required.

PDF file (4 MB; from March 29, 2017)

A 65-page brochure that contains complete information about MegaMatcher SDK, including all technical specifications, licensing and prices. The brochure can be printed on both Letter and A4 paper, no paper size conversion required.

PDF file (5 MB; from February 8, 2017)

A 25-page brochure that contains complete information about MegaMatcher Accelerator, including all technical specifications and prices. The brochure can be printed on both Letter and A4 paper, no paper size conversion required.

PDF file (3 MB; from June 16, 2016)

A 25-page brochure that contains complete information about MegaMatcher On Card SDK, including all technical specifications, licensing and prices. The brochure can be printed on both Letter and A4 paper, no paper size conversion required.

PDF file (2 MB; from December 6, 2016)

A 26-page brochure that contains complete information about VeriFinger SDK, including technical specifications, licensing and prices. The brochure can be printed on both Letter and A4 paper, no paper size conversion required.

PDF file (2 MB; from December 9, 2016)

A 12-page brochure that contains complete information about FingerCell SDK, including technical specifications and licensing. The brochure can be printed on both Letter and A4 paper, no paper size conversion required.

PDF file (2 MB; from April 13, 2017)

A 26-page brochure that contains complete information about VeriLook SDK, including technical specifications, licensing and prices. The brochure can be printed on both Letter and A4 paper, no paper size conversion required.

PDF file (2 MB; from June 20, 2016)

A 12-page brochure that contains complete information about SentiVeillance SDK, including technical specifications, licensing and prices. The brochure can be printed on both Letter and A4 paper, no paper size conversion required.

PDF file (2 MB; from August 10, 2016)

A 23-page brochure that contains complete information about VeriEye SDK, including technical specifications, licensing and prices. The brochure can be printed on both Letter and A4 paper, no paper size conversion required.

PDF file (3 MB; from June 22, 2016)

A 23-page brochure that contains complete information about VeriSpeak SDK, including technical specifications, licensing and prices. The brochure can be printed on both Letter and A4 paper, no paper size conversion required.

PDF file (2 MB; from June 30, 2016)

A 10-page brochure that contains complete information about NCheck Bio Attendance, including technical details, licensing and prices. The brochure can be printed on both Letter and A4 paper, no paper size conversion required.

PDF file (2 MB; from July 25, 2016)

A 6-page brochure that contains complete information about NVeiler Video Filter, including technical details, licensing and prices. The brochure can be printed on both Letter and A4 paper, no paper size conversion required.

PDF file (1.6 MB; from June 20, 2012)

A 15-page brochure that contains complete information about SentiSight SDK, including technical specifications, licensing and prices. The brochure can be printed on both Letter and A4 paper, no paper size conversion required.

PDF file (1.7 MB; from August 27, 2013)

A 12-page brochure that contains complete information about SentiSight Embedded SDK, including technical specifications, licensing and prices. The brochure can be printed on both Letter and A4 paper, no paper size conversion required.

PDF file (2.0 MB; from August 27, 2013)

Originally posted here:

Download - Neurotechnology

Tech

18:34 26.04.2017(updated 18:41 26.04.2017) Get short URL

Thoughtcrime, George Orwell's nightmare neologism, popularized byhis seminal work 1984, is the criminal act ofholding unspoken beliefs or doubts opposing or questioning authority.

In the fictional Airstrip One, the Thought Police could only detect thoughtcrime offenses byrigorously monitoring the population's outward actions and statements forthe slightest indications ofdissent and disloyalty every minute ofevery day although they had no way ofknowing what if any recalcitrant views remained unspoken. The private thoughts ofthe public remained unobserved.

Fast forward to2017, technological advances mean machines can feasibly know the contents ofan individual's mind and bydefinition, the privacy ofone's brain is underthreat asa result.

Scientists atthe University ofNebraska have developed a device that can tell an individual's political persuasion. Facebook'sBuilding 8project aims todevelop an application that allows individuals totype just bythinking. Brain imaging technologycould be rolled outin courts withinthe next decade. Consumer firms use "neuromarketing" techniques tounderstand consumer thoughts, and structure bespoke campaigns.

Swiss ethicists Marcello Ienca and Roberto Adorno, writing ina paper inthe journalLife Sciences, Society and Policy, view the burgeoning ofsuch neurological applications asa positive development which offers "unprecedented opportunities," and do not angst overneurotechnology "intricately embedded inour everyday life."

However, the pair are extremely concerned aboutthe degree towhich such tech is susceptible toabuse both fromwithin and without, from "malicious brain-hacking" and "hazardous uses ofmedical neurotechnology."

If a neuro device was successfully hacked, a third party could effectively eavesdrop onan individual's thoughts, cause physical and psychological damage and even delete or steal memories or ideas. There are also ethical and legal concerns overthe protection ofdata generated bythese devices that need tobe considered.

