Brain computer interfaces (BCIs) can be lifesavers for people with traumatic brain injury. However, as brain computer interfaces become more prevalent, the risk of hacking and the need for insurance to protect against such attacks becomes increasingly important as it goes against an individual’s neurorights to privacy.
A brain computer interface (BCI) can be a lifesaver for individuals with traumatic brain injuries. However, as BCIs become more prevalent, the risk of hacking and the violation of neurorights to privacy becomes a significant concern. This essay/report will explore the implications of hacked BCIs and the need for insurance to protect against such attacks.
Introduction
Background on BCIs
Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) are revolutionary technologies that allow direct communication between the brain and external devices, offering possibilities for cognitive enhancement, neuroprosthetics, and improved communication for those with motor impairments. They can be invasive or non-invasive, each with their own challenges and benefits. The development of BCIs has been driven by a combination of neurophysiology, computer science, and engineering, leading to real-time connections between brains and artificial actuators.
Brain-machine interfaces (BMIs) also fall under this category, including devices like cochlear implants and deep brain stimulating electrodes. BCIs have a wide range of potential applications, from medical uses like restoring sensory and motor function to non-medical uses like controlling external devices. The integration of data-processing technologies like AI has accelerated BCI development, but it has also raised concerns about safety and ethics. The potential for technological dependence and privacy infringement are some of the issues experts are debating as these technologies advance.
In conclusion, BCIs have the potential to improve the quality of life for individuals with brain injuries or neurological disorders, but they also raise important ethical considerations due to their direct interaction with human brains. See references: (Policy, Identity, and Neurotechnology: The Neuroethics of Brain-Computer Interfaces
3031268008, 9783031268007 – DOKUMEN.PUB, 2024)[7], (Scheibner et al., 2022)[16], (Exploring the Ethical Challenges of Brain-Computer Interface Technology, 2024)[20], (Interfacing Minds and Machines: An Exploration of Neural Implants and Brain-Computer Interfaces – Neuroscience News, 2023)[21].
Importance of neurorights and privacy in the context of brain computer interfaces
Preserving neurorights and privacy is of utmost importance in the realm of brain-computer interfaces (BCIs). With the growing prevalence and accessibility of this technology, serious concerns have been raised about its safety and ethical implications. The potential risks of brain injury, technological dependence, and social stigma highlight the need for a new human right to mental privacy. There is an ongoing debate about whether the current right to freedom of thought offers sufficient protection in the era of neurotechnology.
While BCIs offer significant benefits in enhancing the quality of life for individuals with traumatic brain injuries and supporting neurorehabilitation and cognitive functions, they also present risks and challenges. Vulnerability to hacking and security breaches, especially with the increasing use of non-invasive BCIs, is a major concern.
The emergence of threats related to hacking BCIs is alarming, with various types of potential attacks identified and real-world incidents already occurring. This not only poses a risk to individual privacy but also raises legal and ethical considerations regarding privacy infringement.
As BCIs become more widely used, the importance of insurance coverage for BCI users cannot be overstated. However, current insurance options may not be adequate for protecting BCI users against cyberattacks.
To address these risks, it is crucial to ensure secure Brain-Computer Interfaces by implementing robust security measures and educating users about potential risks and best practices for protection. Advancements in cybersecurity technologies will be pivotal in safeguarding neurorights in the future.
In conclusion, prioritizing neurorights in the development of BCIs is essential given the increasing prevalence of this technology. It is imperative to tackle the ethical challenges and legal implications associated with BCIs to safeguard individuals’ rights. See references: (Schleim, 2021)[15], (Policy, Identity, and Neurotechnology: The Neuroethics of Brain-Computer Interfaces
3031268008, 9783031268007 – DOKUMEN.PUB, 2024)[18], (Bothof, 2022, pages 1-5)[19], (Exploring the Ethical Challenges of Brain-Computer Interface Technology, 2024)[20].
Benefits of Brain Computer Interfaces (BCIs)
Enhancing the quality of life for individuals with traumatic brain injuries
Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) have the potential to significantly improve the quality of life for individuals who have experienced traumatic brain injuries. These interfaces allow individuals to control computers and assistive devices using signals directly measured from the brain, creating a new channel for communication between the brain and external devices. BCIs have shown great potential in restoring motor, sensory, communicative, and cognitive functions for individuals with disabilities resulting from stroke or other neurological disorders. For example, BCIs can be used to control prosthetic limbs, translate neural activity into speech for those who have lost the ability to communicate, and even predict and prevent seizures.
The use of AI and machine learning technologies has expanded the capabilities of BCIs, leading to more efficient decoding of brain signals and a better understanding of neurological and psychiatric disorders. This progress has paved the way for the development of Brain-Inspired Brain-Computer Interfaces (BI-BCIs), which provide access to deeper brain regions and a better understanding of the brain’s functions. These advancements hold great potential for improving the quality of life for individuals with traumatic brain injuries by offering new possibilities for diagnosis, prediction, and treatment.
Additionally, BCIs can serve as neurorehabilitative tools by enabling operant conditioning through neurofeedback, allowing users to learn how to effectively use these interfaces. While current BCIs may have limitations in terms of throughput and adaptability to changes in the user’s brain state, ongoing research aims to address these challenges in order to make BCIs more effective and user-friendly.
In summary, BCIs show significant promise in enhancing the quality of life for individuals with traumatic brain injuries by restoring lost functions and creating new communication channels between the brain and external devices. See references: (Hermes et al., 2020)[3], (Shih et al., 2012)[10], (Exploring the Ethical Challenges of Brain-Computer Interface Technology, 2024)[20], (Sitaram et al., 2013)[28].
Supporting neurorehabilitation and cognitive functions
Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) have the potential to revolutionize neurorehabilitation and cognitive functions in individuals who have suffered traumatic brain injuries. These interfaces aim to enhance human-computer interaction and support neurorehabilitation by incorporating measures related to error processing, attention, cognitive workload, and fatigue. Moreover, they can improve the quality of life for individuals with brain disorders such as depression, ADHD, obsessive-compulsive disorder, addiction, or dementia.
