Scientists Propose 'Neuro-Rights' to Protect Brains From Future Manipulation (reuters.com) 63
Slashdot reader AmiMoJo shares a report from Reuters:
Scientific advances from deep brain stimulation to wearable scanners are making manipulation of the human mind increasingly possible, creating a need for laws and protections to regulate use of the new tools, top neurologists said on Thursday.
A set of "neuro-rights" should be added to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations, said Rafael Yuste, a neuroscience professor at New York's Columbia University and organizer of the Morningside Group of scientists and ethicists proposing such standards. Five rights would guard the brain against abuse from new technologies — rights to identity, free will and mental privacy along with the right of equal access to brain augmentation advances and protection from algorithmic bias, the group says.
"If you can record and change neurons, you can in principle read and write the minds of people," Yuste said during an online panel at the Web Summit, a global tech conference.
"This is not science fiction. We are doing this in lab animals successfully."
A set of "neuro-rights" should be added to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations, said Rafael Yuste, a neuroscience professor at New York's Columbia University and organizer of the Morningside Group of scientists and ethicists proposing such standards. Five rights would guard the brain against abuse from new technologies — rights to identity, free will and mental privacy along with the right of equal access to brain augmentation advances and protection from algorithmic bias, the group says.
"If you can record and change neurons, you can in principle read and write the minds of people," Yuste said during an online panel at the Web Summit, a global tech conference.
"This is not science fiction. We are doing this in lab animals successfully."
just as I was starting to look forward to... (Score:5, Funny)
...my 80GB data module being installed so I can have some adventures as a data courier
320GB man (Score:2)
320GB man
Re: (Score:2)
We are already doing this to dolphins?
Re:just as I was starting to look forward to... (Score:4, Interesting)
In all seriousness augmented memory might be a thing one day, and we need to be careful with it.
Photographic memory is a myth, it doesn't really exist. There are a small number of people who can recall specific details from every day of their lives, but it's still reconstructive memory. It also has severe downsides, because events in the past feel like they were only yesterday so tragedies like the deaths of loved ones feel raw forever.
I'd love to have some information on instant recall but only very carefully selected stuff.
Where is the line between this and social networks (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The idea is that there might be legitimate reasons to want implants, without turning your consciousness over to complete control.
Whether implants are a good or bad decision, or how it compares to an entirely separate issue, is beside the point (and smells like Whataboutism.) We know implants are coming, we just don't know fully know all the specific applications and pitfalls. What's the problem with establishing some baseline human-rights guardrails and sanity checks? Do you have any actual objections to th
Re:Where is the line between this and social netwo (Score:4, Interesting)
The most important issue IMHO is what happens when we get performance enhancing implants. If you can pay to give your child an implant that gets them perfect scores on every test it's obviously going to be a major advantage and potentially start an arms race.
So what if you can't afford such an implant? You either remain a second class human who doesn't have access to the best jobs or to power within democracy, or maybe a corporation offers the upgrade for "free"... Kinda like many web services are "free", if you discount the ads and them mining your brain for useful data. They promise they will switch the telemetry off in your most intimate moments, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, then they flunked the test where calculators weren't permitted.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sigh. Are we really still at this point? Like 60 years ago when people were asking if boys can love boys just by wishing it, when decriminalizing homosexuality was being debated.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sigh. Are we really still at this point? Like 60 years ago when people were asking if boys can love boys just by wishing it, when decriminalizing homosexuality was being debated.
That's a red herring, as what I was referring to is something else entirely. A belief that someone can actually change their gender just by wishing it is a fantastical belief. But one that has been instilled largely through propaganda. It's every bit as insane as any "qanon" theory.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Where is the line between this and social netw (Score:2)
That's a red herring, as what I was referring to is something else entirely. A belief that someone can actually change their gender
Nobody believes they can change their DNA with a wish. Literally nobody believes that. You have red herrings spilling out of your mouth when you talk, it's no wonder you confuse people.
