Seite - 190 - in Cyborg Mind - What Brain–Computer and Mind–Cyberspace Interfaces Mean for Cyberneuroethics

190 • Cyborg Mind goes way beyond an individual mind.’414 Greenfield also predicts that future persons may be ‘most at home networked into the large, passive collective and therefore do not resent being scrutinized by others. It’s more as though they were part of you in any case  – a kind of collective self’.415 Even at present, in an age where privacy is maybe seen as less important than before, such as with the use of networking sites, it is difficult to predict what the future will hold. Moreover, while a person may accept to be on a networking site, the consequences of such a free decision may not always be well understood. In addition, O’Brolchain and Gordijn suggest that some developments may be on their way, in that: ‘The popularity of social network- ing sites such as Facebook might provide a clue as to how . . . [neuronal inter- faces] may be used in the future. Rather than simply sharing photos, videos, and comments, people may in the future choose to share, via . . . [neuronal interface] connections, emotional states and experiences directly.’416 Interestingly, research indicates that younger people are usually less con- cerned with their privacy than older persons and are more willing to share information online.417 Why this is the case remains to be examined, but some may be less aware of the risks involved. For example, if young persons pro- vide information about themselves on the Internet, it is possible that when they grow up and seek employment, this information could become available to others, such as prospective employers. Social media sites may also combine work and social identities within the same online space, leading to informa- tion being transferred from one sphere to another.418 The American author Dave Eggers discusses some of the possible future challenges to privacy in his 2013 novel The Circle.419 A society is repre- sented in which anyone who is not linked to the cybernetwork web is con- sidered to be an outcast and no longer part of the embrace of humanity. Privacy and individuality are seen as something negative  – as something to be suppressed  – and as inappropriate. The only hope of acceptance is to belong to this Circle of communion and unity, while anyone who rejects the technology is ostracised: ‘You reject the groups, the people, the listeners out there who want to connect, to empathize and embrace, and disaster is immi- nent.’420 What matters is to be accepted into the mass of the millions  – to do like them, to be supported by them, to submit to them, to be subsumed by them, to be seen by them and to be known by them. The aim of the Circle is ‘Completion’, when everybody knows everything about everybody else and when privacy ceases to exist. The open Circle is then closed. Circle membership would subsequently become mandatory  – where all life is channelled through the network. Everything will be permanently recorded, tracked, logged and analysed. Interestingly, this Circle also reflects to some extent the Panopticon, which was proposed by the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748–47). This This open access edition has been made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license thanks to the support of Knowledge Unlatched. Not for resale.