The United Nations (UN) has issued a warning about the potential for neurotechnologies to threaten human rights, particularly when these tools are used to collect brain data during criminal investigations.
In a report, Secretary-General António Guterres advocated for the creation of protective standards to safeguard mental privacy and prevent abuses before the use of these technologies becomes routine in the justice system.
According to The New York Times, neurotechnologies have the capacity to record or interpret signals generated by brain activity. While already useful in medicine to assist patients with severe limitations, their application in court and prison settings raises serious questions regarding consent, intimacy, and freedom of thought.
Guterres expressed concern about the possibility of authorities attempting to force information from suspects without their consent or using brain data to predict the occurrence of crimes. The report points out that such abuses could result in arbitrary detentions and the modification of people's mental states.
The Secretary-General stated that 'Neurotechnology, including new and emerging forms, poses profound challenges to human rights when applied to the administration of Justice.' To mitigate these risks, the document suggests that countries implement regulations aligned with international law, consider thoughts as extremely sensitive personal data, and require explicit authorization for the use of these tools in criminal contexts.
This measure offers states the chance to define clear guidelines for regulating the use of neurotechnology based on human rights, before it becomes common practice in prisons, courts, and investigations.
Jeremy Laurence, spokesperson for the UN Human Rights Office, commented on the issue in a note.
The concern is not limited to future scenarios. In India, the police have been using a technique known as Brain Electrical Oscillation Signature (BEOS) for approximately two decades, which analyzes brain waves in an attempt to verify a suspect's involvement in a crime. However, this method has not received validation from the international scientific community, and its results are not accepted as evidence in Indian courts. In 2008, a government commission classified the technology as 'below ideal,' despite having been applied in hundreds of serious cases, including murders, rapes, and terrorism.
The consumer segment also raises concerns. Wearable devices promise to monitor indicators such as stress levels, sleep quality, and focus, but the protection of collected data still lacks adequate regulation. In 2024, the Neurorights Foundation evaluated the privacy policies of thirty consumer-oriented neurotechnology companies. Most of these companies did not define limits for the use of customers' brain data, and more than half openly allowed the sharing of this information with third parties.
Despite the dangers, these technologies already provide vital resources for individuals with severe brain or spinal cord injuries. Brain-computer interfaces enable paralyzed patients to write sentences through the imagination of writing movement, control robotic limbs, and play chess online solely with thought.
The protection of neural data is beginning to be incorporated into legislation. Chile included guarantees related to brain activity in its Constitution in 2012. In the United States, the states of California, Colorado, and Montana have passed legislation on neural data, while similar measures have been proposed in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico.
The UN report underscores the urgency of establishing limits on the use of these tools, ensuring the preservation of privacy and freedom of thought without neglecting the benefits they bring to medicine.