The next generation of BCIs is expanding into emotion regulation, memory formation, cognitive control, and perception. The development of these interfaces is expected to alleviate the burden of brain disorders and gain a better understanding of the connection between brain functions and clinical symptoms. However, despite significant progress in neuroscience, establishing a clear link between specific individual neurophysiological measures and domain-specific brain function or behaviors remains a challenge.
BCIs are also being utilized for post-stroke motor rehabilitation. Prolonged training with a brain-machine interface-based gait protocol has been proven to induce partial neurological recovery in paraplegic patients. Additionally, there have been breakthroughs in implantable neurotechnologies that utilize AI techniques to analyze data from the brain for diagnosing, predicting, and treating neurological and psychiatric disorders.
The implementation of brain state-informed or closed-loop stimulation of the brain is a crucial advancement in BCI technology as it enables interaction with ongoing brain activity regardless of the sensory system. This can offer direct feedback during prosthesis control and maintain communication in neurodegenerative brain disorders that affect the motor and sensory system.
Integrating BCIs with AI-enabled tools enhances versatility and performance beyond medical applications. These advancements have significant implications for supporting neurorehabilitation and cognitive functions through BCIs. See references: (Hermes et al., 2020)[3], (Policy, Identity, and Neurotechnology: The Neuroethics of Brain-Computer Interfaces
3031268008, 9783031268007 – DOKUMEN.PUB, 2024)[7], (Shih et al., 2012)[10], (Policy, Identity, and Neurotechnology: The Neuroethics of Brain-Computer Interfaces
3031268008, 9783031268007 – DOKUMEN.PUB, 2024)[18], (Sitaram et al., 2013)[28].
Author | BCI facility | Site of action | Result |
Ang | BCI-robotic | Upper limb | Improvement |
Pfurtscheller | BCI-FES | Hand | Improvement |
Caria | BCI-robotic | Arm and finger | Improvement |
Daly | BCI-FES | Hand and finger | Improvement |
Taylor | BCI-orthotics | Lower limbs | Improvement |
Chung | BCI-FES | Ankle | Improvement |
Table 1: Sports rehabilitation author statistics. (source: reference (Yang et al., 2021)[30])
Risks and Challenges of Brain Computer Interfaces
Vulnerability to hacking and security breaches
Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) have the potential to revolutionize the lives of individuals with traumatic brain injuries, offering a way to communicate and control devices despite physical limitations. They also show promise in supporting neurorehabilitation and enhancing cognitive functions for those with paralysis or stroke. However, BCIs face significant risks, particularly in terms of security vulnerabilities and the potential for hacking. Unauthorized access, data manipulation, and privacy breaches are all concerns that need to be addressed. The implications of BCI hacking on neurorights and privacy are profound, raising ethical questions about autonomy and bodily integrity. To mitigate these risks, robust security measures such as encryption protocols and authentication mechanisms must be implemented, along with user education on best practices for protecting their BCIs. It is crucial to prioritize neurorights alongside technological advancements to ensure that individuals can benefit from BCIs without compromising their privacy or security. See reference (Brain-computer interfaces in safety and security fields: Risks and applications, 2023)[1].
N° | Authors | Title | Document Type | Safety | Security | |||
Risk identification | Fatigue detection | Safety control | Cyber-attacks | Authen-tication | ||||
1 | (sub-ref-Alomari et al., 2017) | What your brain says about your password: Using brain-computer interfaces to predict password memorability | Proc. Paper | ● | ||||
2 | (sub-ref-Bahr et al., 2011) | Cyber Risks to Secure and Private Universal Access | Proc. Paper | ● | ||||
3 | (sub-ref-Belkacem & IEEE, 2020) | Cybersecurity Framework for P300-based Brain Computer Interface | Proc. Paper | ● | ||||
4 | (sub-ref-Bellman et al., 2018) | On the potential of data extraction by detecting unaware facial recognition with brain-computer interfaces | Conf. paper | ● | ||||
5 | (sub-ref-Bernal et al., 2020) | Cyberattacks on Miniature Brain Implants to Disrupt Spontaneous Neural Signaling | Article | ● | ||||
6 | (sub-ref-Bernal et al., 2021) | Security in Brain-Computer Interfaces: State-Of-The-Art, Opportunities, and Future Challenges | Article | ● | ||||
7 | (sub-ref-Bernal et al., 2022) | Neuronal Jamming cyberattack over invasive BCIs affecting the resolution of tasks requiring visual capabilities | Article | ● | ||||
8 | (sub-ref-Bhalerao et al., 2020) | Protection of BCI system via reversible watermarking of EEG signal | Article | ● | ||||
9 | (sub-ref-Bonaci et al., 2015) | Securing the Exocortex: A Twenty-First Century Cybernetics Challenge | Article | ● | ||||
10 | (sub-ref-Chen et al., 2016) | A High-Security EEG-Based Login System with RSVP Stimuli and Dry Electrodes | Article | ● | ||||
11 | (sub-ref-Dehais et al., 2018) | Assessing working memory load in real flight condition with wireless fNIRS | Book chap. | ● | ||||
12 | (sub-ref-Gladden, 2016) | Neuromarketing applications of neuroprosthetic devices: an assessment of neural implants’ capacities for gathering data and influencing behavior | Proc. Paper | ● | ||||
13 | (sub-ref-Han et al., 2019) | Recognition of Pilot’s Cognitive States based on Combination of Physiological Signals | Proc. Paper | ● | ||||
14 | (sub-ref-Huang et al., 2021) | Virtual reality safety training using deep EEG-net and physiology data | Article | ● | ||||
15 | (sub-ref-Karim et al., 2019) | A Trusted Bluetooth Performance Evaluation Model for Brain Computer Interfaces | Proc. Paper | ● | ||||
16 | (sub-ref-Kaur et al., 2020) | A study of EEG for enterprise multimedia security | Article | ● | ||||
