header-logo header-logo

11 October 2024 / Harry Lambert
Issue: 8089 / Categories: Features , Profession , Technology , Privacy , Data protection
printer mail-detail

Neurotech: privacy & data protection

192555
Harry Lambert continues his series on neurorights—this time with the focus on neurotechnology & its intersection with fundamental privacy rights
  • Examines the burgeoning neurotechnology field, and considers in turn the three primary legal causes of action that are relevant to privacy and neurotechnology: breach of confidence, misuse of private information, and breach of the General Data Protection Regulation.

In contemporary society, individuals already relinquish substantial amounts of personal privacy to corporations in exchange for negligible benefits. As neurotechnology develops, the stakes will be higher. The benefits will be greater (for example, writing a text or controlling a computer game with your thoughts), but so too will be the risks. If we are not careful, the pact society makes with Big Tech is going to become increasingly Faustian. To quote Nita Farahany, author of The Battle for your Brain (2023)), neurotechnology is now encroaching upon the ‘last fortress’ of our freedom.

This article addresses the interplay between neurotechnology and privacy, considering how existing legal frameworks might respond to emerging challenges.

Normative underpinnings

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll