Neurotechnology & the law

07 June 2024 / Harry Lambert

Issue: 8074 / Categories: Features , Profession , Technology , Artificial intelligence , Privacy

In the first of a series of articles on the interplay between neurotechnology & different areas of law, Harry Lambert brings us up to speed on neurotech capabilities

Focuses on ‘neurorights’ from a legal perspective, including how they might apply to different areas of practice, and how other jurisdictions are seeking to protect them.

I want you to consider the list below. Each item is a potential application of monitoring, harvesting and analysing brain wave data from electroencephalograms (EEGs). But which of these neurotech capabilities do you think are: (a) possible in the near future; (b) possible in the long term; or (c) impossible?

In ascending order of radicality and/or dystopian-ness (if that is a word) here is the list:

(1) predicting who will suffer from degenerative diseases;

(2) monitoring levels of fatigue;

(3) checking that someone is listening to you/concentrating;

(4) direct brain-to-brain communication;

(5) ascertaining a subject’s political leanings, religious beliefs or amorous feelings;

(6) implanting dreams about products;

(7) scanning a suspect’s memory to check

To access this full article please fill the form below.

If you already a subscriber to New Law Journal, please login here

Neurotechnology & the law

In the first of a series of articles on the interplay between neurotechnology & different areas of law, Harry Lambert brings us up to speed on neurotech capabilities

Focuses on ‘neurorights’ from a legal perspective, including how they might apply to different areas of practice, and how other jurisdictions are seeking to protect them.

In ascending order of radicality and/or dystopian-ness (if that is a word) here is the list:

(1) predicting who will suffer from degenerative diseases;

(2) monitoring levels of fatigue;

(3) checking that someone is listening to you/concentrating;

(4) direct brain-to-brain communication;

(5) ascertaining a subject’s political leanings, religious beliefs or amorous feelings;

(6) implanting dreams about products;

(7) scanning a suspect’s memory to check

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Partner hire bolstersprivate capital and global aviation finance offering

Morae—Carla Mendy

Digital and business solutions firm appoints chief operating officer

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Set welcomes two experienced juniors as new tenants

NEWS

Read All

NLJ this week: Alarm bells over Mazur

The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has thrown the careers of experienced CILEX litigators into jeopardy, warns Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers in NLJ this week

NLJ this week: Jury trial & a constitutional illusion

Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that there is ‘no right to jury trial’ erects a constitutional straw man, argues Professor Graham Zellick KC in NLJ this week. He argues that Leveson dismantles a position almost no-one truly holds, and thereby obscures the deeper issue: the jury’s place within the UK’s constitutional tradition

NLJ this week: The rise—and risks—of going private

Why have private prosecutions surged despite limited data? Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli explores their rise in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: Human rights disputes push courts to redefine their role

The public law team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer surveys significant recent human rights and judicial review rulings in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: Debarment orders—shortcut or minefield?

In this week's NLJ, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley examines how debarring orders, while attractive to claimants seeking swift resolution, can complicate trials—most notably in fraud cases requiring ‘particularly cogent’ proof

Error message

Neurotechnology & the law

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Morae—Carla Mendy

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du