What you cannot deny is men can be feminine, and women can be masculine, and frankly, I'm not going to pretend our language is that sensitive to specifics in our DNA, so if you sincerely want to be a woman, you can CSS.
Re: (Score:2)
A belief that someone can actually change their gender just by wishing it is a fantastical belief.
I presume you are the one holding this fantastical belief that people born with a certain brain structure can alter it at will to match your own differing perception of them. Most sane people assume that human beings don't get to choose what type of person do they perceive themselves as, or indeed get to choose any other such aspect of personality.
Re: Where is the line between this and social netw (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, "where do we draw the line?" is the most important question here. Arguably every advert, every politician's talking point, every UX designer's job, every movie/game/book with a political message in the end,... are all mind control.
If you walk in with an idea in mind, and walk out with that idea reinforced or completely changed, merely by consuming a media or being part of something designed to change your mind, isnt that mind control? Sure, there is no physical apparatus plugged into your brain, no
Re: (Score:3)
Forget social networks, I want to know where is the line between this and advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
Forget social networks, I want to know where is the line between this and porn.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm wondering what this means (Score:2)
for BookFace and Twatter?
Bookface especially because of their VR/AR line of business.
Re: (Score:2)
They won't be able to serve blipverts.
Another Excuse For The Crazies (Score:2)
To use for talking points. I wonder how many folks are going to start claiming mind control now that this article is out.
As if we didn't have enough nutjobs. Thanks media and so called scientists.
Matter over mind. (Score:2)
Just think what this will do to the field of marketing.
Sounds like ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This will be ignored ... (Score:5, Insightful)
as are other human rights by: thugs/criminals and a whole list of governments -- you know who I mean!
Where to Define the Line (Score:3, Interesting)
Sadly, however, if the technology were to be developed that could allow closer integration between brain/mind and technology, then the greater threat might come from a hostile foreign power. Just think of it: press a few buttons and you could have angry mobs taking to the streets, causing insurrection and chaos of such magnitude that an entire nation could easily become distracted.
While that might easily be more than enough to worry about, the idea of legislation written with this specific scope in mind opens the door to other challenges. During the testimony provided and the numerous interviews he has given since, Christopher Wylie, formerly of Cambridge Analytica, laid out very clearly how his company collected sufficient information not merely to be able to understand people, but to manipulate how they thought. Cambridge Analytica employed really disgusting practices in the 2016 election, designed specifically to discourage people of color from voting in the US Presidential election. That wasn’t data gathering, it was psychological manipulation on a mass scale. So if the scientists worried about direct manipulation of the brain/mind as discussed in the OP and the linked materials, are they also worried about more sophisticated versions of Cambridge Analytica? Where, exactly, should the line get drawn?
Re:Where to Define the Line (Score:4, Insightful)
All of this even before one considers whether free will exists at all in most people. I mean, the number of people unable to think for themselves (and thus extremely susceptible to such tactics) is staggering. Even though I'd like to think I have a very refined BS detector, it would be a stretch to suggest that even I am immune. It's almost as if all humans are are complex pieces of hardware, running software that develops based on input received during development. The average human is very predictable, even when trying not to be.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the degree of free will varies between each instance of meatbag, but that it's generally at the low end. Trying to test free will (even in thought) is like trying to measure a particle's position and velocity at the same time. You can get the gist of it, but the more you try to pin it down, the more it eludes you. The spiritual among us would call it the incomprehensible mind of God.
Re: (Score:1)
Like, how would you tell the difference between the experience of genuine free will and being under the illusion of free will?
Re: (Score:2)
press a few buttons and you could have angry mobs taking to the streets
That's literally what we have now, it's they reason they took Trump's Facebook and Twitter accounts away.
Already illegal (Score:2)
I am pretty sure planting devices in someone and enslaving people is already illegal. This acts like it is currently legal for someone to kidnap you and install a device in your brain. This neuro rights thing sounds like a way for some people to get actual control and power for themselves. Another assault on science that they want to control. This will result in a mountain of regulations and approvals (for a small fee and authority genuflect) for companies and companies and especially startups doing researc
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much. This is illegal for the same reason subliminal messages in ads are illegal in any civilized country. The additional measures scientific advances make possible here are only a change in degree, not nature.
