Neurotechnology

Background

Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) connect a user's brain directly to a computer, enabling them to act with their mind, without using their muscles and nerves. They do so by detecting and interpreting neural activity . First defined by Jonathan Wolpaw in the 1990s, noninvasive BCIs began gaining traction amongst the scientific community, looking to explore its potential capabilities. After many scientists had contributed to discoveries of EEGs and electrical signals in the brain Jacques Vidal published his paper in 1973 “Toward Direct Brain-Computer Communications” which detailed the brain's ability to communicate with external devices.

Current Applications

Medical Devices

Assistive Applications

These types of devices are employed to assist users who have lost function, by providing them with technological alternatives. Current forms of assistive applications include BCIs that enable users to communicate via “mental typing” and auditory assistance for those with neurodegenerative diseases that affect communication. Newer possibilities for assistive BCIs include the ability to control wheelchairs or similar devices.

Rehabilitative Applications

These types of devices trigger neural plasticity which over time allow the users own neural pathways recover control over their limb. They function by detecting and interpreting a user's attempt or thought of movement, then artificially moving the limb with a robotic aid or by stimulation of the muscles.

Emergent Applications

As further research and progress is made regarding neurotechnology, new applications are being explored : “biofeedback, sleep control, treatment of learning disorders, functional and stroke rehabilitation, and the use of brain signals as biomarkers for diagnosis of diseases or their progression” are some of the trending applications. More recent commercial applications include neuromarketing and defense applications. BCIs ability to “induce cortical plasticity” has also led to development of potential therapeutic applications: reducing seizures, treating ADD and ADHD, improving cognitive function in elderly patients, managing pain, and more. These newer applications are being introduced to broader markets than traditional, medical BCIs.

Ethical Implications

As neurotechnology is a rapidly growing field gaining in popularity and expanding beyond clinical usage, many ethical implications have arisen. Because “brain hacking” can occur at various phases along the BCI cycle, there are distinct concerns for differing ethical dilemmas. .

Privacy

Historically, at the early stages of technological innovation security risks are common because of a lack of stringent security measures integrated into the technologies and unprepared legal frameworks. Notoriously, "technology innovates faster than the regulatory system can adapt," and disruptive technological advancements can make current privacy and security norms obsolete”” . . Hackers of BCIs could gain access to sensitive or private information of the BCI user. As privacy and data protection are often valued by individuals, this type of hacking poses a threat to users of neurotechnology. Private information could include financial, medical, and locational data. This information could potentially be abused by not only criminals, but employers who use the information to make hiring decisions, leading to potential hiring discrimination. Normal/customary practices of setting privacy standards and choosing which data you are comfortable sharing will become obsolete when users aren’t fully cognizant of what data is being extracted from them.

Autonomy

When neurotechnology is hacked, an individual would have the ability to alter a user’s decisions and or behavior. The threat of lost agency is potentially increased in clinical settings in which patients with severe neurological disorders are vulnerable. Similarly, a user may be coerced into performing involuntary actions. These threats to individual autonomy are worth noting as they create doubt regarding the willingness of the user to perform the action. This in turn raises liability issues. When an individual doesn’t have total control over their actions, who will be liable for their actions and consequences? Some users felt “unsure about the authenticity or authorship of their feelings and behaviors” .

Hacking

As neurotechnology becomes more commonplace, the possibility of viewing and or manipulating the cognitive information of a neurotech user emerges. Neurocrime takes advantage of the neural device to access and alter cognitive information - similar to the hacking of a computer. This “brain hacking” can occur at different stages of the BCI cycle. “Misusing neural devices for cybercriminal purposes may not only threaten the physical security of the users but also influence their behavior and alter their self-identification as persons.” This type of neurocrime manifests in different forms: from gaining control over a users’ prostheses, uncovering sensitive information by reading a users’ brain signals, and more.

INPUT MANIPULATION

A study done by Ivan Martinovic at the University of Oxford showed that it was possible to extract banking information, addresses, and other sensitive information. This type of hacking could make fraud, password hacking, identity theft and more complicated.