As a result, they believe there needs tobe redefinition ofthe idea ofmental integrity, and have proposed four new human rights laws the right tocognitive liberty, mental privacy, mental integrity and psychological continuity. They warn current techniques are already so sophisticated people's minds might be being read or interfered withwithout their knowledge. Such intrusions may not even necessarily involve coercion, but "unauthorized modifications" ofa person's "psychological continuity."

If adopted, these rights could forexample prevent individuals fromenforced technological enhancement inNovember 2016, US military scientists reported a procedure called transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) boosted the mental skills ofpersonnel, and there are suggestions it could become obligatory formembers ofthe armed forces intime.

"The mind is considered tobe the last refuge ofpersonal freedom and self-determination, butadvances inneural engineering, brain imaging andneurotechnologyput the freedom ofthe mind atrisk. Our proposed laws would give people the right torefuse coercive and invasive neurotechnology, protect the privacy ofdata collected byneurotechnology, and protect the physical and psychological aspects ofthe mind fromdamage bythe misuse ofneurotechnology," the authors write.

Presently, international human rights law do not mention neuroscience, although advances inbiomedicine, such asthose inrespect ofhuman genes, have often been entangled withlaws. The authors acknowledge that despiteseismic developments inneurotechnology, it is still perhaps premature toworry aboutmental hackers infiltrating people's minds and making offwith their bank details. Still, they believe it's best toget thinking aboutthese eventualities now, and ensure protections are inplace beforesuch things can and do happen, rather thanafter. As they make clear, humans cannot afford fortheir tobe lag beforesecurity measures are implemented.

"Science-fiction can teach us a lot aboutthe potential threat oftechnology. Neurotechnology featured infamous stories has insome cases already become a reality, while others are inching ever closer, or exist asmilitary and commercial prototypes. We need tobe prepared todeal withthe impact these technologies will have onour personal freedom. It's always too early toassess a technology untilit's suddenly too late," the authors concluded.

The researchers' suggestions are likely not tofall ondeaf ears. Many ofthe firms involved inneurotechnology are extremely sensitive aboutthe ethical implications oftheir work.

In unveiling Building 8, Facebook were quick tostress the division's products would not invade an individual's thoughts a concern that is heightened inFacebook's case, given the existing privacy issues surrounding the social network. Moreover, it has pledged toassemble an independent Ethical, Legal and Social Implications panel tooversee its developments. Institutional review boards ensure test subjects aren't being abused and research is being done assafely aspossible.

See original here:

Rise of Neurotechnology: Defend Against Brain Hackers Before It's Too Late - Sputnik International

Neuroscience provides us with an insight into the mental processes underpinning human behavior: thanks to rapid advances in neurotechnology it is possible to record, monitor, decode and modulate the neural correlates of mental processes with ever more accuracy. In this rapidly evolving technological scenario, a new paper, published in Life Sciences, Society and Policy, advocates for reconceptualizing and even creating new human rights: the right to cognitive liberty, mental privacy, mental integrity, and psychological continuity.

Marcello Ienca & Roberto Andorno 26 Apr 2017

In the play Comus, written by John Milton in 1634, a young noblewoman is abducted by a sorcerer named Comus and bounded to an enchanted chair. Despite being restrained against her will, the woman repeatedly refuses Comus advances and claims Thou canst not touch the freedom of my mind, confident of her capacity to protect her mental freedom from any external manipulation. This idea of the human mind as the ultimate domain of absolute protection from external intrusion has been increasingly outdated by advances in neuroscience and neurotechnology.

The idea of the human mind as the ultimate domain of absolute protection from external intrusion has been increasingly outdated by advances in neuroscience and neurotechnology.

Cutting-edge neurodevices such as neuroimaging technologies, neurostimulators and brain-computer interfaces enable to record, monitor, decode and modulate the neural correlates of mental processes with an increasing degree of accuracy and resolution. While these advances have a huge potential for clinical and research applications, they pose a fundamental ethical legal and social challenge: determining whether, or under what conditions, it is legitimate to gain access to or to interfere with another persons neural activity.

This question is particularly relevant in the context of non-clinical applications of neurotechnology. For example, in 2008, a woman in India was convicted of murder on the basis of a brain-based lie detection. The judge explicitly cited a brain scan as a proof that the woman held experiential knowledge about the crime that only the killer could possess, and sentenced her to life imprisonment.

Attempts to access correlates of mental information are also made in the context of neuromarketing, where neuroimaging techniques are routinely applied to study, analyze and predict consumer behavior and personal preferences. Today, several multinational companies including Google and Disney use neuromarketing research services to measure consumer preferences and impressions on their advertisements or products. Moreover, the proliferation of low-cost, portable and non-invasive neurodevices for various purposes is increasingly incentivizing individuals to share their brain data similarly to what has been observed among users of other technological gadgets such as wearable activity trackers. According to a recent review, there are over 8000 active neurotech patents, representing a cumulative value of $2 billion USD.

