To paraphrase Winograd (1992), we bring to our communities a tacit comprehension of right and wrong that makes social responsibility an intrinsic part of our culture. Our ethics are the moral principles we use to assert social responsibility and to perpetuate safe and just societies. Moreover, the introduction of new technologies can have a profound effect on our ethical principles. The emergence of very large databases, and the associated automated data analysis tools, present yet another set of ethical challenges to consider. Socio-ethical issues have been identified as pertinent to data mining and there is a growing concern regarding the (ab)use of sensitive information (Clarke, 1999; Clifton et al., 2002; Clifton and Estivill-Castro, 2002; Gehrke, 2002). Estivill-Castro et al., discuss surveys regarding public opinion on personal privacy that show a raised level of concern about the use of private information (Estivill-Castro et al., 1999). There is some justification for this concern; a 2001 survey in InfoWeek found that over 20% of companies store customer data with information about medical profile and/or customer demographics with salary and credit information, and over 15% store information about customers’ legal histories.

Privacy is important because it supports freedom, dignity, autonomy, justice, and democracy, and therefore it is important that privacy is studied in ontologically robust ways. A form of privacy is implemented in the right to be forgotten, which is a human right established by the European Court of Justice. Blockchain and Holochain are examples of recently emerged technologies that were shaped by, and are now shaping of, social contexts in which economic transactions may occur. The right to be forgotten represents a compliance challenge for public and private implementations of blockchain technology. This paper describes a few of these challenges.

Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) are emerging technologies that acquire and translate neural data, applying that data to the control of other systems. Privacy has been identified as an ethical issue possibly arising from the use of BCIs. The research reported in this paper seeks to identify whether BCIs change privacy and if so, how and why. Interim findings are presented before outlining future research opportunities.

No abstract

Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) interpret neural activity, applying it to the control of external devices. As BCIs approach market viability, ethical implications come under consideration. This paper identifies potential privacy disruptions. BCI literature is reviewed in order to identify a BCI typology likely to support a privacy analysis. The typology describes the active, reactive, passive and hybrid types of BCI and, where possible, includes examples that are further classified as existing, prospective or speculative. A review of privacy theory supports an analysis that juxtaposes privacy theory and BCI technologies. The analysis finds that while all four types of BCI have potential for disrupting privacy, disruptions are more likely to arise from the use of reactive, passive and hybrid BCIs. Limitations and directions for future research close the paper.