Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract A pressing worry in the ongoing neurorights debate is the language used to advocate for newly proposed rights. This paper addresses this concern by first examining the partial and ambiguous associations between mind reading and neurotechnology, often cited by advocates in support of the right to mental privacy. Secondly, it addresses the conceptual foundations of mind reading, distinguishing between natural, digital, and neurotechnological forms. These distinctions serve to highlight the normative parallels in privacy vulnerabilities between neurotechnology and other mind-reading methods, with an emphasis on multimodal digital systems. I suggest that authentic safeguards for the mental realm demand an expansion of the protective ambit beyond brain-targeted devices to recognize the spectrum of mind-reading applications. Ultimately, this urges re-evaluation of the scope and justification of a right to mental privacy owing to the need for coherent frameworks in an increasingly interconnected digital landscape.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Cohen Marcus Lionel Brown (Mon,) studied this question.
Loading...
Neuroethics
University of Wollongong
Add This Paper to Your Research Feed
Any time a new paper drops it will be there.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: