Brain signals recorded by a gaming headset or a wellness gadget could one day be used as evidence against you in court, according to a new United Nations report that warns neurotechnology is advancing faster than the laws meant to protect human rights. Presenting the Secretary-General’s report to the General Assembly on Thursday, senior human rights official Claudia Fuentes Julio said the technology could threaten privacy, freedom of thought and the right to a fair trial, particularly for marginalised people.
The report examines the growing use of neurotechnology in justice systems and the risks arising from its convergence with artificial intelligence. Once confined to clinical or research settings, where it was used for medical diagnosis or treatment, neurotechnology is now entering consumer markets, workplaces, schools, public services, law enforcement and justice systems.
How neurotechnology puts brain data at risk
The new tech gathers neural data, defined as qualitative and quantitative data about the structure, activity and function of the nervous system. Wearable electroencephalography devices, marketed for wellness, gaming and productivity, are now increasingly available, and large volumes of neural data are being collected by technology companies. As a result, neural data captured through these devices could be accessed by governments or introduced as evidence in legal proceedings without adequate recognition of its highly sensitive nature, the report warns. The commercialisation of brain-sensing devices is accelerating: headsets that once cost thousands of dollars and required laboratory calibration are now sold directly to consumers for meditation, focus training and gaming, often with companion apps that store recordings in the cloud. Privacy policies for such products vary widely, and few users understand what happens to the electrical patterns their brains produce.
“Neurotechnology accesses, measures and analyses brain signals,” the UN chief wrote in the report. “If these signals are treated as direct indicators of thoughts, intentions or truthfulness, the use of neural data points could undermine how we understand and value each of us as human beings.”
Why neurotechnology needs new legal safeguards
The report calls for prohibiting coercive and abusive applications of neurotechnology and establishing stronger legal and ethical safeguards. Its recommendations include regulations consistent with international law, recognising thoughts as “highly sensitive personal data” and requiring explicit consent for the use of neurotechnology in criminal justice settings. The report also addresses the convergence of brain-sensing technology with artificial intelligence: machine-learning models can already decode simple patterns from neural signals, and combining the two fields could enable inferences about a person’s mental state that the person never chose to disclose. Consent frameworks designed for medical treatment, it argues, were never built for continuous monitoring by employers or schools. Rights activists say the document broadens the traditional understanding of freedom of thought, which has largely focused on freedom of expression, to include keeping one’s innermost ideas private.
“This gives states an opportunity to establish clear rules to regulate the use of neurotechnology, based on human rights, before they become routine in investigations, courts and prisons,” said Jeremy Laurence, a spokesman for the UN Human Rights Office.
The promise and peril of advancing neurotechnology
The report acknowledges that the technology holds significant promise, particularly for medical and assistive applications, from restoring movement to treating neurological disorders. But it warns of risks to dignity, privacy, freedom of thought, fair trial rights, liberty and protection from ill-treatment, especially for marginalised groups.
Scenarios that sound like science fiction, such as police accessing data in suspects’ brains to extract information or to predict future offending, are becoming technically imaginable, officials say. The Secretary-General warned earlier this month that governments’ ability to access and manipulate people’s brains could one day pose a threat to fundamental human rights. Officials stressed that the goal is not to halt research: medical applications, from prosthetics controlled by thought to treatments for depression and epilepsy, remain among the most promising frontiers in medicine. The report’s message is that the same tools that can restore function can also be turned toward surveillance and coercion, and that the rules should be written now, while deployment is still limited, rather than after harm has occurred. The report is meant as an important step towards raising global awareness and helping countries develop laws to prevent the abuse of such technology before it becomes embedded in everyday life.