the shock of the New Rights
By Monica Moran 10/9/2026
Being human often involves the predisposition that human beings have rights. And in most places they do. Even in the most extremist ideologies, human beings have at least some rights. But according to neurorights groups, neurotechnology poses a threat to the most basic human rights on an unprecedented scale. This made me think of artist Jenny Holzer’s historical work, Abuse of power comes as no surprise.
What exactly are neurorights? And why do we need them? Perhaps the answer is in the Holzer truism. Neurorights are said to be a relatively new legal framework that establishes international human rights with a focus on the brain. But also takes into account the mind; and necessary, (according to neurorights groups) due to rapid advancements in neurotechnology. The need for this emerging set of human rights was derived from concerns about “access to the brian by a third party” for the purposes of neurotechnological research, such as a neural implant or brain-computer interface (BCI) and artificial intelligence; or unauthorized, non-invasive consumer products such as the Muse headband that uses EEG sensors.
However, establishing brain data or the idea space as a legal matter can create a series of new problems that accommodate these new human rights. And legal scholars have raised concerns about an entirely new category of personhood that excludes the brain within a legally defined and separate terminology. As well as some very serious doubts about the technology's actual capabilities. Assuming that the lack of coverage on the subject is due to reporters who aren't eager to align themselves with the technology and its fantastical claims. After all, don’t they have actors at Marvel for that type of content? However, according to some extremely prominent leaders in research and academia, the technology as well as the threat to human rights, is real.
A brief history of the advocacy which began in 2017 when the neurotechnology threat was first applied to policy. When broken down into the most critical of concerns; the five leading neurorights are, privacy. Brain data can be tracked and decoded and "read" according to promotions and advertising for commercial and consumer wearables such as the Muse EEG. The second is identity, according to neuropsychologists one's brain activity can be altered and disrupted resulting in cognitive distortions and fragmented sense of self. Free will, surprisingly, third on the list is one's ability to act on one's own behalf. With regard to BCI technology that specifically alters the decision making process neurologically. Fair access; fair access is the "if" of the five, meaning it is among the list of future concerns. Such as enhanced mental augmentation technologies and ensures that these advancements are available to everyone. And protection, with regard to neurotech it is specific to protection from bias. Meaning that AI can measure objects and outcomes interpretively leading to discrimination especially with regard to medical applications.
By 2026 the policy applications had a legal reality in several global territories (including within the U.S.). Among them are Chile. In 2021, Chile became the first nation to pass a constitutional amendment, Law 21.383. Colorado became the first U.S. state to pass a neural data law under the Colorado Privacy Act in August 2024. California signed in September 2024. Connecticut & Montana in 2025, both states passed their privacy acts. The UNESCO Global Standard was added in November 2025. And the U.S. MIND Act proposal was introduced in September 2025 at the U.S. congressional level, entitled the Management of Individuals’ Neural Data. Canada's national precedent in February 2026.
Much of the early advocacy of the U.S. BRAIN Initiative, was by Dr. Rafael Yuste who is a neurobiologist who had gained notoriety through his early research on the subject. He is also a professor at Columbia University and a leader in the topic of neurorights. Dr. Yuste’s early research used a method referred to as optogenetics and his study known as “the Mouse Puppet Experiment”, 2019 [1] was published in Science. By using mice, he was able to make them responsive to light by infecting them with a virus and creating a genetic change to the neurons that signal brain cells. He then used a laser to activate specific neurons in the visual cortex of the subject's brain (in this case, the mice).[2]
Much of the legal speculation involving neurorights is said to fall under the HIPAA category and there are other possibilities of classifying non-invasive neurotechnologies as medical devices. But another one of the predominant features of the new set of rights is whether or not to categorize neurodata as “sensitive data”.
