Also after the new book from Nina Farahany (Law and Philosophy at Duke Uni), The Battle for Your Brain: defending the right to think freely in the age of neurot

Also after the new book from Nina Farahany (Law and Philosophy at Duke Uni), The Battle for Your Brain: defending the right to think freely in the age of neurotechnology > Last June, when the US Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade, women started deleting period-tracking apps from their phones[: ...] the realisation that we have entered the age of Orwellian electronics? > [Farahany: ]«Algorithms are getting better at translating brain activity into what we are feeling, seeing, imagining or thinking» > [Chatham House: ]risks include «the erosion of individual freedoms through ubiquitous surveillance; and the replacement of independent thought and judgement with automated control» Incredibile dictu: > Yet the right to freedom of thought includes the right to keep our thoughts private, and not be penalised for them ...incredible that we have to make basics of this level explicit. But I am afraid this is the sign of the times - and the past few years frankly highlighted basic faults in the common acquisition of foundational ideas. > A number of scientists are pushing for “neuro-rights”. The neurobiologist Rafael Yuste is arguing for a right to mental privacy, «so that the content of our mental activity is not decoded without our consent». Chile recently became the first country in the world to insert neuro-rights into its constitution, and will soon legislate to regulate technologies which record or alter brain activity. Given its recent memories of authoritarianism, Santiago may be more alive to the risks than Washington or London