Colorado on Wednesday expanded its privacy law, originally designed to protect biometric data such as fingerprints and facial images, to become the first state in the nation to also protect sensitive neural data. Ta.
This could prevent companies from hoarding brain activity data without residents being aware of the risks. The New York Times reported that the collection and sale of neurological data is increasing across the country. And after market analysis showed that investment in neurotechnology surged 60 percent worldwide from 2019 to 2020, reaching $30 billion in 2021, Big Tech companies could potentially The company is significantly ramping up its billion-dollar product development plans.
For example, in 2023 Meta demonstrated a wristband with a neural interface used to control smart glasses and announced an AI system that could be used to decipher minds. In January, Elon Musk announced that Neuralink had implanted the first brain chip in a human that can be used to control devices with thoughts. And just last month, Apple Insider said, “Apple is working on technology that turns Apple Vision Pro into a brainwave reader to improve mental health, assist with training and workouts, and assist with mindfulness.” Reported.
The Times reports that many technologies are collecting neural data for various purposes. The technology ranges from medical applications leading to breakthrough treatments to monitoring brain activity to aid meditation and interpreting brain signals to help users find better matches on dating apps. It has also expanded to include personal uses such as However, not all users understand exactly how their neural data is used.
Colorado law requires technology companies to obtain consent to collect neural data and to be more transparent about how that data is used. Furthermore, it must be easy to access, delete and correct the collected neural data, which may be used alone or in combination with other personal data, for “identification purposes”.
Companies must also provide a path for users to opt out of the sale of their neural data and the use of their data in targeted advertising. By “tracking people's brain activity in real time,” it could theoretically provide “a more reliable, more accurate, and personalized representation of advertising effectiveness,” allowing major tech companies to target advertising. Anderk reported that it could provide the ultimate tool.
Through neurotechnology, companies can “access records of users' brain activity, the electrical signals that underlie our thoughts, emotions, and intentions,” the NYT reported, but until now has been largely unregulated in the U.S. .
In Colorado, Democratic state Rep. Kathy Kipp introduced a bill to reform privacy laws after Colorado Medical Association Director Sean Pawzowski told her about a loophole in the state law.
Pauzawski then became Medical Director of the Neurorights Foundation, a charity dedicated to fostering ethical neurotechnology innovation while protecting human rights. The paper notes that advances in neurotechnology have enabled paralyzed patients to communicate via computers, widely considered to be a significant medical advance that relies heavily on technology that monitors brain waves.
Kipp's bill states that neural data “has the potential to reveal intimate information about individuals, including their health, mental state, emotions, and cognitive function,” but “outside of a medical setting” and “without regulation or data protection standards.” It warned that there was a possibility that the system would be operated in
“It's amazing what people can do with this technology,” Kipp told the NYT. “But we think we need to put some guardrails in place for people who don't want their thoughts read or their biological data used.”
Kipp told the NYT that his concern in passing Colorado's law was to ensure that no one's brain activity was monitored without their consent. Neurorights warned in a report that companies appear to be taking a lenient stance on sharing neural data.
Neurorights examined the privacy policies and user agreements of 30 consumer neurotechnology companies and found that all but one have access to neural data, and two-thirds of companies share neural data with third parties. It turned out that they were sharing. The two companies implied that they were selling the data. He restricts access to neural data to only one company, and four companies specifically state that they will not sell neural data.
Hurdles for federal brainwave data protection
Similar legislation is currently moving forward in California and has been introduced in Minnesota, but Colorado's bill passed unanimously but would block the country from adopting Colorado's privacy standards. There are also possible notable opponents.
There are also opposing opinions from academic researchers. Republican state Rep. Mark Bazley, a co-sponsor of the Colorado bill, said the law would allow private universities to “train students to use 'tools of the neurodiagnostic and research industry' purely for research.” He strongly opposed the law because it could limit his ability to do so. and for educational purposes,” the NYT reported.
Other opponents include tech companies. TechNet, which represents companies such as Apple, OpenAI, and Meta, called for changes to the Colorado bill in parallel. According to a NYT report, TechNet won the battle to update the bill text to include language that “focuses on regulating brain data used to identify individuals,” but that It said it had lost the battle to repeal the “very broad” language regarding “data generated by people and their bodies.” “Physical Functions” is now included in Colorado law.
The ACLU expresses concern that Colorado's current law would limit the law to only cover data that can be used to personally identify individuals, and instead limit the collection, retention, storage, and use of all biometric data. It recommends policies to limit In Colorado, this restriction means that companies that collect brainwave data not for a specific purpose, but for other purposes, such as deciphering someone's thoughts and emotions, are not subject to the law. means.
But while it may not be a perfect privacy law, it's still progress, Neurolights co-founder Jared Guenther told the NYT.
“Given that previously neurological data from consumers had no protection at all under Colorado privacy law, sensitive personal information is now afforded the same protection as biometric data. is a huge step forward,” Guenther said.
Neurorights hopes Colorado's law will prompt federal lawmakers to take similar action soon.
in post In X, Neurolights celebrated Colorado's passage of a law “declaring Colorado the first place in the world to legally define and protect neural data as sensitive data.”