Neuro Rights

In order to understand the need for a regulation termed the “Neuro Rights” which is more than the “Privacy Rights” as we understand today, it is necessary for us to have an understanding of what are the technological developments that are affecting the discussions.

In this context we can recall that there are already many medical implants which stay inside a human body and try to modify some bodily functions.  Some of them are simple devices such as the “Eversense CGM system” which has recently been approved by FDA which is a chip implanted under the skin and measures the glucose levels upto 90 days. The information is sent to a mobile device and alerts the users for high or low sugar levels. This is an enhancement of the watches that monitor the blood flow in the wrists. The FDA has considered harms such as allergic reaction, skin discoloration etc and also factored in the possibility of inaccuracy of the measurement. In an advanced device of Continuous Glucose monitoring, an insulin pump may be set up to deliver small doses of insulin through an infusion set.

In Deep Brain Stimulation, the technology interacts with the neural functioning by receiving, interpreting signals which are processed otherwise by the neurons in the body. When such signals are transmitted to the Central Nervous System, (CNS) it makes the brain or the spinal cord to send instructions to the body elements for some action. These are induced actions which are artificial. Similarly the signals emanating from the CNS may be captured and sent to external devices such as a robotic arm and make the device respond to the thoughts of the CNS.

The transmission of neural signals is an electric impulse and it is caused by certain chemical composition changes in the Neuron Cell body or in the inter-neuron synaptic area.  These chemical composition changes the number of positive ions or negative ions and determines the polarization or depolarization of a cell (build up of positive or negative charges). When the voltage potential crosses a threshold, the signal becomes strong enough to travel to the end of the neuron and connect the signal to the next neuron.

Deep Brain Stimulation tries to alter these transmissions and thereby affect the neuron activity.

As a definition, we can say that

“Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a neurosurgical procedure involving the placement of a medical device (called a neurostimulator), which sends electrical impulses, through implanted electrodes, to specific targets in the brain (the brain nucleus) “

When the impulses are targeted at the body parts or external device  like robotic arms, the DBS works as an outward signal manipulation.

DBS may be useful in treating many types of mental disorders including Parkinson’s decease. But the ability to convert internal thoughts into external machine actions or cheat the brain with a feed from outside the trusted in-nervous system, (signals from the body sensory organs into the CNS) is a concern which can be called a “harm” in the human rights context.

The Objective of Neurorights legislation is to regulate the misuse of the systems that can interact with the neural system in general which includes the DBS technology as well as the non invasive technologies where electrodes outside the body can alter the signals transmitting into and out of the CNS.

Currently many anaesthetic functions work on the principle of numbing the nerves so that the pain is not communicated to the brain by that part where a procedure is conducted which should normally cause pain. In whole body anaesthesia (General Anaesthesia) the entire brain function is put on a hold while the body may be cut open and surgical operations are conducted for hours.

Are these medical procedures also part of “Interference with the Brain functions”? and should they be brought under the Neuro Rights legislation? is one point which needs further academic debate.

Naavi

Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk are both individuals who are targeting the future for their  business expansion. If they are present it is clear that they have identified some big potential. Neuro Technology is one area where both are now trying to explore.

Mark Zuckerberg has progressed from Face Book to Meta and this is an intermediary step towards technologies that merge with neuro Technologies. Elon Musk’s firm Neurolink is already planning human clinical trials for some of its “Brain Chip”.  We can expect that both IBM and Google would also be already drawing up their own plans on how to extend their business to the “Human Mind space”.

Elon Musk’s Neuro Link co-founded in 2016 has reportedly successfully implan ted artificial intelligence microchips in the brains of a monkey and pig and is now planning to run tests on humans. (Details of he experiment  on the  monkey is available here)

Neuro Link trial demonstrates the effectiveness of the deep brain implanted chip which is charged wirelessly and is able to pick neuro signals from the brain, process it in the external computer and feedback the learnings to improve the ability of the subject to “Think of some thing and make the computer react”.