The new laws pertain primarily to reclassified consumer products such as EEGs. However, much of the legal precedents will be dependent on the provability or admissibility of brain data obtained by the technology according to the fragmented oversight, split between the U.S. privacy regulators, the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) and international courts. Features such as brain fingerprinting and memory extraction are among a few examples of disputed terrain. For example, in the case of memory extraction, the science behind the technology cannot read or "extract" specific memories or events or personal trauma (like a video playback from a movie) by using an EEG. Neuroscientists do recognize types of emotional retrieval from broad electrical biomarkers. Susumu Tonegawa, the Picower Professor of Biology and Neuroscience, director of the RIKEN-MIT Center for Neural Circuit Genetics at MIT’s Picower Institute for Learning and Memory, "In the future, one may be able to develop methods that help people to remember positive memories more strongly than negative ones." In cases of severe depression they are recognized by neurologists as basic brain states rather than actual brain data. With this in mind, if a legal filing sought to extract proof or traumatic memories to support a diagnosis, it would be inadmissible in court under the current legal framework. But with advancements in neurodata, the goal is to successfully identify biomarkers for biological tests and diagnoses as well as managing symptoms and treatment responses.[3]
Moving forward, in order to obtain admissibility, there would be testing requirements. Particularly within the context of the MIND Act which seeks to consolidate the laws across state agencies such as the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) rather than the FDA (Food and Drug Administration). One possible reason for this is that subjects could fall more ethically under the human category. This alone is a classic human rights concern however, through the FTC lens, it has redefined the usability and admissibility of the data. Neurodata and neurological biomarkers are tested through brain imaging, activity tracking and digital tools. How effectively testing proves positive will rely on outcomes that are suitable for proof within a legal trial (not necessarily a clinical trial). But they are viewed as the same with regard to neurorights and brain data; as human rights according to the core philosophy of the neurorights movement.
The FDA oversees medical applications of invasive technologies however, the game changer in the US MIND act is giving the FTC jurisdiction within the neuraltechnology sector to conduct a study on governance of neural data.The difference in jurisdiction is that consumer wearables expand outside clinical settings passing the ball to the FTC to regulate privacy concerns. Moreover, this corporate monetization of neural data is a leading consideration of neurorights groups as well.[4]
Types of neurotechnology
EEGs are defined as read-out systems such as neuroimaging. But what about the technology behind write-in systems? Defined as neuro stimulation? Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) that involves direct electromagnetic currents to the brain. They are primarily used to treat conditions like Parkinson's but do alter neuronal activity. It's also used to treat depression and OCD when mediations are perceived as ineffective. But tDSC has been known to lead to changes in emotional behavior as well as responses. Neurorights advocates see these write-ins as a disruptive to the sense of self.[5]
In fact Dr. Yuste coauthored a report with the United Nations in 2023, International Human Rights Protection Gaps in the Age of Neurotechnology. "The report’s key findings ultimately reveal that existing international human rights law is ill-prepared to address the human rights implications of neurotechnology". Among their rankings of protected rights, identity was the worst.[6]
One of the intersections of identity within the neurorights framework is implicated in another legal doctrine, the EU AI Act: (European Union AI Act) which places AI systems within a high risk category if they process biological or neural data. This act enforces extreme human oversight. Marcus Weldon wrote, "But this is one area where AI is already impacting medical practice with the increasingly widespread use of ‘ambient scribes’ during doctors' patient visits. In short, an ambient scribe is the in-person equivalent of ‘meeting transcription’ of the kind of video calls that became prevalent during the COVID-19 pandemic." According to Weldon, who is the president of Bell Labs and a contributing editor for AI at Newsweek. Weldon's article,The Re-humanization and Democratization of Health Care, is a quick departure from identity and a segue into neuroright’s human concerns.[7]
Neuroengineering also has a cohort of high profile, A-listers. Maitreyee Wairagkar is a neuroengineer who has worked as a BCI developer at several major corporate and academic sites including Neuralink. Her projections include the next five years where we will see commercialization of these neurotechnologies and subsequently deploy them at scale. She talked to the BBC this year about her early neuroengineering research being done only on non-human primates and suggested that not being able to conduct speech studies was the biggest obstacle to having non-human subjects.[8]
Ethical Controversies
Criticism from legal scholars such as Jan Christoph Bublitz, who is a researcher at the University of Hamburg who is an expert in criminal and human rights law. His research includes BCI and its ethical, legal and social implications and the philosophy of law. He has been part of numerous intervention projects concerning memory enhancement and modification techniques. In his well known coauthorship, the popular phrase, a right to forget was part of the book's title. And the controversy over recovered memories are popular philosophical and social concerns surrounding the debate regarding neuroexceptionalism or neuroessentialism. The framework for neurorights is arguably written for nonexistent neurotechnological capabilities.
Additionally, it’s been stated that it is a dilution of human rights laws already in place of which are sufficient to protect the human brain as a biological organ rather than requiring an extra or special legal protection.
Lastly, it has also been warned that large scale and ambiguous neuro-legislation could lead to an unpredictable framework that could damage actual or legitimate biomedical research and BCI. Therefore, does this abuse of power actually come as a surprise after all?
Bank of America Tower 115 West 42nd Street, New York. Photo by Monica Moran 7/10/2026.