Agenda: Elon Musk's Neuralınk at BMI; Where Are We?
Introductıon
It is becoming increasingly difficult to keep up with the ever-evolving technology. In the light of all these developments, as in the past, legal regulations need to meet these developments before the development itself. Is the purpose of these technologies used as tools by today's geniuses closer to harm or benefit? In this article, we will discuss Elon Musk's Neuralink from the perspective of where we are in terms of Identity, Data and Security.
What is Neuralink?
Neuralink Corporation, commonly referred to as Neuralink [1], was established in 2016 by Elon Musk alongside a consortium of neurologists including Ben Rapoport, Dongjin Seo, Max Hodak, Paul Merolla, Philip Sabes, Tim Gardner, Tim Hanson, and Vanessa Tolosa. The primary objective of this neurotechnology firm is the advancement of human-machine interfaces, specifically Brain-Machine Interfaces (BMIs), intended for direct implantation within the brain. These interfaces are designed to facilitate bidirectional communication between human cognition and computing systems through the interpretation and analysis of neural electrical activity. [2]
In April 2017, a blog called Wait But Why announced that the company's experiments and Neuralink technology aim to help paralyzed patients regain movement, the visually impaired regain their sight, or people who have lost the ability to speak communicate.[3] The technology will work through microchips and electrodes implanted in the brain, and in the first step, a small chip will be implanted in the brain by a sewing machine-like robot, which will be equipped with electrodes thinner than a hair and will function to wirelessly transmit the activity of the brain cells it receives to an external device.
A.Ownership and Control of Data: Whose Brain?
Emerging technologies such as Neuralink and Transhumanism enable the collection and processing of brain data through brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), raising legal and ethical questions of data ownership and control.
Who owns brain data:
Q.1 The person who is implanted with the chip?
A.1 After the open source code is hidden and licensed to everyone with high encryption,
Q.2 The company that developed the BCI?
A.2 How can we ignore the dangers of absolute power?
to answer these questions, we need to clarify how Neuralink will process the data.
The data to be collected by an electronic device implanted in the brain will gradually increase from the first day of recording to the last. It seems impossible that private data that needs to be protected will not be included in these records. According to the data retention and storage disclosure text on Neuralink's own website, [4] the company, headquartered in the United States, has explicitly stated that data will be collected in accordance with applicable laws and privacy policy and then stored for as long as necessary to fulfill the project's objectives.
Tracking Thoughts and Feelings
Another thought-provoking aspect of BMIs is their potential to monitor users' thoughts and emotions. By sensing the neuronal activity of the brain, BMIs will be able to understand what users think and how they feel.[5]
The concept of 'Social Engineering', which is nowadays considered as a type of engineering in slang terms, or the ability to know the other person, or 'being his/her judge', clearly shows that thoughts and emotions are a person's identity and reflect him/her and can make him/her vulnerable to manipulation. The thoughts and feelings of users can lead them to discrimination in social and professional life, to be fired[6] or discriminated against.
On September 8, 2020, FMI, the Future of Marketing Institute, in an article titled 'The Rise of Brain Computer Interfaces and the Future of Marketing'[7] predicted that marketers will be able to work with more personalized data about their customers than they currently do. Identifying usage habits based on emotional states, for example, recording the habit of a customer who constantly orders chocolates when sad, and then either having chocolate advertisements appear in front of them every time they feel emotionally upset, or ordering them directly, could lead to the problem of unnecessary consumption sprees. Regardless of the Cookie Management issue in the current regulations, the distinction here will be that the choices will now be detected directly from the frontal emotional flow of the brain and will only activate the customer according to the current emotional state, even if they do not want to do so.
Current Legal Framework
C-1. In Terms of Data Protectıon Legislation;
The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of the European Union and the Law No. 6698 of the Republic of Turkey on the Protection of Personal Data increasingly stipulate additional restrictions and guarantees regarding the processing of information obtained due to the collection of special categories of personal data by BMIs. It seems that BMIs are not only collecting large amounts of data in the private sphere of individuals, but also have to share the information with other companies in the process, if necessary. In order to eliminate the potential risks associated with the processing of such data, BCI data must fully comply with the provisions of the GDPR, such as anonymization or pseudonymization, despite the expanded content of the concept of personal data by national and international legislation.
See Also;
- C-311/18 Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union
- European Data Protection Authority Opinion on Brain-Computer Interfaces
C-2. Intellectual Property Rights;
Intellectual property rights related to brain data must be protected by various legal frameworks such as patents, copyrights and trade secrets. Who owns these rights will play an important role for the development of BMI. At the time of writing, Google Patents, Google's engine for the full text of patents from around the world, has more than a hundred thousand texts available.[8] As such, protecting intellectual property rights is important to encourage innovation and attract investment. However, overuse of these rights will limit the accessibility and usability of brain-computer interfaces. It is therefore important to balance intellectual property rights with data sharing and open science.
See Also;
C-3. Criminal Law Sanctions;
In the second part, we actually gave the striking title 'Whose Brain' as an anecdote of the dangers of this article that can be foreseen in terms of criminal law. It is obvious that in order to impose a criminal punishment, the actions specified in the laws of the legal states and the causal link established in order to determine the perpetrator of that action, as well as the determination of the intent and intention of the perpetrator, will be indispensable conditions of the material criteria that constitute the punishment. Brain machine interfaces can be used by malicious hackers to influence a person's actions and force them to commit a crime, affecting the person's intention and intent. Are crimes committed with the use of BMIs eligible to be included among the 'Circumstances that Reduce or Eliminate Criminal Responsibility' in our current legislation, in other words, can a person be punished less if he/she committed a crime using BMIs? [9] Who will be the perpetrator of the crime in these cases? The person who used the BMI, the person who produced it, or both?
Conclusion
Brain-computer interfaces are a technology that has made and will continue to make a big impact for the treatment of diseases and many fields in technology. However, the development and use of this technology, which is still in the Alpha stage of defining every unknown, brings with it legal, data security and ethical concerns. These concerns at the outset are the only way to deal with the inevitable. It will be important to actively work with these concerns and take the necessary steps to ensure that brain-computer interfaces are used for the benefit of humanity.
Successful