Why though? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the way that they're not banned yet.
Re: (Score:2)
After the pandemic I can't get behind this (Score:1, Funny)
.. some countries will just ignore it. (Score:1)
You only have to look at how some countries ignore human rights and international law today to see that those countries will take whatever advantage this gives their elites.
Brain slug versus nature (Score:2)
I'll ignore the brain-slug version of mind-control and say this can provide some answers to the nature/nurture debate. Are people hardwired for homosexuality and pedophilia (IE. The male brain doesn't equate breasts with desirable sexual partner.) or does some childhood event teach them sexual attraction to children or same-sex adults? Then the question becomes, how much is hardwired? Rule-breaking, drug addiction, religion/violence?
mmacevedo anyone? (Score:3)
- The rest of the story is here. [qntm.org]. It's quite horrifying in an understated way.
It's just a piece of paper (Score:2)
So, RF Brainscan is true, after all ? (Score:2)
https://www.reddit.com/r/consp... [reddit.com]
66(6) (Score:2)
Good Soldiers Follow Orders
dna hybridization (Score:1)
Opqrs (Score:2)
Been saying this for years. At some point, politicians will misuse brain scans, and that includes in the US, where law enforcement will try to get away with the claim it is physical evidence, and therefore does not violate 4th or 1st Amendment rights.
It needs to be banned, not just behind a warrant, but ever, at all. Not no way, not no how.
It's bad enough the panopticons already existing in places like China will start using it. The boot stepping on a human face, already forever, doesn't need still more
Thought crime detectors (Score:2)
For me the extraction of information is the bigger issue on the horizon. Lie detectors could evolve into "thought crime detectors". Recent developments are making our inner thought processes increasingly knowable.
University of Columbia Researchers Translate Brain Signals Directly Into Speech
https://science.slashdot.org/s... [slashdot.org]
We even have the field of "neuro marketing" now, based on the idea that consumers might believe and say they like feature X, but their brain signals say otherwise.
https://duckduckgo.com/? [duckduckgo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I can already imagine this technology in the hands of the self-righteous that are already highly tuned to sense "dogwhistles" and "microaggressions", and whose greatest source of pleasure is the life ruination for anyone they disagree with.
We grew accustomed to being spied on, and then having our personal dossiers traded by corporations, and then getting digitally strip searched just to board an intra state flight. Now hundreds of millions of people every day get censored in real time depending on wha
The real interesting is non-biological brains (Score:2)
What about the rights of neurodivergents? (Score:3)
Of course they would, completely overlooking the fact that the a vast majority of neurodivergent persons are tormented every day to try to "fit in" because we live in an ableist normnormative society that views disability at best as being a medical problem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
According to the summary, the proposal is for ALL people to have the following rights:
So... Yes.
If you mean protection from personal torment because people overlook your needs and struggles... That's not addressed for *anyone* by the proposal in this article.
Brave New World (Score:2)
but wait (Score:2)
how will fox news, OAN, and Newsmax possibly stay in business?
Commercials (Score:2)
Catcher in the Rye (Score:2)
So, in the future, when my cranial hardware gets cracked by Ukrainian thugs I'll spend my days pumping and not dumping penny stocks, liking anti-vax comments on facebook and buying every copy of "Catcher in the Rye" I can find. I think someone has already released this tech....
SD
Why stop there? (Score:2)
We all know "free to play" games uses psychological tactics to hook young kids on games. They even get the same response as doing drugs on the brain scans. Why not ban those tactics?
We also know casinos not only use the same tactics to keep people hooked on the slot machines, but they also change the environment by removing clocks, changing lighting and using special carpet patterns to keep you captive. Why not ban those as well?
Let's not stop there. We know the governments themselves uses manipulation, lik