17 | (sub-ref-Kim et al., 2021) | Development of an Information Security-Enforced EEG-Based Nuclear Operators’ Fitness for Duty Classification System | Article | ● | ||||
18 | (sub-ref-Klein, 2016) | Informed Consent in Implantable BCI Research: Identifying Risks and Exploring Meaning | Article | ● | ||||
19 | (sub-ref-Klein & Ojemann, 2016) | Informed consent in implantable BCI research: identification of research risks and recommendations for development of best practices | Article | ● | ||||
20 | (sub-ref-Landau et al., 2020) | Mind Your Mind: EEG-Based Brain-Computer Interfaces and Their Security in Cyber Space | Article | ● | ||||
21 | (sub-ref-Lange et al., 2018) | Side-channel attacks against the human brain: the PIN code case study (extended version) | Article | ● | ||||
22 | (sub-ref-Lee & Yoo, 2012) | A Development of Cognitive Assessment Tool based on Brain-Computer Interface for Accident Prevention | Article | ● | ||||
23 | (sub-ref-Li et al., 2015) | Brain-Computer Interface Applications: Security and Privacy Challenges | Proc. Paper | ● | ||||
24 | (sub-ref-Li et al., 2020) | Sliding-Mode Nonlinear Predictive Control of Brain-Controlled Mobile Robots | Article | ● | ||||
25 | (sub-ref-Liu et al., 2015) | Assessment of Mental Fatigue: An EEG-based Forecasting System for Driving Safety | Proc. Paper | ● | ||||
26 | (sub-ref-Liu et al., 2016) | Driving Fatigue Prediction with Pre-Event Electroencephalography (EEG) via a Recurrent Fuzzy Neural Network | Proc. Paper | ● | ||||
27 | (sub-ref-Merrill et al., 2019) | One-Step, Three-Factor Passthought Authentication With Custom-Fit, In-Ear EEG | Article | ● | ||||
28 | (sub-ref-Min & Cai, 2020) | Driver Fatigue Detection Based on Multi-scale Wavelet Log Energy Entropy of Frontal EEG | Article | ● | ||||
29 | (sub-ref-Ming et al., 2021) | EEG-Based Drowsiness Estimation for Driving Safety Using Deep Q-Learning | Article | ● | ||||
30 | (sub-ref-Moioli et al., 2021) | Neurosciences and Wireless Networks: The Potential of Brain-Type Communications and Their Applications | Article | ● | ||||
31 | (sub-ref-Morales & Morgera, 2009) | Integrated sensing biosystems | Conf. paper | ● | ||||
32 | (sub-ref-Moreno-Rodriguez et al., 2021) | BIOMEX-DB: A Cognitive Audiovisual Dataset for Unimodal and Multimodal Biometric Systems | Article | ● | ||||
33 | (sub-ref-Narayana et al., 2019) | Mind your thoughts: BCI using single EEG electrode | Article | ● | ||||
34 | (sub-ref-Neu et al., 2019) | Cognitive work protection—A new approach for occupational safety in human-machine interaction | Book chap. | ● | ||||
35 | (sub-ref-Penaloza et al., 2015) | Brain signal-based safety measure activation for robotic systems | Article | ● | ||||
36 | (sub-ref-Pittman et al., 2018) | Curating Research Data – Cyber security perspective from a nascent Brain Machine Interface Laboratory | Proc. Paper | ● | ||||
37 | (sub-ref-Sciaraffa et al., 2020) | The evolution of passive brain-computer interfaces: Enhancing the human-machine interaction | Book chap. | ● | ||||
38 | (sub-ref-She et al., 2020) | Multi-class motor imagery EEG classification using collaborative representation-based semi-supervised extreme learning machine | Article | ● | ||||
39 | (sub-ref-Sourin et al., 2016) | Problems of Human-Computer Interaction in Cyberworlds | Proc. Paper | ● | ||||
40 | (sub-ref-Tsai, 2017a) | Applying Physiological Status Monitoring in Improving Construction Safety Management | Article | ● | ||||
41 | (sub-ref-Tsai, 2017b) | Enhancing nuclear power plant safety via on-site mental fatigue management antenna | Article | ● | ||||
42 | (sub-ref-Wester et al., 2013) | Experimental Validation of Imposed Safety Regions for Neural Controlled Human Patient Self-Feeding using the Modular Prosthetic Limb | Proc. Paper | ● | ||||
43 | (sub-ref-Witkowski et al., 2014) | Enhancing brain-machine interface (BMI) control of a hand exoskeleton using electrooculography (EOG) | Article | ● | ||||
44 | (sub-ref-Xia & Fan, 2020) | Security Analysis of Sports Injury Medical System Based on Internet of Health Things Technology | Article | ● | ||||
45 | (sub-ref-Yang, 2019) | A Study on Development of EEG-Based Password System Fit for Lifecaretainment | Article | ● | ||||
46 | (sub-ref-Zhang et al., 2016) | A Vehicle Active Safety Model: Vehicle Speed Control Based on Driver Vigilance Detection Using Wearable EEG and Sparse Representation | Article | ● | ||||
47 | (sub-ref-Zhang et al., 2017) | Design of a Fatigue Detection System for High-Speed Trains Based on Driver Vigilance Using a Wireless Wearable EEG | Article | ● | ||||
48 | (sub-ref-Zhou et al., 2021) | Hazard differentiation embedded in the brain: A near-infrared spectroscopy-based study | Article | ● | ||||
n | 7 | 10 | 6 | 17 | 8 |
Table 2: Bibliometric characteristics. (source: reference (Brain-computer interfaces in safety and security fields: Risks and applications, 2023)[1])
Potential consequences of hacked BCIs
The risks and potential consequences of a hacked brain-computer interface (BCI) must be carefully evaluated and addressed. One of the most concerning outcomes of BCI hacking is the invasion of privacy and security for the individual using the device. Unauthorized access to a BCI could result in the extraction of sensitive neural data, including personal thoughts, emotions, and private information. This breach of privacy constitutes a violation of neurorights—rights designed to protect the integrity, confidentiality, and privacy of neural activity.
Moreover, a hacked BCI could lead to unauthorized manipulation of the user’s cognitive functions and behaviors. In extreme cases, individuals could be coerced or influenced by external forces without their consent. This raises serious ethical concerns and questions about autonomy and free will. Additionally, if BCIs are utilized for medical purposes such as neurorehabilitation or cognitive support, a compromised device could have negative impacts on the user’s health and well-being.
