As a representative of new quality productive forces, brain–computer interface (BCI) technology raises high expectations but also acute concerns about brain‑privacy protection. Brain privacy has both personal and social attributes; its protection therefore implicates individual interests and technological development. We argue that privacy rights under the empowerment model cannot fully protect brain privacy. Even creating a new brain‑privacy right would invite weak protection and insufficient incentives for brain‑data supply. By contrast, a behavioral‑regulation model better reflects the multi‑interest, non‑exclusive nature of brain privacy and balances risk control with innovation. We propose: (a) applying the principles of lawfulness, legitimacy, necessity and good‑faith to all brain‑privacy processing; (b) establishing a compliance filing‑review mechanism for BCI privacy policies; and (c) implementing a “pre-market regulatory sandbox + post‑market tracking” regime to manage product risks. Together, these measures can properly establish a behavioral‑regulation model for brain‑privacy protection.
Yang et al. (Wed,) studied this question.