The Meta project of using an external device to provide immersive experience through the visual presentation is also supplemented with the devices which can move the hands and legs entirely through mental thoughts.

These developments indicate that the need to regulate the use of neuro technology is more evident than ever before. While the traditionalists are still harping on Cambridge Analytica and its impact on the US Elections, the alleged privacy violation of Cambridge Analytica pales into insignificance when we consider the developments that are happening in Neuro science.

 “Neuro Rights” to be codified into a law is therefore a current concern and India needs to address this as soon as possible.

Naavi

For a long time many are arguing that there is a power behind chanting of Mantras. Though the mention  of  “Mantras” immediately invokes a religious feeling and triggers a “Flight Response” in some individuals, everybody will agree if we say “Music” has an impact on human brain.

The principle that these thoughts represent that “Auditory Impulses” of a certain kind can interact with the human neural system. This could a positive effect that can calm the brain from a stressed situation or even excite the brain. The “War Drums” and “War trumpet” was perhaps designed to trigger an excited response from the soldiers while the “Om” Chanting or Gayatri Mantra chanting could be a de-stressing and creation of positive brain energies.

Neuro science is discussing the effect of “Binaural Beats” and its effect on sleep, therapy, meditation etc.

The concept of “Binaural Beats” is that when two tones of slightly different frequencies are played on separate ears simultaneously (say through head phones), the human brain perceives the creation of a new third tone whose frequency is equivalent to the difference between the two tones played.

For example, if a person hears a tone of 410Hz and 420 Hz in different ears, he would be hearing a binaural beat with a  frequency of 10 Hz.

Such effect is also seen in visual perception when an Optical Illusion” is created in a image consisting of a series of bright and dark spaces.

Binaural beats are said to provide many benefits in meditation, lowering of stress etc. It is said that in order to produce a binaural beat, the two tones sounded in the ears must both have frequencies below 1,500 Hz with a difference of no greater than 40 Hz between them.

The effects of the binaural beat will depend on its frequency and the corresponding brain wave. For example, a natural beat with a frequency between 4 and 7 Hz is more likely to align with theta brain waves, promoting sleep and relaxation.

Probably this alignment of the beat with the brain waves is behind the addiction of our youngsters to headphones.

There is however a need to research if the binaural beats have any harmful effect also.

In the context of “Neuro Rights”, we can infer that if there is a phenomenon of “Binaural Beats” and certain music can create modification of brain waves as a result, it is a subject matter of Neuro Rights regulation.

Naavi

Though it is scary to visualize the development of technology to “Brain Reading”,  it is a development that cannot be wished away.

There are several benefits of the Neuro Technologies in therapeutic world and hence continuous research is required.

The following article “Neurotechnology: where we are and where we are going” provides a good discussion as things were existing two years back.

We need more discussions and debates on this emerging technology which  is an interesting confluence of technology, psychology, neuroscience and philosophy. When we talk of the law of neuro rights, we need to consider all the dimensions of neuro technology and neuro science. We will be wading through unchartered waters but what we find may be very exciting.

We shall try to collect some thoughts on the topic and I invite other interested persons to join me in this journey.

Naavi

All privacy laws from GDPR to DPA 2021 define “Personal Information” (PI) and a need to “Protect Personal Information”.

In defining PI, the popular definition is that any information “about” a living human constitutes PI and should be subject to some regulation such as valid consent for processing etc.

Additionally, most laws also  define “Creating a Profile” constitutes a “Data Processing activity” that needs consent and the generated “Profile” is also part of the “Personal Information” which the data principal has a right  to control. The right of data portability extends to not only information provided by the data principal to the data fiduciary during the collection process but also to the profile created by the data fiduciary.