The potential repercussions of hacked BCIs go beyond individual harm and extend to broader societal impacts. If BCIs are more widely adopted in various contexts, such as healthcare, education, or work environments, systemic vulnerabilities to hacking could result in widespread breaches affecting numerous individuals simultaneously.
It is important to recognize that these potential consequences are not merely hypothetical scenarios but present real risks in today’s technological landscape. Therefore, it is crucial to prioritize neurorights and privacy considerations in the development and use of BCIs to mitigate these risks. See reference (Brain-computer interfaces in safety and security fields: Risks and applications, 2023)[1].
Understanding Neurorights and Privacy
Definition and importance of neurorights
The concept of neurorights encompasses the rights and protections individuals have over their brain and neural activity. With the increasing prevalence of brain computer interfaces (BCIs), the significance of defining and upholding neurorights has become increasingly apparent. Neurorights include the right to mental privacy, autonomy, and control over one’s own neural information. The ethical and legal considerations surrounding the potential misuse or misappropriation of neural data are raised by the use of BCIs.
Establishing appropriate regulations and governance frameworks presents challenges due to the multidisciplinary nature of brain data, involving researchers from psychology, anatomy, medicine, and computational science. Additionally, the sheer volume of brain data generated poses challenges in terms of storage, processing, and sharing across international boundaries. This complexity underscores the need for specific regulatory frameworks tailored to protect neural information.
Another aspect of neurorights pertains to personal identity and free will. With individuals becoming increasingly connected to the internet through BCIs, there is a risk of diluting personal identity and relinquishing agency in decision-making processes. Furthermore, concerns about mental privacy stem from the accessibility and decipherability of brain data, including thoughts that may be subconscious or not consciously aware.
The concept of neurorights reflects a growing awareness of the necessity to safeguard individuals’ cognitive autonomy and privacy in an era where neurotechnology is rapidly advancing. As BCIs continue to expand beyond medical applications into non-medical domains, it is crucial to establish robust legal and ethical frameworks that protect neurorights while promoting technological innovation. See references: (Eke et al., 2022)[24], (Takabi et al., 2016)[26], (Sample et al., 2017)[29].
Figure 1: Search Strategy (source: reference (Sample et al., 2017)[29])
Privacy concerns in relation to BCIs
Protecting the privacy of individuals in the realm of neurosecurity is crucial, especially with the use of brain computer interfaces (BCIs) that can access and manipulate neural data. Brain data holds personal information and can lead to privacy vulnerabilities, particularly as technology advances and expands into non-medical sectors. The ability to influence an individual’s mental life raises concerns about unauthorized access and manipulation of neural information through BCIs.
To address these risks, a systematic approach is needed to safeguard the privacy and security of BCI applications, considering different contexts such as commercial development and academic research. An ethical, legal, and regulatory framework is essential to tackle privacy concerns associated with BCIs. Public discussion and proactive measures involving anticipatory ethics and governance can help address emerging privacy threats related to the widespread availability of BCIs among the general public. See references: (Ienca, 2016, pages 1-5)[5], (GmbH, 2022, pages 1-5)[13], (GmbH, 2022, pages 1-5)[14], (Scheibner et al., 2022)[16].
Emerging Threats: Hacking Brain Computer Interfaces
Types of potential attacks on BCIs
Different forms of potential attacks on BCIs can vary from direct cyber intrusions to subtler methods of manipulation. One form of attack involves the insertion of artificial noise into EEG data, which can disrupt the accurate interpretation of neural signals by the BCI system. This type of attack, as demonstrated in a study using authentic and hacked data, can greatly affect the accuracy (A) and precision (PPV) of the BCI, potentially leading to misinterpretation of user intent. Another possible attack is by injecting manipulated or fake neural signals into the BCI, which could result in false commands being executed by the system. This type of attack has implications for both the security and safety of BCI users, as it could lead to unintended actions or compromised control over the system.
Additionally, BCIs are vulnerable to more conventional forms of cyberattacks such as data breaches and unauthorized access. If an attacker gains access to the neural data stored within the BCI system, it could compromise not only the user’s privacy but also their cognitive and neural information.
These various types of attacks on BCIs underscore the susceptibility of these systems to external manipulation and interference, posing significant risks to both user privacy and safety. See reference (Annese et al., 2021)[2].
DATASETS | |||||
Dataset | Data Type | Method | Description | ||
Training | Real data | EEG acquisition | 5 subjects, 1440 trials per subject | ||
Testing | Real data | EEG acquisition | 5 subjects, 1440 trials per subject | ||
Hacked data | EEG + AWGN 20 | 5 subjects, 1040 real trials per subject 400 fake trials per subject | |||
EEG + AWGN 40 | |||||
EEG + MF3,001 | |||||
EEG + MF9,001 | |||||
EEG + MF9,05 | |||||
METRICS | |||||
Parameter | Relation 1 | ||||
Accuracy (A) | A=TP + TNTP + TN + FP + FNA=TP + TNTP + TN + FP + FN | (3) | |||
Precision or positive predicted value (PPV) | PPV=TPTP + FPPPV=TPTP + FP | (4) | |||
Recall or true positive rate (TPR) | TPR=TPTP + FNTPR=TPTP + FN | (5) | |||
F1 score (F1) | F1=2PPV ·TPRPPV + TPRF1=2PPV ·TPRPPV + TPR | (6) | |||
Cyberattack impact (Δ) | Δ=Vreal −Vfake Δ=Vreal −Vfake | (7) | |||
Table 3: Datasets used in this study and metrics of interest. (source: reference (Annese et al., 2021)[2])
Examples of real-world BCI hacking incidents
Instances of actual BCI hacking serve as a powerful reminder of the potential weaknesses associated with brain-computer interfaces. Denning et al. (2009) provide examples of prototype neurocrimes, including the unauthorized control of a prosthetic limb and the malicious alteration of neurostimulation therapy. These specific events involve direct manipulation of neural information, impacting the cognitive processes of users. This type of neurocrime, known as “brain-hacking,” exploits neural devices to gain unauthorized access to and potentially manipulate brain data, similar to how computers are hacked in cybercrime. In a particularly alarming case, Martinovic et al. (2012) were able to use brain-computer interfaces to uncover private information about users, including PIN codes, bank accounts, birth months, debit card numbers, home addresses, and even the faces of known individuals.
