Abstract
AbstractA pressing worry in the ongoing neurorights debate is the language used to advocate for newly proposed rights. This paper addresses this concern by first examining the partial and ambiguous associations between mind reading and neurotechnology, often cited by advocates in support of the right to mental privacy. Secondly, it addresses the conceptual foundations of mind reading, distinguishing between natural, digital, and neurotechnological forms. These distinctions serve to highlight the normative parallels in privacy vulnerabilities between neurotechnology and other mind-reading methods, with an emphasis on multimodal digital systems. I suggest that authentic safeguards for the mental realm demand an expansion of the protective ambit beyond brain-targeted devices to recognize the spectrum of mind-reading applications. Ultimately, this urges re-evaluation of the scope and justification of a right to mental privacy owing to the need for coherent frameworks in an increasingly interconnected digital landscape.
Funder
The University of Wollongong
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference118 articles.
1. Ligthart, S., et al. 2023. Minding Rights: Mapping Ethical and Legal Foundations of ‘Neurorights,’ 1–21. Cambridge: Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics.
2. Yuste, R., 2020. Neurotechnology can already read minds: so how do we protect our thoughts? El País. Ediciones El País, S.L. https://english.elpais.com/spanish_news/2020-08-24/neurotechnology-can-already-read-brains-so-how-do-we-protect-our-thoughts.html. Accessed 26 May 2023.
3. Meynen, G. 2017. Brain-Based Mind Reading in Forensic Psychiatry: Exploring Possibilities and Perils. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 4 (2): 311–329.
4. Rathkopf, C., J.H. Heinrichs, and B. Heinrichs. 2023. Can we read minds by imaging brains? Philosophical Psychology 36 (2): 221–246.
5. Ryberg, J. 2017. Neuroscience, Mind Reading and Mental Privacy. Res Publica 23 (2): 197–211.