Several multinational companies use neuromarketing research services to measure consumer preferences and impressions on their advertisements or products. There are over 8000 active neurotech patents, representing a cumulative value of $2 billion USD (Pic from Pixabay, CC0 public domain)

While neurotechnology becomes more pervasive, the data decoded by neurodevices are exposed to the same risks and levels of insecurity of other sectors of the digital ecosystem, cybercrime included. For example, computer scientists have demonstrated the feasibility of using neurodevices to extract private information from the users brain activity including their bank information and home address without their awareness. Finally, national defense and security agencies from various countries are developing military neurotechnologies which may selectively modify mental contents in combatants, enhance their cognitive and physical performance, or enable new opportunities for direct brain control of military vehicles or weapons.

In this rapidly evolving technological scenario, we argue that it is critical to determine which rights individuals are entitled to exercise in relation to their mental dimension. In particular, we advocate for the reconceptualization of existing human rights and even the creation of new human rights that we call neurorights: the right to cognitive liberty, the right to mental privacy, the right to mental integrity, and the right to psychological continuity.

The right to cognitive liberty protects the right of individuals to make free and competent decisions regarding their use of neurotechnology. In its negative connotation, it guarantees the protection of individuals from the coercive and unconsented use of such technologies. We believe this negative component is particularly important to prevent future scenarios in which the State, large corporations or malevolent actors could forcibly manipulate the mental states of individual citizens.

With new discoveries of neural correlates of anti-social behavior, the creation of Pre-Crime police departments as in in Philip Dicks novels and Steven Spielbergs movie Minority Report is not a remote scenario (Pic by Chris Drumm on Flickr, CC BY 2.0)

The right to mental privacy aims to protect individuals against the unconsented intrusion by third parties into their brain data as well as against the unauthorized collection of those data. This right allows people to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent their neural information can be accessed by others.

We argue that breaches of privacy at the neural level are more dangerous than conventional ones because they may bypass the level of conscious reasoning and affect inherent components of a persons identity. In the near future, with the growing availability of publicly shared brain data repositories and parallel advancements in the discovery of neural correlates of anti-social behavior, the creation of Pre-Crime police departments as in in Philip Dicks novels and Steven Spielbergs movie Minority Report is a real risk especially in countries with established records of civil liberty violation for national security purposes.

The right to mental integrity, which is already recognized by international law (Article 3 of the EUs Charter of Fundamental Rights) with regard to the promotion of mental health, should be broadened to protect also against illicit and harmful manipulations of peoples mental activity enabled by neurotechnologies. New forms of neurotechnology-enabled threats to mental integrity may include unwanted neurostimulation, malicious neurohacking and potentially harmful memory manipulation. This right is particularly relevant in the context of national security, where potentially harmful interventions into a persons neurocomputation might be justified in light of greater strategic goals.

The right to psychological continuity intends to preserve peoples personal identity and the continuity of their mental life from unconsented external alteration by third parties, purposively designed to bypass a persons rational defenses and alter their preferences or behavior.

Finally, the right to psychological continuity intends to preserve peoples personal identity and the continuity of their mental life from unconsented external alteration by third parties. Unlike the right to mental integrity, this right applies also to unconsented personality-changing interventions that do not involve direct physical or psychological harm to the victim. Besides illicit interventions, the right to psychological continuity is particularly relevant also in relation to invasive marketing strategies such as those in which advertising is purposively designed to bypass a persons rational defenses and alter their preferences or behavior.

In sum, we argue that protecting the mental dimension of individuals from new forms of exploitation is a major societal challenge that needs to be addressed at various levels, including at the level of fundamental rights. We suggest that coordinate amendments to the human right framework are required to maximize the benefits of neurotechnology for society at large while protecting fundamental rights and liberties.

The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Institute for Biomedical Ethics at the University of Basel in this study.

View the latest posts on the BioMed Central blog homepage

By commenting, youre agreeing to follow our community guidelines.

Here is the original post:

A new category of human rights: neurorights - BMC Blogs Network (blog)

Daily Mail

In a neuro-techno future, human rights laws will need to be revisited Science Daily Advances in neurotechnology, such as sophisticated brain imaging and the development of brain-computer interfaces, have led to these technologies moving away from a clinical setting and into the consumer domain. While these advances may be beneficial ... Mind hacking: Scientists want new laws to stop our thoughts from being stolenRT Times of Malta Advanced computers may be able to delete your ...Times of Malta all 4 news articles »

The rest is here:

In a neuro-techno future, human rights laws will need to be revisited - Science Daily

Thou canst not touch the freedom of my mind, wrote the playwright John Milton in 1634.