These incidents emphasize the urgent need for strong security measures for BCIs and the importance of addressing privacy concerns related to these technologies. As BCIs become more prevalent, there is an increasing risk that neural data could be accessed and manipulated for illicit purposes, posing significant physical, psychological, and social harm to technology users. The potential ramifications of hacked BCIs go beyond mere disruption or cessation of device function; they involve the unauthorized access and manipulation of highly sensitive neural information.
With the growing prevalence of neural devices in both clinical and non-clinical environments, it is essential to proactively address these vulnerabilities. Future research should concentrate on establishing a comprehensive ethical, legal, and regulatory framework to protect against the malicious misuse of BCIs through brain-hacking. Furthermore, the development and implementation of advanced cybersecurity technologies will be critical in mitigating these risks and ensuring the safeguarding of neurorights within the realm of brain-computer interfaces. See references: (Ienca, 2016, pages 1-5)[5], (Bothof, 2022, pages 21-25)[19].
Figure 2: The BCI cycle Source: Figure adopted, with permission, from J. Farquhar/Braingain (source: reference (Ienca, 2016)[5])
Implications for Neurorights and Privacy
Violation of neurorights through BCI hacking
Neurocrime, including brain-hacking, poses a serious threat to the privacy and well-being of individuals using brain-computer interfaces (BCIs). This can lead to unauthorized access to personal information and raise ethical concerns about privacy and data protection. The vulnerability of BCIs to hacking also puts users at risk of physical harm and psychological distress. There is an urgent need for security measures in the design and deployment of neural devices to mitigate these risks.
To address these threats, it is important to prioritize neurorights in national and international law. Neurorights protect mental privacy and psychological continuity from unwanted interference by neurotechnologies like BCIs. These rights aim to secure neural information from unauthorized access and address unintended alterations that may affect an individual’s self-perception due to brain stimulation devices.
As neurotechnologies continue to advance, it is crucial to prioritize policy recommendations that safeguard neurorights to uphold individual liberty, privacy, and autonomy in the age of brain-computer interfaces. See references: (Ienca, 2016, pages 1-5)[5], (Neuroprivacy, neurosecurity and brain-hacking: Emerging issues in neural engineering, 2015)[23], (Human rights: advances in neurotechnology lead to calls for protection against abuse of ‘brain data’, 2024)[25].
Legal and ethical considerations regarding privacy infringement
The use of brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) raises legal and ethical concerns regarding privacy infringement and potential violation of neurorights. The expanding field of neurotechnology, including BCIs, has various applications but also brings the risk of compromising brain privacy. Recent discoveries have revealed susceptibility to cybercriminal activity, leading to “neurocrime” and brain-hacking, posing a threat to individual autonomy. The ethical dilemma surrounding brain-hacking raises concerns about the dual use of BCIs for both beneficial and malicious purposes. BCIs also create new privacy and security concerns, as adversaries may exploit them to compromise brain privacy. Unauthorized access or manipulation of neural information from BCI users could have serious implications for individuals’ private data. It is crucial to implement comprehensive measures involving all stakeholders to address these risks, including legal frameworks for regulating neurotechnology and promoting awareness about potential threats among BCI users and stakeholders. See references: (Hermes et al., 2020)[3], (Ienca, 2016, pages 1-5)[5], (User, 2022, pages 21-25)[6], (Soon, your brain will be connected to a computer. Can we stop hackers breaking in?, 2024)[8], (team, 2023)[9], (GmbH, 2022, pages 1-5)[13], (Bothof, 2022, pages 21-25)[19].
Importance of Insurance Coverage for BCI Users
Need for insurance against cyberattacks on BCIs
The issue of brain-computer interface (BCI) security in the context of cyberattacks is becoming increasingly urgent as BCIs continue to advance and improve quality of life for individuals with traumatic brain injuries. Vulnerabilities in BCI systems pose serious risks, including the potential theft of personal information and manipulation of behavior. With the widespread adoption of BCIs on the horizon, it is essential to address this new security scenario.
Recent research has presented a new approach to addressing security attacks throughout the BCI life-cycle, highlighting their impacts and documented countermeasures. However, ethical considerations have not kept pace with rapid technological advancements in neurotechnology.
The examples cited in recent research articles underscore the urgency of the situation, illustrating how science fiction is quickly becoming reality. The potential for hackers to access neural information and manipulate behavior is deeply concerning and requires immediate attention. Additionally, as BCIs become more integrated into everyday life, practical questions around brain-computer interfaces that have not been fully considered must be addressed.
To prepare for widespread adoption of BCIs and neurotechnology, it is crucial to establish insurance coverage for BCI users against cyberattacks. Collaboration between manufacturers, users, and governments is necessary to develop robust security measures for BCIs and educate users about potential risks and best practices for protection. Furthermore, advancements in cybersecurity technologies are needed to safeguard neurorights in this increasingly interconnected world.
In conclusion, prioritizing neurorights in the development of BCIs requires proactive measures to ensure secure brain-computer interfaces. The need for insurance against cyberattacks on BCIs cannot be overlooked, and policy recommendations should be implemented to address this critical issue. See references: (team, 2023)[9], (Celdran et al., 2021)[11], (Conversation, 2022)[17].
Current insurance options available for protecting BCI users
Insurance coverage options for BCI users are still being developed as the technology becomes more common. BCIs are used in healthcare, gaming, and communication, creating a need for insurance protection against cyberattacks. Specialized cyber insurance policies could cover data breaches, hacking incidents, and financial losses from BCI hacking. Customized insurance packages may be developed for different user demographics, addressing unique security concerns and privacy risks. Collaboration between insurance providers, BCI manufacturers, cybersecurity experts, and regulatory authorities is crucial to create comprehensive insurance options. As the use of BCIs expands, insurance options must keep up with the evolving landscape of neurotechnology to provide peace of mind for BCI users. See references: (team, 2023)[9], (Conversation, 2022)[17].