The Cambridge Analytica dispute was centred around the use of personal information to create a political profile for the purpose of targeted advertising.  Recently, I came across an article arguing that “We should stop automatic profiling of people”. Though this was in the context of an organized data processing activity, the article triggered some thoughts to indicate that this principle that “Profile” is part of personal information and is protected under privacy laws as an asset of the data principal requires a larger debate.

I am aware that this is a contrarian thought and is presented for the purpose of academic debate. It is not to be construed as an interpretation of the data protection law which by popular interpretation considers “Profile” is part of the personal data and needs to be protected by consent or legitimate interest. It is also subject to the right of portability and right to forget irrespective of the intellectual property rights associated with the creation of the profile, though the principles of anonymisation may be used for profiling of a group of people without violating the principles of privacy.

“Imaging a profile” is a fundamental and natural reaction of the human brain as a stimuli to any observation. This is part of the “Fight or Flight” response triggered in the human system.  The first step in this fight or flight response is to understand  the behaviour of people in a particular situation which  includes “Profiling” whether it is correct or incorrect. If the inference creates a more than threshold danger perception, it would trigger an action potential for fight or flight. Otherwise it is recorded for further processing. When the behaviour gets repeated next time, the brain may interpret that this person habitually of a particular behavioural trait and if it is not considered desirable, the brain triggers a “Mild fight or flight response”.

Thus “Drawing Inference” from any observation is a natural human trait and if it is absent we call a person un-intelligent or even an idiot.

The same tendency when carried out by a software is considered as “Profiling”. In this case the inference may lead to targeted advertising the same way human inference of a person as friendly leads to opening up a conversation.

Considering that this “Inference” is a natural human trait therefore, banning it through the privacy law is an unnatural inhibition on the human tendency and is unlikely to be effective.

On the other hand any misuse of information causing a harm to the individual whether through profiling or not can be considered as a “Civic Wrong” and be subjected to punishment.

We need to therefore debate whether “Profiling per-se” is bad in law or “Misuse of Profile alone is bad in law”.

It is therefore sufficient if privacy laws distinguish “Profiling per-se” and “Use of Profile” and not consider “Profiling per-se” as a “Violation of Privacy Right per-se” while the mis-use of profile can continue to be considered as a punishable act.

Comments are welcome.

Naavi

Neuro Tech devices are of different kinds. One such device is E-Sight (https://esighteyewear.com/int/).

Simple eye glasses that correct the deficiency in the focussing capabilities of a human eye. We donot recognize the eye glasses as a neuro tech device since it only interacts with the functions of the eye at the retinal level and not at the nerve level. Once the right image is focussed on the photo receptors inside the eye ball, the neuro system takes care of the rest of the vision.

E Sight is a device which addresses some of the deficiencies where by an image cannot be properly received by the photo receptors either because  part of the receptors donot function. Some may have peripheral vision but could lose the central vision with the development of a blind spot etc.

E Sight is a device that gathers high quality video and displays it on two OLED (Organic Light-Emitting Diode) screens in front of  each eyes. The images are further enhanced by custom optics with algorithms that maximize functional sight. For example the images can be directed to working photo receptors within the eye and overcome the damaged receptors creating a blind spot.

We may classify such devices as an intermediary neuro tech device between the external devices such as the  eye glasses and hearing aids and the devices that connect to the neuro system.

Naavi

(This is part of the journey of Naavi in understanding Neuro Technology and Neuro Rights)

Naavi and FDPPI would like to form a group of professionals interested in NeuroTech and Neuro Rights to take the study further.

This will be  an exploratory group to identify the requirements of developing Neuro Rights legislation in India and application of Privacy laws in the Neuro tech context.

Interested persons may contact Naavi

Naavi

The study of Neuro Rights Law for the purpose of developing Jurisprudence requires an understanding the neuro science as well as the technology that interacts with the neuro systems of humans.

