header-logo header-logo

Neurotech: privacy & data protection

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

To access this full article please fill the form below.
All fields are mandatory unless marked as 'Optional'.
If you already a subscriber to New Law Journal, please login here

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll