Seite - 219 - in Cyborg Mind - What Brain–Computer and Mind–Cyberspace Interfaces Mean for Cyberneuroethics

Neuronal Interfaces and Policy • 219 Such a right to be protected from unauthorised interventions in the brain seeks to address the (already mentioned) risks presented in the Japanese ani- mated science-fiction series Ghost in the Shell. In this, computer technology is so advanced that many members of the public have enhanced cyberbrains, allowing their biological brains to interface with various networks. But this high level of inter-connectedness also makes the brain vulnerable to attacks from highly skilled hackers, including those who will hack a person to com- pletely control their will, change their memory and deliberately distort their subjective reality and experience. This means that it may be possible for future WiFi neuronal interfaces to be used by a hacker, or even a certain gov- ernment, to remotely influence the brains of other persons or their devices in order to seek to subconsciously or even consciously control them or change their way of thinking.10 In this regard, Ienca and the Dutch philosopher and psychologist, Pim Haselager, defined the concept of ‘malicious brain-hacking’ as neurocriminal activities that directly affect neural computation in the users of neurodevices in a similar manner to the way in which computers may be hacked in com- puter crime.11 Accordingly, it is not only the users’ mental privacy and the protection of their brain information that are at risk, but also their physical and mental integrity. 12 More specifically, Zoltan Istvan explains: To me, the biggest need in the future will be cyber security coders, who will create ways to protect people that are basically interfacing directly with the web with their mind. Ultimately, I think we’ll have a police force that can care- fully and quickly stop cyber crime, including that in our minds. That will be necessary in order for humanity to upload its thoughts to the machine world and feel safe  – otherwise, we’ll never do it.13 On this account, Article 3 of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights may be relevant, since this recognises that ‘everyone has the right to respect for his or her physical and mental integrity.’ Consequently, Ienca and Andorno indicate that for an action to qualify as a threat to mental integrity, it must: (i) involve the direct access to, and manipulation of, neural signalling; (ii) be unauthorised  – in other words, it must occur in absence of the informed consent of the signal generator; (iii) result in physical and/or psychological harm.14 However, it has been proposed that the right to mental integrity could legally be transgressed in some very specific circumstances. For instance, if moral enhancements can be shown to be safe and effective, then an argument could be made for the compulsory, controlled and temporary violation of this right to mental integrity for some dangerous individuals.15 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.