But, nearly 400 years later, technological advances in machines that can read our thoughts mean the privacy of our brain is under threat.

Now two biomedical ethicists are calling for the creation of new human rights laws to ensure people are protected, including the right to cognitive liberty and the right to mental integrity.

Scientists have already developed devices capable of telling whether people are politically right-wing or left-wing. In one experiment, researchers were able to read peoples minds to tell with 70 per cent accuracy whether they planned to add or subtract two numbers.

Facebook alsorecently revealed it had been secretly working on technology to read peoples minds so they could type by just thinking.

And medical researchers have managed to connect part of a paralysed mans brain to a computer to allow him to stimulate muscles in his arm so he could move it and feed himself.

The ethicists, writing in a paper in the journal Life Sciences, Society and Policy, stressed the unprecedented opportunities that would result from the ubiquitous distribution of cheaper, scalable and easy-to-use neuro-applications that would make neurotechnology intricately embedded in our everyday life.

However, such devices are open to abuseon a frightening degree, as the academics made clear.

They warned that malicious brain-hacking and hazardous uses of medical neurotechnology could require a redefinition of the idea of mental integrity.

We suggest that in response to emerging neurotechnology possibilities, the right to mental integrity should not exclusively guarantee protection from mental illness or traumatic injury but also from unauthorised intrusions into a persons mental wellbeing performed through the use of neurotechnology, especially if such intrusions result in physical or mental harm to the neurotechnology user, the ethicists wrote.

The right to mental privacy is a neuro-specific privacy right which protects private or sensitive information in a persons mind from unauthorised collection, storage, use, or even deletion in digital form or otherwise.

And they warned that the techniques were so sophisticated that peoples minds might be being read or interfered with without their knowledge.

Illicit intrusions into a persons mental privacy may not necessarily involve coercion, as they could be performed under the threshold of a persons conscious experience, they wrote in the paper.

The same goes for actions involving harm to a persons mental life or unauthorised modifications of a persons psychological continuity, which are also facilitated by the ability of emerging neurotechnologies to intervene into a persons neural processing in absence of the persons awareness.

They proposed four new human rights laws: the right to cognitive liberty, the right to mental privacy, the right to mental integrity and the right to psychological continuity.

Professor Roberto Andorno, an academic at Zurich Universitys law school and a co-author of the paper, said: Brain imaging technology has already reached a point where there is discussion over its legitimacy in criminal court, for example as a tool for assessing criminal responsibility or even the risk of re-offending.

Consumer companies are using brain imaging for 'neuromarketing' to understand consumer behaviour and elicit desired responses from customers.

There are also tools such as 'brain decoders' which can turn brain imaging data into images, text or sound.

All of these could pose a threat to personal freedom which we sought to address with the development of four new human rights laws.

And his colleague Marcello Ienca, of the Institute for Biomedical Ethics at Basel University, said: The mind is considered to be the last refuge of personal freedom and self-determination, but advances in neural engineering, brain imaging and neurotechnology put the freedom of the mind at risk.

Our proposed laws would give people the right to refuse coercive and invasive neurotechnology, protect the privacy of data collected by neurotechnology, and protect the physical and psychological aspects of the mind from damage by the misuse of neurotechnology.

He admitted such advances might sound like something out of the world of science fiction.

But he added: Neurotechnology featured in famous stories has in some cases already become a reality, while others are inching ever closer, or exist as military and commercial prototypes.

We need to be prepared to deal with the impact these technologies will have on our personal freedom.

See more here:

New computers could delete thoughts without your knowledge ... - The Independent

Transcript Daily

Stryker Co. Announces Quarterly Dividend of $0.43 (SYK) The Cerbat Gem The Company offers a range of medical technologies, including orthopedic, medical and surgical, and neurotechnology and spine products. The Company's segments include Orthopaedics; MedSurg; Neurotechnology and Spine, and Corporate and Other. Farmers & Merchants Investments Inc. Has $7.048 Million Position in ...Transcript Daily The Mountain Pacific Investment Advisers Inc. ID Cuts Stake in ...Petro Global News 24 all 20 news articles »

Original post:

Stryker Co. Announces Quarterly Dividend of $0.43 (SYK) - The Cerbat Gem

Psychiatry Advisor

PTSD Symptoms May Be Eased by Non-Invasive Neurotechnology Psychiatry Advisor Technology using a patient's own brainwaves might offer hope against tough-to-treat posttraumatic stress disorder. HealthDay News Technology using a patient's own brainwaves might offer hope against tough-to-treat posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD ...

Here is the original post:

PTSD Symptoms May Be Eased by Non-Invasive Neurotechnology - Psychiatry Advisor