Connecting our brains to computers may seem like something out of a sci-fi movie, but it turns out the future is already here. One expert argues that this is a slippery slope.

Who is she? Nita Farahani is Professor of Law and Philosophy at Duke Law School. Her work focuses on futurism and legal ethics, and her latest book, Battle for your brainexplores the growth of neurotechnologies in our daily lives.

• Neurotechnologies can give insight into the functions of the human brain. His a growing area of ​​research that could have all sorts of health applicationsand goes beyond wearables like smartwatches that track your heart rate and the number of steps you take in a day.
• Farahani describes it to NPR this way: “Imagine the not-too-distant future where you track not only your heart rate, or your oxygen levels, or the steps you take, but also your brain activity. where you wear wearable brain sensors embedded in your headphones, headphones and watches to track your brain activity in the same way that you track all the rest of your activity, your own brain health and well-being, and your attention and your focus, and even, perhaps , your cognitive decline over time.”

Nita Farahani is Professor of Law and Philosophy at Duke University.

Merritt Chesson / Merritt Chesson

hide title

toggle signature

Merritt Chesson / Merritt Chesson

Nita Farahani is Professor of Law and Philosophy at Duke University.

Merritt Chesson / Merritt Chesson

Do you think? You mean, other than the prospect of your brain being tracked? Farahani is concerned about potential privacy issues and describes various scenarios in which access to this information could be problematic if proper safeguards are not in place.

• Law enforcement may request data from neurotech companies to help with criminal investigations, she said. Fitbit data presented as evidence in court as a precedent.
• And she warns that this could extend to the workplace, giving employers the ability to track productivity or whether employees’ minds wander while they work.
• Farahani argues that without proper human rights protection, the unchecked growth of this technology could lead to a world that violates our right to “cognitive freedom.”

Want to learn more about the world of technology? Listen Mind it episode about how the Silicon Valley bank failed and what happens next.

What does she say?

Farahani on the definition of cognitive freedom:

The simplest definition I can give is the right to self-determination in relation to our brain and mental experience. I describe it as the right of other people to tamper with our brains… It directs us as an international human right to update existing human rights – the right to privacy – which should implicitly include the right to mental integrity, but clearly does not.

On the current practice of tracking employees with the help of technology:

As far as neurotechnology is concerned, thousands of companies around the world are already doing at least basic brain monitoring of some employees. And that’s usually tracking things like fatigue levels if you’re a commercial vehicle driver. Or, if you’re a miner, you have brain sensors built into your hard hats or baseball caps that measure your level of fatigue. … In this case, it may not be so obsessive about the benefit to society and to the individual.

But the idea of ​​tracking a person’s brain to see if they are focused or not, or if their thoughts are wandering – for a person using this tool, I don’t think it’s a bad thing. I use performance oriented tools. And neurotechnology is a tool that is given to people so that they can understand how and where they can best focus. But when companies use it to see if their employees are paying attention and who pays the most attention and who has their mind wandering periods, and then use it as part of performance evaluation, it hurts morale, it hurts dignity. work

And now what?

• As with other new and rapidly developing areas of technology, Farahani warns that the pace of development may be too high to be reasonably controlled. She believes that the widespread adoption of technology is only a matter of time.
• “I don’t think it’s too late. I think this last bulwark of freedom before wearable brains become widespread is the point where we can decide that it’s a category that’s just different in type. establish a set of human rights and interests that favor individuals and their right to cognitive freedom.”

To learn more: