User:QuixoticWindmills/sandbox

 Assigned Topic:  Neural privacy

There currently exists a page on neural security, which is a stub page with very little content. Neural security is also a subset of neural privacy, which is a broader topic. I want to make sure I cover all current applied neuroimaging techniques, and cover the legal/ethical debates objectively and across international perspectives. I also want to cover where neuroimaging techniques might be used, along with how future technological development could change things. Some subtopics I'm considering:


 * History
 * Legality
 * Applied Neuroimaging Techniques
 * P300 MERMER Testing
 * Brain Fingerprinting
 * Applications
 * Legal Evidence
 * Surveillance
 * Marketing
 * 'Big Data'
 * Controversy
 * Popular Media

 Information Privacy Annotation 

Evaluating Content


 * Mainly focuses on cable television, educational, internet, financial, locational, medical, political information types
 * Why these specific types? Some of them have their own articles, others don't.  There doesn't appear to be a given reason for the focus on these specific types
 * Specific passage on Safe Harbor program
 * Why this specifically and not a general history section? Some articles have a general timeline of the subject, and I think one for information privacy could be interesting
 * Overall, content that is there is good, but needs more
 * Oddly detailed in some areas but needs expanding in others
 * Depth vs breadth

Evaluating Tone


 * Fairly neutral tone
 * Appears on the pro-privacy side
 * Is that bias though?
 * Maybe have a section on other viewpoints? Are there other viewpoints?
 * Viewpoint from military/NSA/Comcast?
 * It's not US-centric, but I think that's because there isn't enough information for it to be anything-centric
 * Tone is vague

Evaluating Sources


 * Source checking
 * https://www.eff.org/wp/locational-privacy works
 * https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21923360 works
 * http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/law/index_en.htm has moved
 * https://www.pdpc.gov.sg/Legislation-and-Guidelines/Personal-Data-Protection-Act-Overview works
 * https://www.nouvelobs.com/rue89/ works
 * These sources aren't necessarily the academic, peer-reviewed sources we were told were necessary
 * There's news articles
 * BBC but also some European ones I haven't heard of
 * https://www.nouvelobs.com/rue89/
 * https://euobserver.com/justice/25657
 * Some pro-privacy sources

Checking the Talk Page


 * Good discussion about whether or not to merge this with informational privacy
 * Discussions about removing opinions, which is good
 * Source checking, which is good
 * Other people seem to agree that the article should be expanded to cover more topics (privacy policies of China/India)
 * Article is part of many WikiProjects
 * Computing
 * Internet
 * Mass Surveillance
 * High importance
 * C-Class
 * Good but missing information/has problems
 * People seem to be generally thoughtful and formal and polite
 * well thought out positions

 Privacy-enhancing technologies Annotation 

Evaluating Content


 * I like the structure
 * Goal
 * Existing PETs
 * Future PETs
 * But no dates are mentioned? Hard to to tell when developments happened, or if the article is up to date
 * Could add more information
 * Circumvention/hacking PETs?
 * Discussion about PETs?
 * Who is developing? Who is using?

Evaluating Tone


 * Objective
 * Talks about features of PETs almost exclusively, no opinions found
 * No viewpoints at all

Evaluating Sources


 * Only 2 references
 * They both seem good (academic), but only 2

Checking the Talk Page


 * Also part of a lot of Wikiprojects
 * Computer Science
 * Computing/Software/Security
 * Technology
 * Mass Surveillance
 * Rated start-class, which makes sense
 * No discussions
 * Sort of makes sense, seems like a very specialized topic, and there's nothing controversial on the page

 Citations 

Added citation (29) to Medical Privacy.

Added citation (5) to TrustArc.

 Week 5 - Outline: Neuroprivacy 

Neuroprivacy is a concept resulting from the intersection of neuroethics, neurolaw, and neuroethics which refers to the rights people have regarding the extraction and analysis of neural data from their brains. This concept has become increasingly relevant with the development and advancement of various neuroimaging technologies. Neuroprivacy is an aspect of neuroethics specifically regarding the use of neural information in legal cases, neuromarketing, surveillance and other external purposes.

 Subsections: 


 * 1) History
 * 2) Relevant Neuroanalysis Techniques
 * 3) Brain fingerprinting
 * 4) Evaluation of Mental Faculties
 * 5) Behavior Prediction
 * 6) Applications of Neural Information
 * 7) Legal evidence
 * 8) Surveillance
 * 9) Preemptive Measures
 * 10) Neuromarketing
 * 11) Controversy and debate
 * 12) Scientific Arguments
 * 13) Legal Arguments
 * 14) Ethical Arguments

Related wiki pages:


 * Neurosecurity
 * Neuroethics
 * Neuromarketing
 * Neurolaw
 * Brain-reading
 * Thought identification
 * Freedom of Thought
 * Cognitive liberty
 * Thoughtcrime
 * Brain fingerprinting
 * Electroencephalography
 * fMRI
 * P300

Week 6 - Peer Review by Starshine44
This is a good first draft. The opening paragraph gives a concise intro and overview of the subject. The History section (and the linked words) provides additional helpful background information, and works as a nice transition. It is difficult having a topic with a lot of jargon, but I think you have done a good job at linking explanatory words, and offering lay-terms explanations. Your categorizing and organization make sense and flow well to each successive subject. The writing is sound and free of obvious errors. It holds an encyclopedic tone, is balanced, informative, and well cited. I'm looking forward to seeing how your article evolves. It's very interesting! Great work!

Week 8 - Peer Review by Relaxbear4649

I really enjoyed reading your article! The flow of the overall draft is very smooth and it made sense to someone who has no previous knowledge. The amount of hyperlinks and citations are great and it was very useful in learning more about a specific topic. I really liked the "Controversy and debate" section because it is clearly organized into three different aspects, which also helped me digest the material easily. The grammar and sentence structure looks great and I did not find any biased opinions, so I think you have done a good job with your article. The "Popular culture" section is also appropriate in your article because it may be difficult for some people to understand the idea of neuroprivacy and bringing in popular culture can be another way for people to visualize the different topics mentioned in your article. Great job!

Week 8 - Peer Review by Edits4Change
Your article is written really well. Overall, I learned a lot about neural privacy and I did not know anything about it before. I have a few recommendations though. The first one would be to describe the way you can use Brain Fingerprinting. You did this for BEOS, and I think providing an example will show how is is used in real life and show how it is different from BEOS. I would also recommend that you explain p300 a bit more from this section. I was confused when I read it and would like to have another line to explain it. One more recommendation is for organization. I notice that "Lie Detection" and "Evaluation and Prediction of Mental and Moral Faculties" are under the section for "Relevant Neuroanalysis Techniques," but aren't these sections different. For example, I would recommend putting Lie Detection in a separate section called "Application of Nureoprivacy" and "Evaluation and Prediction of Mental and Moral Faculties" can be made a section by itself, rather than placing it underneath "Relevant Neuroanalysis Techniques,"  since both of these are not "Relevant Neuroanalysis Techniques." Overall, great job! Your article looks strong.

Week 9 - Peer Review by Travelqueen27

Great work on this week's draft! For someone who knows very minimal about your topic I found the article to be well-written and highly detailed. I appreciate the amount of hyperlinks throughout the article because I found it useful clicking to some and reading a bit more about the topic that was hyperlinked. I was trying to find sections in your articles to critique but I honestly couldn't find much regarding the information you presented. It flows nicely and is written in an un-biased format. I did notice some mini-typos in your article that I addressed below but overall your article seems near to ready for the main space. Great job!!

Typos/Grammar:

In the "Evaluation and prediction of mental and moral faculties" section where it says "Using neurodata to predict future behaviors and actions could be help create ", delete the "be" in the sentence.In "Surveillance and Security" section, the sentence "Surveillance with current neuroimaging technology would be difficult" comes off like if your opinion is that it would be difficult. I would just reword and say "is considered difficult.."

"Scientific Arguments": the sentence "the limits to our understanding of neurodata" replace "our" with "the" so it keeps the tone same throughout.

In different parts of the article there is excess spacing usually after periods.

Week 10 - Peer review by Tm670

Great job on another week of drafting! Your lead section is solid and informs me well on the issue at hand — thought I am left asking whether neuroprivacy is specific to the United States or if it is a global issue. On a larger note, you discuss neuroprivacy “in relation to” many thing in the lead section, but I feel as though you can write more about it on its own in the beginning. You might be able to blend the history with the lead section — but that is just a suggestion.

Another suggestion I have is to include a short overview or synopsis under the “neuroanalysis techniques” section. Currently, the list makes it seem as if it is limited to those specific techniques — making room for more might make this page more engaging while also opening it up for future contributions.

You do an awesome job of hyperlinking and tit makes your page more credible, too. Keep at it!

Week 11 - Peer review by Relax46bear49
Great job on your article! I really enjoyed reading it and I learned a lot. You definitely did a great job explaining what neuroprivacy consists of, which prepares the audience thoroughly before reading the entire article. The only thing I would say is to just go through your article in detail because sentences end with two spaces while others only have one space. Another minor thing I noticed was that the section "Evaluation and prediction of mental and moral faculties" sounded more like it belonged to the "Application" or "Controversy" section because that section dealt more with how neuroimaging technology can be used rather than the technology itself. Overall, the organization of the article is very clear and concise and I think you did a great job maintaining an encyclopedic tone that can be understood by a wide range of audience.

Great job!

 Week 11 - Neuroprivacy 

Neuroprivacy, or "brain privacy," is a concept which refers to the rights people have regarding the imaging, extraction and analysis of neural data from their brains. This concept is highly related to fields like neuroethics, neurosecurity, and neurolaw, and has become increasingly relevant with the development and advancement of various neuroimaging technologies. Neuroprivacy is an aspect of neuroethics specifically regarding the use of neural information in legal cases, neuromarketing, surveillance and other external purposes, as well as corresponding social and ethical implications.

History
Neuroethical concepts such as neuroprivacy developed initially in the 2000s, after the initial invention and development of neuroimaging techniques such as positron emission tomography (PET), electroencephalography (EEG), and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). As neuroimaging became highly studied and popularized in the 1990s, it also started entering the commercial market as entrepreneurs sought to market the practical applications of neuroscience, such as neuromarketing, neuroenhancement and lie detection. Neuroprivacy consists of the privacy issues raised by both neuroscience research and applied uses of neuroimaging techniques. The relevance of neuroprivacy debate increased significantly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which lead to a push for increased neuroimaging in the context of information/threat detection and surveillance.

Brain fingerprinting
Brain fingerprinting is a controversial and unproven EEG technique that relies on identifying the P300 event-related potential, which is correlated with recognition of some stimulus. The purpose of this technique is to determine if a person has incriminating information or memory. In its current state, brain fingerprinting is only able to determine the existence of information, and is unable to provide any specific details about that information. Its creator, Dr. Lawrence Farwell, claims brain fingerprinting is highly reliable and nearly impossible to fool, but some studies dispute its reliability and lack of countermeasures. Some possible countermeasures include thinking of something else instead of processing the real stimuli, mental suppression of recognition, or simply not cooperating with the test. There have been concerns over the potential use of memory dampening drugs such as propranolol to beat brain fingerprinting. However, some studies have shown that propranolol actually dampens the emotional arousal associated with a memory instead of the memory itself, which could even improve the recollection of the memory.

A comparable EEG technique is brain electrical oscillation signature profiling (BEOS), which is very similar to brain fingerprinting in that it detects the presence of specific information or memories. Despite a significant lack of scientific studies confirming the validity of BEOS profiling, this technique has been used in India to provide evidence for criminal investigations.

Evaluation and prediction of mental and moral faculties
Current neuroimaging technology has been able to detect neural correlates of human attributes such as memory and morality. Neurodata can be used to diagnose and predict behavioral disorders and patterns such as psychopathy and antisocial behavior, both of which are factors in calculating likelihood of future criminal behavior. This ability to evaluate mental proficiencies, biases and faculties could be relevant to government or corporate entities for the purposes of surveillance or neuromarketing, especially if neurodata can be collected without the subjects' knowledge or consent. Using neurodata to predict future behaviors and actions could help create or inform preventive measures to treat people before problems happen; however, this raises ethical issues as to how society defines "moral" or "acceptable" behavior.