Mitigating Risks: Ensuring Secure Brain Computer Interfaces
Implementing robust security measures for BCIs
Securing Brain Computer Interfaces (BCIs) is crucial to protect users’ neural data privacy and integrity. BCIs create a direct link between the brain and computer systems, raising significant privacy and security concerns. The susceptibility of BCIs to hacking poses a serious threat to users’ neurorights. Implementing security measures should address the risk of malicious external stimuli, especially in hybrid BCIs. As BCIs expand into non-medical applications, cybersecurity becomes even more essential due to new attack surfaces and vectors. Certified actuators and feedback mechanisms are critical for maintaining secure brain-computer communication. Encryption protocols, multi-factor authentication, and secure data transmission channels are fundamental for securing BCIs against cyber threats. Proactive cybersecurity strategies are necessary to keep pace with advancements in AI-enabled tools and neuromodulation intersecting with BCI technology. Integrating security considerations into the early design stages of BCIs can establish a more resilient foundation for protecting neurorights and privacy. Overall, implementing robust security measures for BCIs is vital for upholding neurorights and ensuring the privacy of users’ neural data. See references: (Ienca, 2016, pages 1-5)[5], (GmbH, 2022, pages 1-5)[14], (Policy, Identity, and Neurotechnology: The Neuroethics of Brain-Computer Interfaces
3031268008, 9783031268007 – DOKUMEN.PUB, 2024)[18], (Cybersecurity in Brain-Computer Interfaces: RFID-based design-theoretical framework, 2021)[27].
Educating users about potential risks and best practices for protection
It is of utmost importance to educate users about the potential risks and best practices for safeguarding brain computer interfaces (BCIs). As BCIs become increasingly integrated with various technologies, raising user awareness and providing education are critical. Users need to comprehend the vulnerabilities associated with BCIs, such as the risk of hacking and security breaches, and the impact of these threats on their privacy and neurorights.
An essential aspect of user education is emphasizing the significance of robust security measures for BCIs. This includes the implementation of encryption protocols, multi-factor authentication, and regular software updates to mitigate potential cyber threats. Users should also be informed about the different types of potential attacks on BCIs, such as unauthorized access to neural data and manipulation of brain signals.
In addition to understanding the risks, users need guidance on best practices for protecting their BCIs. This involves exercising caution when sharing sensitive neural data, utilizing secure networks for BCI communication, and staying informed about the latest cybersecurity developments in the field of neurotechnology.
Furthermore, as BCIs continue to advance and integrate with artificial intelligence (AI) and other technologies, users must remain vigilant about emerging threats. This includes understanding how BCI technology interacts with the Internet of Things (IoT) and comprehending the potential implications for security and privacy.
Overall, educating users about potential risks and best practices for protection is crucial for fostering a safe and secure environment for BCI technology. By empowering users with knowledge about cybersecurity measures and privacy protection, we can work towards safeguarding neurorights in the development and use of BCIs. See references: (Hermes et al., 2020)[3], (Brain-computer interfaces (BCI) are vulnerable to cyber attacks and need security and safety measures – International Defense Security & Technology, 2024)[4], (Ienca, 2016, pages 6-10)[5], (User, 2022, pages 21-25)[6], (team, 2023)[9], (Celdran et al., 2021)[11], (ELSEVIER-SSRN, 2019, pages 1-5)[12].
Future Directions in Protecting Neurorights
Advancements in cybersecurity technologies
The education of BCI users on potential risks and best protective practices is critical as BCIs become more integrated with various technologies. Users need to understand vulnerabilities, such as hacking and security breaches, and how these threats impact their privacy and neurorights.
Emphasizing the importance of robust security measures, including encryption protocols and multi-factor authentication, is essential for user education. Additionally, users should be informed about potential attacks on BCIs, such as unauthorized access to neural data.
In addition to understanding the risks, users need guidance on best practices for protecting their BCIs. This involves being cautious when sharing sensitive neural data and staying informed about the latest cybersecurity developments in neurotechnology.
As BCIs advance and integrate with AI and other technologies, users must remain vigilant about emerging threats. Educating users about potential risks and best protective practices is crucial for fostering a safe environment for BCI technology. By empowering users with knowledge about cybersecurity measures and privacy protection, we can work towards safeguarding neurorights in the development and use of BCIs. See references: (Policy, Identity, and Neurotechnology: The Neuroethics of Brain-Computer Interfaces
3031268008, 9783031268007 – DOKUMEN.PUB, 2024)[7], (Celdran et al., 2021)[11], (Abdalla et al., 2023)[22].
Figure 3: Evolution of brain-computer interface publications. (Data collected from Scopus on 26 August 2022.) (source: reference (Mbise et al., 2023)[31])
Figure 4: b, c shows that Asia, specifically the Eastern region, has generated more BCI publications over the years. China demonstrates a steadily growing trend of the publications on brain-computer interface, topping other countries from 2019 onwards (Fig. 2 d). This interesting trend may be caused by an increased research funding and support by the China government to undertake advanced research. In the Made in China 2025 strategy, China has established ambitious plans to become a leading superpower by 2049. The strategy, coupled with a higher population size and an increased number of academic and research institutions, could be a driving factor for China to achieve a remarkable achievement in BCI research. The United States, however, remains a leading country in terms of the overall number of BCI publications (Fig. 3 ). Given the higher technological and economical muscle of the United States, this observation would be expected. Perhaps an intriguing question for future inquiry would be on why the number of BCI publications for this country started to decline from 2019 onwards. One way that the United States may improve the trend of BCI publications is to promote co-authorship with Chinese universities and research institutions (Fig. 4 ). (source: reference (Mbise et al., 2023)[31])
Figure 5: Number of publications on brain-computer interface per country. (Data collected from Scopus on 26 August 2022.) (source: reference (Mbise et al., 2023)[31])
Figure 6: Collaboration network among countries based on publications in brain-computer interface Figures 4 and and5 5 show five countries with higher volume of BCI publications: United States, China, Germany, Japan, and India. Authors from these countries collaborate to foster the development of BCI research. Given the value of BCI technology in human socio-economic development, we recommend the efforts to be adapted in other countries, specifically those in the global south. Institutions from low-income economies, as defined by the World Bank, should be empowered to conduct advanced BCI research with a focus on addressing the third sustainable development goal, ‘good health and well-being’. (source: reference (Mbise et al., 2023)[31])
Policy recommendations for safeguarding neurorights
The rapid advancement of brain-computer interface (BCI) technology requires comprehensive policy recommendations to protect neurological rights. Privacy concerns, device manipulation, and potential harms from hacked signals need to be addressed. Researchers should establish standards and best practices to prevent malicious manipulation of BCIs, with government regulatory oversight if necessary. Proactive legal frameworks are needed to prioritize neurological rights, requiring collaboration between experts in biology, computer science, anti-terrorism, and policy-making. Policy recommendations should prioritize privacy protection against cyberattacks while ensuring operability and safety for users, addressing ethical and policy issues through robust regulatory frameworks and industry standards to mitigate potential risks associated with BCI technology and uphold fundamental human moral values such as autonomy, free will, and self-determination. See references: (Policy, Identity, and Neurotechnology: The Neuroethics of Brain-Computer Interfaces
3031268008, 9783031268007 – DOKUMEN.PUB, 2024)[7], (Takabi et al., 2016)[26].
