NuroCall to action

Call to action video
 

Nuromovement calls for neural data to have its own category, and an independent department. To allow and support ethical innovation surrounding neurotechnology. As harsh as this language is its true; harvest now, use now, and decode later methods are in play for our greatest commodity. The data we give way now will in 25 years’ time will be decoded to a much higher degree, and those that are vulnerable to exploitations, such as those that do not understand the technology, or those who are neurodivergent, are at risk. The risks come from data chains; 3rd party data washing. These devices collect everything and we freely give away ALL of their brain activity to "fix" or to gain insight to holistic understanding. When not a medical device such as those devices being created by; Meta, Snap chat, Nextsense (tone), MYNDPLAY and many others the data is classed the same as you phone number.
 

From the UK Gov horizon council chrome-Neurotechnology Taxonomy
 

Latest from the UK GOV: Human rights UK view

When it comes to privacy, we seem to have lost our minds. We give things away for the simplest reasons, but sometimes for reasons that are beyond us such as, medical conditions, or neurodiversity, or we just didn't understand. 

The UK is facing the clock watching it tick by as the public's discourse slips deeper and deeper into the 3rd party data trails. 

Wearables are here. 

Wearables are underregulated. 

Wearables are the future that could support you losing your past.

It may seem like harsh language but harvest now, use now, and decode later is how your data is and will be monetized. The Holy grail of data is your brain data as stated by Mark Zuckerberg. These companies use our data for positive and negative with Holy intention, but their model to make money is to use your data, we have seen mistakes in the past and should we not protect our most precious commodities from exploitation, now and in the future or at least be properly informed so you may make an informed decisions on BRAIN data that under current legislation is being categorized the same as your telephone number.

The protocell of using brain data, captured by small devices such as headbands, wrist bands, VR headsets, VR glasses, ear buds is new to masses. It's no longer a million-pound machine, that can only capture this information yet, the same information captured by said machine is classed as special category information under the GDPR, which does not make sense. 

Utilised for such reasons as gaming, safety, mental health conditions, brain to brain communication neurotechnology has an array of applications that will support people. However, we need laws, and regulation surrounding this information. 

Some are claiming it's just "adding a new vision!", or just one more sensor to look at yourself differently, this is great, but by simply changing the terms and conditions wording, privacy policy's, and advertisement which can be seen in the horizon Taxonomy the same data moves from greater oversight and regulation to less of oversight and regulation, just by simply changing the wording!

This technology will change everything, however this time we are letting lose a method that can literally allow you to lose your mind. 

The Nuromovement calls for brain data to have its own special category within the GDPR, and be classed as a special category regardless of use, and not personal information, (same as your phone number). 

Neural data does not currently have its own category, yet wearables collecting data for non-medical purposes is classed as personal information under the current regulations, leaving significant gaps in safety. 

The MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) who oversee the regulation understands along with the Horizon council, that there are issues surrounding neural data and its risks to security. 

The current framework has oversight from many departments who may not be equipped or adapted to understand the risks posed by a technology that captures all of a person’s data which forgoes purpose limitation protocols. They rest waiting for the commissioner who seeks guidance from the public. 

The law surrounding transparency and responsibilities for companies who use neural data is clear, consequently when it comes to current legislation, it is not strong enough.

Giving consent should be that to which a child or average person is able to understand, which it is in some cases, but to many the semantics or the wording the simple language used is a detriment especially, to those that do not understand the contracts.
 

Ironically, how does a child consent to neural data capture? In the UK, the age of consent is 13. Some of those that face having this technology are not old enough to wear it, let alone understand the risks posed by it. The parents themselves do not understand the risks and unintentionally put their children's data in the hands of 3rd parties who do not see the child as a child conducting actions impersonally or for innovation.

Characters within the sector and those who use and share the data know the easy work arounds surrounding explicit consent. Whereas those that do not, the data owners, (the people, the children) are left blind, thinking their data is protected, which it is, to the same extent as your telephone number. 

When it comes to informed consent the data owner should be able to exercise their legal rights surrounding; understanding when a device or software or entity that uses neural data, has used neural data, sold neural data, swapped neural data, bought neural data, and give explicit intention of use which is consistently updated. When any of the aforementioned changes it should be recorded, that it has. It should be recorded when an entity uses neural data and what for. How the entity intends to use this information, and whether they intend to decode it at a later date or share it, or sell this information. The source data owner should be able to identify if any of these actions has or will happen, and exercises their legal rights as per the GDPR. It should be tagged, and the owner paid royalties for use. 

Stakeholders have argued that the distinction between medical and non-medical use cases is often merely linguistic and that manufacturers have some leeway to frame the intended purpose of a device so as to avoid medical device regulations. This can be particularly concerning given that there is no regulator or government department that explicitly oversees the regulation of non-medical use cases. As a result, under-regulation in non-medical use cases could lead to issues around safety (e.g. involving modulation of brain function), security, privacy, misleading claims and accessibility. 

A Calls for action:

A call for neural data to have its own category, and an independent department. To allow and support ethical innovation surrounding neurotechnology.

Harvest (collect) now, use (work) now, and decode (reveal) later methods of those that are vulnerable are in play and we need laws, guidance and conversation to allow only those people, business, and originations we choose to have access to brain data have access to it. This must start with a conversation, the publics views, then the asking Government to create laws and regulations that protect as all.