‘Companies already read our minds’, says researcher – 09/17/2023 – Science

A few years ago, the idea of ​​”threat to privacy of thought” was more like George Orwell’s “1984” and dystopian science fiction.

For Nita Farahany, a professor at Duke University (USA) who specializes in researching the consequences of new technologies and their ethical implications, this threat is already present today and must be taken seriously.

The Iranian-American released the book “The Battle for your Brain: Defending the Right to Think Freely in the Age of Neurotechnology” this year. free, without Brazilian edition).

But how is it possible to read our brain? Well, in fact there still doesn’t exist, as in fiction, a super machine that goes into a person’s head and delivers a complete list of ideas and concepts.

In fact, explains Farahany, the defenses of our thought privacy have begun to be broken down without the need to directly examine the brain.

This was possible with the vast amount of personal data shared on social networks and other apps, which is analyzed by algorithms and then monetized.

Today, technology companies hold important information about us: who our friends are, what content generates emotion (and, importantly, what type of emotion), political preferences, what products we click on, where we move throughout the day and some of the financial transactions.

“All of this is being used by companies to create very precise profiles about who we are and thus understand our preferences and desires”, says Farahany in an interview with BBC News Brasil.

“It’s important for people to understand that they are already in a world where minds are read.”

Another frontier of our internal functioning is beginning to be explored with the popularization of smartwatches, which gather data on heart rate, stress levels, sleep quality and much more.

But the advancement of neurotechnology, with equipment in direct contact with the head, takes all of this to a new level, with more data and more precision.

She explains that brain sensors are precisely similar to heart rate sensors found in smartwatches or rings that measure body temperature when they capture electrical activity in the brain.

“And every time you think, or every time you feel something, neurons fire in your brain, emitting small electrical discharges. Characteristic patterns can be used to draw conclusions,” he says.

“For example, if you see an advertisement and you feel joy or stress or anger, boredom, engagement… all of these reactions can be picked up through the electrical activity in your brain and decoded with the most advanced artificial intelligence.”

In other words, these brain signals transmit what we feel, observe, imagine or think.

Farahany says people need to understand and accept that the brain is “not entirely theirs.”

This situation leads philosophy itself to question the concept of free will, that is, the power of an individual to choose their actions.

“Imagine that you set out at the beginning of the week not to spend more than an hour a day on social media. Then you discover at the end that you spent four hours a day. What happened?”, ponders the Law and Philosophy professor at Duke.

“If there are algorithms designed to capture you when you want to disconnect, if there are notifications when you spend too much time away from your cell phone, if you want to watch just one episode of the series and the next one starts automatically, have you used your free will? They are tools and techniques designed to undermine what you have committed to.”

‘Technology itself is rarely the problem’

Farahany, contrary to what one might think, is a great enthusiast of advances in neurotechnology.

She lists throughout “The Battle for Your Brain“ a long list of contexts in which brain monitoring could improve humanity and save lives.

“What I propose is a balance. It’s both a way for people to see the positive aspects of technology, but also to be protected against the most significant risks”, he says.

“To get there, it is necessary to change the way we think about our relationship with technology. Technology is rarely the problem. It is almost always misuse.”

“It’s not about adopting absolute positions like ‘all this is bad’ or ‘all this is great’, but trying to define what the functionalities of this technology are for the common good and what the risks of misuse are.”

These scenarios from the not-so-distant future, however, are complex, full of double-edged swords.

Neurotechnology could reduce the number of fatal accidents by monitoring the levels of inattention and, mainly, fatigue that affect truck drivers and train/subway drivers, for example.

This same functionality can be abused by a company or school in search of total productivity, in which moments of distraction by an employee or student are monitored, recorded and eventually punished.

A bracelet that captures electromagnetic waves sent by the brain to move arms and hands could transform these impulses into electronic signals and make digital or virtual reality experiences much more intuitive and integrated.

And there is an even more important potential in this device: to detect the early stages of a neurodegenerative disease. Analyzing brain activity as a whole could represent a huge leap forward for medicine and longevity.

On the other hand, Farahany writes in the book, the same bracelet will also sense “if you are engaged in an intimate activity using your hands in your bedroom.”

And all this data in the hands of governments?

But for the Iranian-American professor, the greatest concern regarding individual privacy lies with governments in possession of an increasingly wider range of personal data.

She reports that the US Department of Defense funded a company that developed a biometric system that combines brain wave data, cognitive states, facial recognition, eye pupil analysis and changes in the amount of sweat produced.

In China, a 2018 report from the South China Morning Post reported that workers from various branches and members of the country’s military forces were already using brainwave monitors to detect emotional peaks such as depression, anxiety or anger.

In addition to its use to improve performance and thus the financial results of companies, the report said that another objective was to “maintain Chinese social stability”.

Farahany states that, in most countries, privacy laws do not explicitly address the right to mental privacy.

“I believe the United Nations needs to move towards recognizing what I call the ‘right to cognitive freedom.’ A universal right that would direct us toward an update to privacy, one that explicitly says there is a right to mental privacy, a right to be protected against interference in the way we think and feel.”

She says that “freedom of thought” is today applied and understood to be strictly about freedom of religion and belief.

“I think we need to expand this understanding to have protection against interference, manipulation and punishment of thought.”

The problem is that technology always develops faster than the debate and approval of legislation, and companies and governments take advantage of legal gaps.

“It’s really about trying to figure out as early as possible, and also as the technology evolves, what the benefits and risks are. And then clarifying what’s at stake and developing a regulatory regime that addresses that. That’s not always easy to do.” , recognizes Farahany.

Elon Musk’s project

The most visible neurotechnology project has several controversial elements: it involves the implantation of a chip in the brain and is led by Elon Musk, a frequent figure in the news and often involved in controversy.

One of his companies, Neuralink, wants to implant this type of device in the most complex human organ in the future to cure diseases such as Alzheimer’s and allow people with neurological diseases to control cell phones or computers with their mind.

Some experts in the field express concern about the project, raising doubts about the implications of this type of technology developed by a for-profit company.

Last May, the FDA, the North American agency that controls food and medicine, authorized the first human test.

“I’m not that worried about Musk’s project. In fact, I’m somewhat optimistic about it,” says Farahany.

“Neuralink promises two innovations: performing surgery via robots, which would perform the most delicate and difficult parts of the operation [de implante de neurotecnologia]. The second are hair-sized electrodes that could be implanted with much less risk to the human brain.”

Few surgeons in the world today have the skills to perform a procedure like this.

“If I became severely disabled to the point where I could no longer communicate or move, I would probably seek the opportunity to have some type of neural technology implanted.”

This text was originally published here.