So far we have tried to establish the relevance and scope of Neuro rights laws comparing it with the Privacy Laws. We have discussed how the definition of “Harm” under DPA 2021 can be extended to the impact of neuro modulation techniques and how the flexibility in DPA 2021 in defining “Critical Personal Information” can be extended to the “Neuro Data” to cover the “Neuro Rights” which are being discussed world over as part of the Human Rights.

In our journey to the center of the World of Neuro rights, today we shall explore the technologies related to the domain.

The Human nervous system consists of the Central Nervous system (which includes the Brain and the Spinal Cord), the nerve system that enables two way movement of signals from different parts of the human body to the brain and from the brain to the different parts of the body. The signal transmissions occur when the electrical potential in a neuron cell body (Soma) exceeds a threshold level (action potential) which emits a neuro signal that travels through the wire like part of the cell called the Axon reaching out to the different parts of the body. The end parts of the neuron cells called the Dendrites transfer the signals to the dendrites of the neighboring neurons through the area called “Synapses”. While the signal travels through the Axons, the signals are insulated by what is known as “Myelin sheaths”.

From the requirements of technology, what is important is that generation of neuro signals is created by an accumulation of electrical voltage in the cell and when it crosses the threshold of the action potential the signal is fired from the cell body through the axon to the axon terminals.

The objective of technology is to capture these signals and probably manipulate them in transmission. The technological devices working in this area may be called “Brain Computer Interface” or “Brain Machine Interface” (BCI or BMI). It can also be referred to as Human-Computer Interface or HCI

In the simple “Brain Mapping” technology, the objective  of a BCI is just to record the activity of the brain under different contexts of external stimuli. In a more sophisticated exercise, the technology can try to understand the source and destination of the signal within the human body and the nature of the actions intended which can be transmitted to the specific areas of the body to induce the actions.

The technology itself can be divided into “Non Invasive”, “Invasive” and “Semi Invasive” types.

The world of technology is also trying to create a “Virtual Brain” or the “Blue Brain” (An IBM Project) as a sequel to the Artificial Intelligence. The Blue brain can be a “Chip” that can be installed in the human brain in an invasive technique involving surgery and implantation of the chip below the skull. The “Blue Brain” can be supported by “Nano bots” which travel through our blood circulatory system carrying the information from different parts of the body into the Chip.

The Non Invasive technologies rely on electrodes that are fixed on the outside of the skull. Semi Invasive techniques will involve implanting of the chip inside the body below the skin but rest outside the grey matter of the brain.

The EEG or the Electroencephalograph is a recording of the brain activity from outside the skull using electrodes that collect the signals that can read on the surface. The resolution of the signals which can be graphically represented will have a low resolution. In comparison,

The Semi invasive technique where the sensor is within the skin but outside the grey matter of the brain within the body such as “Electrocorticography” (ECoG) provides better data collection. ECoG measures the electrical activity of the brain taken from beneath the skull in a similar way to noninvasive electroencephalography, but the electrodes are embedded in a thin, plastic pad that is placed directly above the cortex, beneath the dura mater.

In the invasive technology, probes may directly be mounted on the grey matter of the brain and be capable of observing the signals more closely. It may have the potential to observe the activity of a single neuron.

The terms such as EEG or ECoG etc are more relevant for the neuro scientists but have been provided here for the general understanding of the architecture of technology related to Brain Interfaces.

However the end objective of the technology in medicine is to create a therapeutic usage where the implanted chip can cure deceases such as loss of short term memory, epilepsy, sectoral damage of brain etc. It is to be accepted that there is a huge benefit to the society from such technology and though we may focus more on the negative aspects to discuss the “Rights”, it is not the intention of the author to belittle the scientific developments. Eventually, this technology can  create “Cyborgs” and the possibility of misuse of technology is to be flagged for appropriate security response.

