When technology can read minds, how will we protect our privacy?

In the months following
the 2009 presidential election in Iran,

protests erupted across the country.

The Iranian government
violently suppressed

what came to be known
as the Iranian Green Moevement.

Even blocking mobile signals

to cut off communication
between the protesters.

My parents, who emigrated
to the United States in the late 1960s,

spend substantial time there,

where all of my large,
extended family live.

When I would call my family in Tehran

during some of the most violent
crackdowns of the protest,

none of them dared discuss
with me what was happening.

They or I knew to quickly steer
the conversation to other topics.

All of us understood what
the consequences could be

of a perceived dissident action.

But I still wish I could have known
what they were thinking

or what they were feeling.

What if I could have?

Or more frighteningly,

what if the Iranian
government could have?

Would they have arrested them
based on what their brains revealed?

That day may be closer than you think.

With our growing capabilities
in neuroscience, artificial intelligence

and machine learning,

we may soon know a lot more

of what's happening
in the human brain.

As a bioethicist, a lawyer,
a philosopher

and an Iranian-American,

I'm deeply concerned about what
this means for our freedoms

and what kinds of protections we need.

I believe we need
a right to cognitive liberty

as a human right
that needs to be protected.

If not, our freedom of thought,

access and control over our own brains

and our mental privacy will be threatened.

Consider this.

The average person thinks
thousands of thoughts each day.

As a thought takes form,

like a math calculation or a number,

a word,

neurons are interacting in the brain,

creating [a] miniscule
electrical discharge.

When you have a dominant
mental state like relaxation,

hundreds and thousands of neurons
are firing in the brain,

creating concurrent electrical discharges
in characteristic patterns

that can measured with
electroencephalography,

or EEG.

In fact, that's what
you're seeing right now.

You're seeing my brain activity
that was recorded in real time

with a simple device
that was worn on my head.

What you're seeing is my brain activity
when I was relaxed and curious.

To share this information with you,

I wore one of the early
consumer-based EEG devices

like this one,

which recorded the electrical
activity in my brain in real time.

It's not unlike the fitness trackers
that some of you may be wearing

to measure your heart rate
or the steps that you've taken

or even your sleep activity.

It's hardly the most sophisticated
neuroimaging technique on the market.

But it's already the most portable

and the most likely to impact
our everyday lives.

This is extraordinary.

Through a simple, wearable device,

we can literally see
inside the human brain

and learn aspects of our mental landscape

without ever uttering a word.

While we can't reliably decode
complex thoughts just yet,

we can already gage a person's mood,

and with the help
of artificial intelligence,

we can even decode
some single-digit numbers

or shapes or simple words
that a person is thinking

or hearing, or seeing.

Despite some inherent limitations in EEG,

I think it's safe to say that with
our advances in technology,

more and more of what's happening
in the human brain

can and will be decoded over time.

Already, using one of these devices,
an epileptic can know

they're going to have an epileptic
seizure before it happens.

A paraplegic can type on a computer
with their thoughts alone.

A US-based company has developed
a technology to embed these censors

into the headrest of automobilies

so they can track driver concentration,

distraction

and cognitive load while driving.

Nissan, insurance companies
and AAA have all taken note.

You could even watch this
choose-your-own-adventure movie,

"The Moment,"

which, with an EEG headset,

changes the movie based
on your brain-based reactions,

giving you a different ending
every time your attention wanes.

This may all sound great,

and as a bioethicist,

I am a huge proponent of empowering people

to take charge of their own
health and wellbeing

by giving them access
to information about themselves,

including this incredible,
new, brain-decoding technology.

But I worry.

I worry that we will voluntarily
or involuntarily give up

our last bastion of freedom,

our mental privacy.

That we will trade our brain activity

for rebates or discounts on insurance,

or free access to social
media accounts ...

or even to keep our jobs.

In fact, in China,

the train drivers on
the Beijing-Shanghai high-speed rail,

the busiest of its kind in the world,

are required to wear EEG devices

to monitor their brain
activity while driving.

According to some news sources,

in government-run factories in China,

the workers are required to wear
EEG censors to monitor their productivity

and their emotional state at work.

Workers are even sent home

if their brains show less-than-stellar
concentration on their jobs,

or emotional agitation.

It's not going to happen tomorrow,

but we're headed to a world
of brain transparency.

