The United Nations Has Sounded the Alarm on Mind-Reading Tech

In this piece for the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), author Susie Alegre explores the growing use of neurotechnology in the justice system and the threats it poses to human rights, particularly freedom of thought. Drawing parallels with Philip K. Dick’s dystopian short story “The Hood Maker,” Alegre warns that technologies capable of measuring and analysing brain activity are no longer science fiction. Such tools can generate inferences about a person’s thoughts or experiences that may be used against them, even when those conclusions do not accurately reflect what the person actually knows or believes.

Alegre highlights the case of Aditi Sharma in India, who was convicted of murder in 2008 following a brain electrical oscillation signature profiling (BEOS) test that purported to indicate her direct knowledge of the crime. She was subsequently released on bail pending appeal amid concerns about the reliability of forensic evidence. In 2010, India’s Supreme Court ruled against the use of such techniques in criminal trials, citing constitutional concerns. Courts in several jurisdictions have since grappled with the implications of neurotechnology for privacy, dignity, personal liberty, the presumption of innocence, and the right against self-incrimination.

A recent report by the UN Secretary-General on neurotechnology in the administration of justice emphasizes the importance of protecting the fundamental right to freedom of thought. Unlike rights such as privacy and freedom of expression, which may be subject to certain lawful restrictions, freedom of thought is absolute under international human rights law. However, despite its fundamental importance, this right remains underdeveloped in legal interpretation, leaving significant uncertainty about how it should protect individuals against technologies that access, analyse, or influence mental processes.

Alegre argues that the international community must urgently clarify the legal boundaries governing neurotechnology in judicial proceedings. She calls for the UN Human Rights Committee to issue a new General Comment on freedom of thought in the context of technology, building on its last guidance from 1993. Such guidance could establish clear limits on the collection and use of brain data, identify unacceptable applications, and distinguish legitimate technological uses from manipulative practices. Ultimately, legal safeguards must evolve before neurotechnology advances beyond the law’s ability to protect the integrity and freedom of the human mind…

CONTINUE READING…