In terms of technology, the system of BCI involves

a) Acquisition of digital signals

b) Transmission of signals from the collection device to a back end device for futehr processing

c) Pre-processing of signals, Feature extraction and classification

d) Application interface to input the extracted data into an application

e) Processing of the data and converting it into useful information to the society

As compared to the EEGs a similar technology exists in the form of MRI. The MRI technology observes the changes caused in blood-oxygenation levels and its magnetic impact. It is like observation of a derived impact where as the EEG is a more direct observation of the neuro activity. An attempt is also being made to use both EEG and MRI technologies together for a better understanding of the brain activity.

We shall stop our discussion on the technology aspects related to NMT (neuro modulation technology) at this point and give time to assimilate the concepts.

The objective of this limited presentation so far is to draw the attention of the computer technologists to the potential available in this segment. We may continue and expand this discussion later in our discussions.

Naavi

(PS: This exercise is an exploration of new thoughts in the journey to the world of Law, Science, Technology and finally the philosophy of human brain activity.   I invite comments and corrections to the above from other experts in the area.)

Earlier Articles

What are Neuro Rights?

Starting the journey to the Neuro Rights Law and Technology

The Age of Neuro Rights Dawns in India

New Dimensions of Privacy-Mental Privacy and Neuro Privacy Rights

At present “Privacy Right” is considered as a “Right to be let alone”. However, in practice, “Protection of Privacy Rights” is reduced to “Protection of Information Privacy” which is essentially, giving protection to the “Right of Choice” of an individual on how his/her personal information is collected, processed, stored, disclosed or destroyed.

Laws related to Privacy Protection therefore focus on “Data Protection” and prescribe how personal data is defined, how it should be collected, what are the limitations of processing, what are the rights given to the data subjects etc.

However, the emergence of technology which can interfere with the way human brain communicates with the organs of the body gives raise to a new harm threat that the “Right of Choice” itself may get manipulated.

Hence there is a need for new laws that protect the possibility of the integrity of the expression of  “Right of Choice”  to be protected. The Neuro Rights Protection falls in this domain. Though this is also referred to as “Mental Privacy”, since currently the “Right to be left alone” is also referred to as “Mental Privacy”, it is preferable if we refer to the new branch of study of Neuro Rights as  “Neuro Privacy”.

One definition of “Neuro Rights” presently used is that it refers to the “Legal and ethical principles of freedom and entitelment related to an individual’s cerebral or mental domain”.

Just as Neuro privacy differs from the “right of choice”, it also is different from the “Manipulation of a data subject’s choice” through advertising.

In “Advertising”, certain information is presented to a data subject which he perceives through his normal sensory organs and because of persistency of communication, starts accepting it as a possibility and converts it into an acceptance.

The normal principles of marketing and advertising  takes communication through the “AIDAS” stages involving “Awareness”, “Interest generation” “Desire Development”, “Availability of product” and “Satisfaction at post purchase level”.

In order to make Advertising and Marketing effective, it is necessary to know the nature of the communication recipient and what motivates him. An advertisement exposed to the general audience without market segmentation and development of communication content relevant to the audience would be a huge waste of resources. It is therefore necessary for advertisers to understand the market participants to whom the communication has to be targeted.

For this purpose all advertisers undertake profiling of the end recipients of an advertising and marketing effort which is frowned upon by Privacy activists. However, laws try to balance the requirements of business with the privacy concerns by specifying stronger procedures for obtaining an “Informed Consent” in the form of  “Explicit Consent”.

Businesses like Google and Meta are however often accused of misrepresenting and obtaining consent by unfair means and this becomes one of the main disputes that the data protection authority has to manage.

In the case of “Children” who are considered incapable of giving consent, profiling or targeted advertisements may be completely banned as in Indian law while “Parental Consent” is obtained in certain circumstances.

The “Neuro Privacy” addresses a different concern which is different from “Target Advertising”. Neuro Modulation Technology (NMT) involves changing the behaviour of the brain of a subject so that what he expresses as “Consent” or “Choice” is perhaps  corrupted with the NMT devices. Who has given the consent? Is it out of free will? becomes difficult to ascertain when a subject could be under the influence of a “Brain-Computer Interface”.