And I don't think people understand
that that could change everything.

Everything from our definitions
of data privacy to our laws,

to our ideas about freedom.

In fact, in my lab at Duke University,

we recently conducted a nationwide study

in the United States

to see if people appreciated

the sensitivity of
their brain information.

We asked people to rate
their perceived sensitivity

of 33 different kinds of information,

from their social security numbers

to the content of their
phone conversations,

their relationship history,

their emotions, their anxiety,

the mental images in their mind

and the thoughts in their mind.

Shockingly, people rated their social
security number as far more sensitive

than any other kind of information,

including their brain data.

I think this is because
people don't yet understand

or believe the implications
of this new brain-decoding technology.

After all, if we can know the inner
workings of the human brain,

our social security numbers
are the least of our worries.

(Laughter)

Think about it.

In a world of total brain transparency,

who would dare have
a politically dissident thought?

Or a creative one?

I worry that people will self-censor

in fear of being ostracized by society,

or that people will lose their jobs
because of their waning attention

or emotional instability,

or because they're contemplating
collective action against their employers.

That coming out
will no longer be an option

because people's brains will long ago
have revealed their sexual orientation,

their political ideaology,

or their religious preferences,

well before they were ready
to conciously share that information

with other people.

I worry about the ability of our laws
to keep up with technological change.

Take the First Amendment
of the US Constitution,

which protects freedom of speech.

Does it also protect freedom of thought?

And if so, does that mean that we're free
to alter our thoughts however we want?

Or can the government or society tell us
what we can do with our own brains?

Can the NSA spy on our brains
using these new mobile devices?

Can the companies that collect
the brain data through their applications

sell this information to third parties?

Right now, no laws prevent
them from doing so.

It could be even more problematic

in countries that don't share
the same freedoms

enjoyed by people in the United States.

What would've happened during
the Iranian Green Movement

if the government had been
monitoring my family's brain activity,

and had believed them to be
sympathetic to the protesters?

Is it so far-fetched to imagine a society

in which people are arrested
based on their thoughts

of committing a crime?

LIke in the science-fiction, dystopian
society in "Minority Report."

Already, in the United States,

in Indiana,

an 18-year-old was charged
with attempting to intimidate his school

by posting a video of himself
shooting people in the hallways ...

except the people were zombies

and the video was of him playing
and augmented-reality video game,

all interpreted to be a mental projection
of his subjective intent.

This is exactly why our brains
need special protection.

If our brains are just as subject
to data tracking and aggregation

as our financial records and transactions,

if you brains can be hacked
and tracked like our online activities,

our mobile phones and applications,

then we're on the brink of a dangerous
threat to our collective humanity.

Before you panic,

I believe that there are solutions
to these concerns,

but we have to start by focusing
on the right things.

When it comes to privacy
protections in general,

I think we're fighting a losing battle

by trying to restrict
the flow of information.

Instead, we should be focusing
on securing rights and remedies

against the misuse of our information.

If people had the right to decide
how their information was shared,

and more importantly,

have legal redress,

if their information
was misused against them,

say to discriminate against them
in an employment setting

or in health care and education,

this would go a long way to build trust.

In fact, in some instances,

we want to be sharing more
of our personal information.

Studying aggregated information
can tell us so much

about our health and our wellbeing,

but to be able to safely
share our information,

we need special protections
for mental privacy.

This is why we need
a right to cognitive liberty.

This right would secure for us
our freedom of thought and rumination,

our freedom of self-determination

and it would insure that we have
the right to consent to or refuse

access and alteration
of our brains by others.

This right could be recognized

as part of the universal
declaration of human rights,

which has established mechanisms

for the enforcement of these
kinds of social rights.

During the Iranian Green Movement,

the protesters used the internet
and good old-fashioned word of mouth

to coordinate their marches.

And some of the most oppressive
restrictions in Iran

were lifted as a result.

But what if the Iranian government
had used brain surveillance

to detect and prevent the protest?

Would the world have ever heard
the protester's cries?

The time has come for us to call
for a cognitive liberty revolution.

To make sure that we responsibly
advance technology

that can enable us to embrace the future

while fiercely protecting all of us

from any person, company or government

that attempts to unlawfully access
or alter our innermost lives.

Thank you.

(Applause)