Article Neurodata and Neuroprivacy: Data Protection Outdated?

There are a number of novel technologies and a broad range of research aimed at the collection and use of data drawn directly from the human brain. Given that this data—neurodata—is data collected from individuals, one area of law which will be of relevance is data protection. The thesis of this paper is that neurodata is a unique form of data and that this will raise questions for the application of data protection law. Issues may arise on two levels. On a legal technical level, it is uncertain whether the definitions and mechanisms used in the data protection framework can be easily applied to neurodata. On a more fundamental level, there may be interests in neurodata, particularly those related to the protection of the mind, the framework was not designed to represent and may be insufficiently equipped, or constructed, to deal with.

[1]  S. Gielen,et al.  The brain–computer interface cycle , 2009, Journal of neural engineering.

[2]  B. van den Berg,et al.  The influence of neuroscientific evidence on legal decision-making : The effect of presentation mode , 2011 .

[3]  Gerrit Hornung,et al.  Data protection in Germany II: Recent decisions on online-searching of computers, automatic number plate recognition and data retention , 2009, Comput. Law Secur. Rev..

[4]  Julie Thorpe,et al.  Pass-thoughts: authenticating with our minds , 2005, NSPW '05.

[5]  Dennis J. McFarland,et al.  Brain–computer interfaces for communication and control , 2002, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[6]  G. Holmes,et al.  Neonatal seizures: characteristics of EEG ictal activity in preterm and fullterm infants , 2003, Brain and Development.

[7]  Judy Illes,et al.  Neuroscience-Based Lie Detection: The Urgent Need for Regulation , 2007, American Journal of Law & Medicine.

[8]  T. Canli,et al.  Neuroimaging of emotion and personality: Scientific evidence and ethical considerations , 2002, Brain and Cognition.

[9]  David Poeppel,et al.  How can EEG/MEG and fMRI/PET data be combined? , 2002, Human brain mapping.

[10]  G. Church,et al.  From genetic privacy to open consent , 2008, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[11]  Colin Camerer,et al.  Neuroeconomics: How Neuroscience Can Inform Economics , 2005 .

[12]  Dean P. Foster,et al.  Brain Imaging and Brain Privacy: A Realistic Concern? , 2009, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[13]  J J Vidal,et al.  Toward direct brain-computer communication. , 1973, Annual review of biophysics and bioengineering.

[14]  D. P. Mandic,et al.  The In-the-Ear Recording Concept: User-Centered and Wearable Brain Monitoring , 2012, IEEE Pulse.

[15]  Shuhaida Yahud,et al.  Prosthetic Hand for the Brain-computer Interface System , 2007 .

[16]  A. Ishai,et al.  Distributed and Overlapping Representations of Faces and Objects in Ventral Temporal Cortex , 2001, Science.

[17]  Stacey A. Tovino Functional Neuroimaging Information: A Case for Neuro Exceptionalism? , 2006 .

[18]  M. Gazzaniga,et al.  Neuroscience and the Law , 2005 .

[19]  Klaus-Robert Müller,et al.  Berlin Brain-Computer Interface - The HCI communication channel for discovery , 2007, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[20]  Anton Nijholt,et al.  BCI for Games: A 'State of the Art' Survey , 2008, ICEC.

[21]  D. Ariely,et al.  Neuromarketing: the hope and hype of neuroimaging in business , 2010, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[22]  Misha Angrist Genetic privacy needs a more nuanced approach , 2013, Nature.

[23]  Sixto Ortiz Brain-computer interfaces: where human and machine meet , 2007, Computer.