Hence there is a demand for recognition of a new set of rights under the family of “Neuro Rights”.  At present, Five different rights are being identified in this group namely

1. 1. “Mental Privacy” which is a right to control collection, storage, use or disclosure of “Neuro Data”. “Neuro Data” is collected from devices which we call the “Brain-Computer Interface” (BCI) or “Brain Machine Interface” (BMI). This would be a “specially  sensitive personal data” and can even be brought under the definition of “Critical data” under the Indian law
   2. “Personal Identity” meaning that technologies should be kept within boundaries so that they donot disrupt the sense of “Self”.
   3. “Free Will” which provides ultimate control to individuals over their own decision making without unknown manipulation from external Neuro technologies.
   4. “Fair Access to Mental Augmentation” meaning a fair access to useful mental enhancement neuro technologies on the basis of justice and guaranteed equality of access
   5. “Protection from Bias” meaning counter measures to combat bias for algorithms in neuro technology.

We are aware that the Indian data protection law (DPA 2021) does recognize “Harm” including “psychological manipulation which impairs the autonomy of the individual”, and also provides an option to define “Neuro data” as a special category of personal data which is considered “Critical Data”. With these two aspects, the current DPA 2021 may be interpreted adequately to protect all the above 5 rights.

However just as the Privacy activists were not able to accept judiciary reading down down Information Technology Act 2000/8 as a data protection Act, the Privacy activists may not be able to accept the DPA 2021 as also inclusive of the Neuro Rights Protection. Hence it may be necessary to bring an appropriate subordinate legislation or an amendment of the act in due course to protect the  Neuro Rights.

At present there are more than 130 countries having Privacy Laws but only one country with laws on Neuro Rights. We may therefore consider that it would take some time for the world to recognize the need for legal protection to Neuro Rights.

However when we look around and see the pace at which technology is developing and its destructive powers, it is better to be ready with a legislation before the technological developments go out of hand.

We have seen how the Crypto Currencies are threatening the very existence of a global economic system because we are not able to bring a law to regulate Crypto Currencies. Similarly Meta Verse as well as AI are likely to go out of control soon since there are no proper regulations to prevent their misuse. We should not make the same mistake in the case of Neuro Rights and remain complacent. It is better early than being late.

Hence we need to start using the DPA 2021 to provide coverage to Neuro Rights also even as the concept is further refined and brought  into a future legislation with a better clarity.

(To be Continued…)

Naavi

Earlier Articles

Starting the journey to the Neuro Rights Law and Technology

The Age of Neuro Rights Dawns in India

New Dimensions of Privacy-Mental Privacy and Neuro Privacy Rights

India entered the era of Cyber Laws in 2000 with ITA 2000 and  made a soft entry to data protection law in 2009 with the notification of ITA 2008 and likely to enter the field of Data Protection law in 2022. During these 20 years, Jurisprudence in Cyber Laws is under development and has accelerated in the last few years. At present we are in the process of assimilating the concept of “Cyber Evidence” and moving ahead we are trying to understand the legal principles related to Artificial Intelligence, Big Data , IoT , Smart Cars, Crypto Assets, Meta Verse etc.

It would take a few more years to understand the  anatomy of these technological developments and arrive at a generally acceptable interpretation for judicial purpose. The jurisprudence regarding such techno legal issues has to be developed by Techno Legal experts which in due course will reflect in judgements.

In the meantime, a new branch of  human rights has emerged in the name of “Neuro Rights”. It has come as an of shoot of the “Privacy Rights” and hence needs to be addressed almost immediately after the Data protection law comes into existence.

Naavi.org will try to present different perspectives of Neuro Rights in preparation for a larger discussion in due course.