Conclusion
Summary of key points discussed
In this article, we have delved into the intricate and ever-changing world of brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) and their impact on neurological rights and privacy. We have discussed the advantages of BCIs, such as improving the quality of life for people with traumatic brain injuries and supporting neurorehabilitation and cognitive functions. However, we have also examined the risks and obstacles associated with BCIs, particularly their susceptibility to hacking and security breaches. These potential outcomes of hacked BCIs raise significant ethical and legal issues concerning privacy violations.
Our exploration has led us to recognize the significance of neurological rights in the context of BCIs, highlighting the need to safeguard individuals’ rights in relation to neurotechnology. We have emphasized various forms of potential attacks on BCIs and presented real-life examples of BCI hacking incidents, shedding light on the emerging threats posed by these technologies.
Moreover, we have discussed the infringement of neurological rights through BCI hacking and emphasized the importance of insurance coverage to protect BCI users against cyberattacks. We have also examined the significance of implementing strong security measures for BCIs and educating users about potential risks and best practices for protection.
Looking forward, we have considered future pathways in protecting neurological rights, including advancements in cybersecurity technologies and policy recommendations for safeguarding neurological rights in the development of BCIs. Throughout our discussion, it has become clear that prioritizing neurological rights is crucial in ensuring the responsible development and use of BCIs.
As we navigate this rapidly evolving field, it is essential to remain vigilant about protecting individuals’ rights while harnessing the potential benefits of neurotechnology. By addressing these multifaceted challenges, we can strive towards a future where BCIs can enhance lives without compromising privacy or infringing upon neurological rights. See references: (Hermes et al., 2020)[3], (Schleim, 2021)[15], (Conversation, 2022)[17].
Importance of prioritizing neurorights in the development of BCIs
The development and integration of Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) necessitate the prioritization of neurological rights to protect mental privacy and individual autonomy. The rapid progress in neurotechnology, especially in BCIs, has raised ethical and legal concerns regarding potential violations of mental privacy and cognitive autonomy. Neurological rights, which are new rights incorporated into national and international law, are vital in safeguarding individuals from unauthorized intrusions into their neural activity. The right to mental privacy is crucial for securing neural information from unauthorized access, especially as BCIs can decode and transmit brain signals.
Additionally, the right to psychological continuity is essential for ensuring that individuals maintain control over their self-perception and cognitive integrity when using neural devices. The current human rights framework may not fully address the risks posed by neurotechnology, highlighting the need for a focused approach to establish neurological rights. While the right to freedom of thought provides some protection against potential risks posed by BCIs, it may not fully encompass the specific nuances related to mental privacy in the context of neurotechnology advancements. Overall, prioritizing neurological rights in the development of BCIs is essential for addressing ethical challenges related to mental privacy, individual autonomy, and cognitive integrity. Establishing robust legal and ethical frameworks is crucial for safeguarding neurological rights while promoting responsible innovation in neurotechnology. See references: (Conversation, 2022)[17], (Bothof, 2022, pages 1-5)[19], (Human rights: advances in neurotechnology lead to calls for protection against abuse of ‘brain data’, 2024)[25].
References
- [1] Brain-computer interfaces in safety and security fields: Risks and applications. (2023). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753522003903
- [2] Annese. Valerio F., De Venuto. Daniela, Mezzina. Giovanni. (2021). A Cybersecure P300-Based Brain-to-Computer Interface against Noise-Based and Fake P300 Cyberattacks. https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/24/8280
- [3] Dora Hermes, Kai J. Miller, Nathan P. Staff. (2020). The current state of electrocorticography-based brain-computer interfaces. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342615925_The_current_state_of_electrocorticography-based_brain-computer_interfaces
- [4] Brain-computer interfaces (BCI) are vulnerable to cyber attacks and need security and safety measures – International Defense Security & Technology. (2024). https://idstch.com/cyber/brain-computer-interfaces-bci-vulnerable-cyber-attacks-need-security-safety-measures/
- [5] Marcello Ienca. (2016). Hacking the brain: brain-computer interfacing technology and the ethics of neurosecurity. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301335762_Hacking_the_brain_brain-computer_interfacing_technology_and_the_ethics_of_neurosecurity
- [6] Microsoft Office User. (2022). Freedom of thinking and neurotechnology: ensuring free thought in the age of brain-computer interfaces. http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=159845
- [7] Policy, Identity, and Neurotechnology: The Neuroethics of Brain-Computer Interfaces 3031268008, 9783031268007 – DOKUMEN.PUB. (2024). https://dokumen.pub/download/policy-identity-and-neurotechnology-the-neuroethics-of-brain-computer-interfaces-3031268008-9783031268007.html
- [8] Soon, your brain will be connected to a computer. Can we stop hackers breaking in?. (2024). https://www.zdnet.com/article/soon-your-brain-will-be-connected-to-a-computer-can-we-stop-hackers-breaking-in/
- [9] the Bitbrain team. (2023). Cybersecurity and brain-computer interfaces | Bitbrain. https://www.bitbrain.com/blog/cybersecurity-brain-computer-interface
- [10] Jerry J. Shih, Jonathan R. Wolpaw, Dean J. Krusienski. (2012). Brain-Computer Interfaces in Medicine. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3497935/
- [11] Alberto Huertas Celdran, Sasitharan Balasubramaniam, Gregorio Martinez Perez, Michael Taynnan Barros, Sergio Lopez Bernal. (2021). Security in Brain-Computer Interfaces: State-of-the-Art, Opportunities, and Future Challenges. https://research.wit.ie/en/publications/security-in-brain-computer-interfaces-state-of-the-art-opportunit-4
- [12] INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED STUDIES OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (IJASSR) ISSN 2460 4010 ABSTRACTED & INDEXED IN ELSEVIER-SSRN. (2019). Paper Title (use style: paper title). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331371624_Emerging_Threats_to_Security_and_Privacy_in_Brain_Computer_Interface
- [13] NeuroMentum AI GmbH. (2022). A Framework for Preserving Privacy and Cybersecurity in Brain-Computer Interfacing Applications. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.09653
- [14] NeuroMentum AI GmbH. (2022). A Framework for Preserving Privacy and Cybersecurity in Brain-Computer Interfacing Applications. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363698133_A_Framework_for_Preserving_Privacy_and_Cybersecurity_in_Brain-Computer_Interfacing_Applications/download
- [15] Schleim. Stephan. (2021). Neurorights in History: A Contemporary Review of Jose M. R. Delgado’s “Physical Control of the Mind” (1969) and Elliot S. Valenstein’s “Brain Control” (1973). https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2021.703308
- [16] Scheibner. James, Vayena. Effy, Ienca. Marcello, Jotterand. Fabrice, Chavarriaga. Ricardo, Voeneky. Silja, Castelluccia. Claude, Merkel. Grischa, Fins. Joseph J., Kellmeyer. Philipp, Molnar-Gabor. Fruzsina, Ball. Tonio, Yuste. Rafael, Friedrich. Orsolya, Rickli. Jean-Marc, Hurst. Samia, Andorno. Roberto, Chneiweiss. Herve, Jox. Ralf J., Ferretti. Agata. (2022). Towards a Governance Framework for Brain Data. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12152-022-09498-8
- [17] Nancy S. Jecker and Andrew Ko-The Conversation. (2022). Brain-computer interfaces could change the world-but at what cost?. https://www.fastcompany.com/90819431/brain-computer-interfaces-could-change-the-world-but-at-what-cost
- [18] Policy, Identity, and Neurotechnology: The Neuroethics of Brain-Computer Interfaces 3031268008, 9783031268007 – DOKUMEN.PUB. (2024). https://dokumen.pub/policy-identity-and-neurotechnology-the-neuroethics-of-brain-computer-interfaces-3031268008-9783031268007.html
- [19] Shannon Bothof. (2022). Author: Shannon Brenda Bothof. https://repository.gchumanrights.org/bitstreams/7c74891d-a5bb-4dd4-94bf-06337fd6f021/download
- [20] Exploring the Ethical Challenges of Brain-Computer Interface Technology. (2024). https://www.technologynetworks.com/neuroscience/blog/exploring-the-ethical-challenges-of-brain-computer-interface-technology-363367
- [21] Interfacing Minds and Machines: An Exploration of Neural Implants and Brain-Computer Interfaces – Neuroscience News. (2023). https://neurosciencenews.com/brain-computer-interfact-neural-implants-23492/
- [22] Abdalla. Abdi T., Mbise. Mercy, Ismail. Moses, Mkocha. Khadija, Kimambo. Samwel, Nassor. Nassor Ally, Maiseli. Baraka, Michael. James, Massawe. Libe V.. (2023). Brain-computer interface: trend, challenges, and threats. https://braininformatics.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40708-023-00199-3
- [23] Neuroprivacy, neurosecurity and brain-hacking: Emerging issues in neural engineering. (2015). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303974201_Neuroprivacy_neurosecurity_and_brain-hacking_Emerging_issues_in_neural_engineering
- [24] Damian Eke, Bernd Carsten Stahl, Paschal Ochang. (2022). The ethical and legal landscape of brain data governance. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9799320/
- [25] Human rights: advances in neurotechnology lead to calls for protection against abuse of ‘brain data’. (2024). https://www.ibanet.org/neurotechnologies-protection-against-abuse-of-brain-data
- [26] Hassan Takabi, Anuj Bhalotiya, Manar Alohaly. (2016). Brain Computer Interface (BCI) Applications: Privacy Threats and Countermeasures. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312183826_Brain_Computer_Interface_BCI_Applications_Privacy_Threats_and_Countermeasures
- [27] Cybersecurity in Brain-Computer Interfaces: RFID-based design-theoretical framework. (2021). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352914820306407
- [28] Ranganatha Sitaram, Sujesh Sreedharan, C Kesavadas, Joseph S Paul. (2013). Brain-Computer Interfaces for Neurorehabilitation. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260440493_Brain-Computer_Interfaces_for_Neurorehabilitation
- [29] Matthew Sample, Eric Racine, Sasha Burwell. (2017). Ethical aspects of brain computer interfaces: a scoping review. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5680604/
- [30] Tiansong Yang, Ruobing Li, Ke Xu, Qingyong Wang, Siyu Yang, Hongtao Li, Yuqing Shi, Xiaowei Sun. (2021). Exploring the Use of Brain-Computer Interfaces in Stroke Neurorehabilitation. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8235968/
- [31] Mercy Mbise, Khadija Mkocha, Libe V. Massawe, James Michael, Abdi T. Abdalla, Baraka Maiseli, Nassor Ally Nassor, Moses Ismail, Samwel Kimambo. (2023). Brain-computer interface: trend, challenges, and threats. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10403483/
Leave a Reply