“Neuro Rights” is a branch of  human rights and for the sake of definition, we can define “Neuro Rights” as that body of law that addresses regulation of technological intrusions into the human’s mental faculty. It tends to protect the “Cognitive Liberty” of an individual which is the right of a person to independently and autonomously use his/her mind to engage in multiple modes of thought.

The technologies that tend to read, modify or block (similar to the Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability principles in Information Security)  the functioning of the human brain and connected nervous system are the “Neuro Technologies”, the use of which impairs the native ability of a subject to interpret the sensory perceptions.

For example, if a tiger is in front of me and my mind is made to think and see that it is a cat, then it is an intrusion into my mind for alteration of visual perception. Such illusions with “Deep mind stimulation” has been successfully experimented with rats by electrodes implanted inside the rat. It is a FDA approved procedure and soon may be allowed against the human beings.  The topic has been extensively discussed and reflected in many movies and not far from being realized in the actual world.

In the positive sense, such technologies can make a blind person see as if he has eyes, help in treatment of sleep disorders, motor coordination problems, epilepsy, depression etc.

Hypnotism is already being used for similar results though the technology of hypnotism and the technology of Neuro Modulation are different and we shall try to differentiate between the two in some future discussions.

We are already aware of “Cochlear Implants” which enable persons with inner ear problems leading to hearing loss to regain hearing . A Cochlear implant  is surgically implanted in the body and bypass the damaged portion of the inner ear to directly stimulate the auditory nerve.

Similarly there are prosthetic limbs which sense the twitching of muscles and convert them into movements of fingers.

What these devices indicate is that it is  technically possible to interact with the human nervous system and change the sensory perceptions through appropriate changes induced in the signals reaching the brain from the organs or vice versa.  Whether this can be done through a “Near Field Communication” device or through a surgically implanted chip only is a matter to be decided by the technological developments.

Is this “Ethical”?

Is this an intrusion of “Mental Privacy”?

Does this impair the “Choice” of the human subject and render our current Privacy law based on “Opt-in Consent” completely irrelevant?

…..are issues that arise in the light of these developments.

This developments in “Neuro Modulation/Modification Technologies” (NMTs), are not like the medical implants which regulate heart functions or blood sugar discharge etc., which are IoT devices which talk to external stimuli including wifi messages which pose many serious life threatening security risks.

Manipulation of the brain activity may actually change the person himself into a different person and  pose greater danger than the “Artificial intelligence”.

It is therefore necessary for us to think if we need to quickly bind the technology developers into some sort of discipline so that they donot create monsters and escape responsibility saying that it was just a bug in the software.

This branch of law that addresses this concern is the Neuro Rights Law. It is  new branch of study which is an extension of Privacy Rights.

In terms of development of legal jurisprudence, it has taken 20 years since India introduced Cyber Law but Cyber Jurisprudence is still under development.  We donot know how long it will take for Data Protection Jurisprudence to  reach some threshold level of acceptability. But we cannot ignore that now we are entering a new era of Neuro Rights and have to develop Jurisprudence for this branch of law also.

Naavi will try to place his thoughts little by little on this topic and hopefully Naavi.org will aggregate these thoughts into some useful body of knowledge.

Watch out for more articles on this topic in the days to come.

(P.S: I am aware that I am only a student in this new domain of Neuro Rights and trying to marry the legal concepts with Neuro Science and Psychology in the process, both of which are specialized areas of medical science. Just as 20 years back I tried to develop the Techno Legal jurisprudence by bringing the law and technology concepts to support each other, and later tried to bring together the computer technology and physics concepts together, I am trying to bring together two dissimilar disciplines together by interpreting law to he way human nervous system operates. I hope the readers of this blog will appreciate the short comings in such a journey and help me take the discussions from the base level to a more sophisticated level in the next few months. )

Naavi

Previous Articles

The Age of Neuro Rights Dawns in India

New Dimensions of Privacy-Mental Privacy and Neuro Privacy Rights