Lie detection
It is possible to use neuroimaging as a form of lie detection. By assuming deception requires an increase of cognitive processes to develop an alternate story, the difference in mental states between telling the truth or lying should be noticeable. However, this relies on assumptions that have yet to be conclusively determined, and as such neurological lie detection is not yet reliable or fully understood. This is in contrast to the standard polygraph, which relies on analyzing biological mechanisms that are well understood but still not necessarily reliable.

Legal evidence
The legal systems of most countries generally do not accept neuroimaging data as permissible evidence, with some exceptions. India has allowed BEOS tests as legal evidence, and an Italian court of appeals used neuroimaging evidence in a 2009 case, being the first European court to do so. Canadian and US courts have been more cautious in permitting neuroimaging data as legal evidence. One of the reasons legal systems have been slow to adopt neuroimaging data as an accepted form of evidence is the possible error and misinterpretations that could result from such a new technology; courts in the US typically follow the Daubert standard set for evidence evaluation by the Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Supreme Court case, which established that the validity of scientific evidence must be determined by the trial judge. The Daubert standard serves as a safeguard for the reliability of scientific evidence, and requires a significant amount of testing for any neuroimaging technique to be considered for it to be considered as evidence. While brain fingerprinting was technically accepted in the Harrington v. Iowa case, the judge specifically stated that the EEG evidence was not to be presented to a jury and so the evidence did not set a significant precedent.

Surveillance and security
Neurological surveillance is relevant to governmental, corporate, academic and technological entities, as the improvement of technology increases the amount of information that can be extrapolated from neuroimaging. Surveillance with current neuroimaging technology is considered difficult, given how fMRI data is difficult to collect and interpret even in laboratory settings; fMRI studies generally require subjects to be motionless and cooperative. However, as technology improves it may be possible to overcome these requirements.

In theory, there are benefits in using neuroscience in the context of surveillance and security. However, there is debate over whether doing so would violate neuroprivacy to an unacceptable extent.

Neuromarketing
Neurodata is valuable to advertising and marketing entities by its potential to identify how and why people react to different stimuli in order to better influence consumers. This ability to examine reactions and perceptions from the brain directly creates new ethical debates, such as how to define the acceptable limits of mental manipulation and how to avoid targeting vulnerable/receptive demographics. In a sense, these could be seen as not necessarily brand new debates but rather added dimensions to previously existing discussions.

Scientific arguments
The main scientific arguments regarding neuroprivacy mainly revolve around the limits to the current understanding of neurodata. Many of the arguments against using neuroimaging in legal, surveillance and other contexts are based on the lack of a solid scientific basis, meaning the potential for error and misinterpretation is too high. Brain fingerprinting, one of the most popularized forms of neuroanalysis, has been promoted by its creator, Dr. Lawrence Farwell, despite a lack of scientific agreement on its reliability. Currently, there is even a lack of scientific understanding as to what can be interpreted from neurodata, which makes limiting and categorizing different types of neurodata difficult and thus complicating neuroprivacy. Another complication is that neurodata is highly personal and is essentially inseparable from the subject, making it extremely sensitive and difficult to anonymize. One possible way to regulate and protect neuroprivacy is to focus on the different uses and cases of neurodata.

Another issue is the conflation with scientific knowledge with beliefs regarding the relations between philosophical, neural and societal constructs. Popularization and overconfidence in scientific techniques may lead to assumptions or misinterpretations of what neurodata actually describe, when in reality there are limits to what can be interpreted from correlations between neural activity and semantic meaning.

Legal arguments
There are various legal arguments as to how neuroprivacy is covered under current protections and rights and how future laws should be implemented to define and protect neuroprivacy, as neuroscience has the potential to significantly change the legal status quo. The legal definition of neuroprivacy has yet to be properly established, but there appears to be a general consensus that a legal and ethical foundation for neuroprivacy rights should be established before neuroimaging becomes widely accepted across legal, corporate and security contexts. As neuroprivacy constitutes an international issue, an international consensus may be required to establish the necessary legal and ethical foundation.

Bringing neuroscience into legal contexts has been argued to have certain benefits. Current types of legal testimony, such as eyewitness testimony and polygraph testing, have significant flaws that may be possibly currently overlooked due to historical and traditional precedents. Neuroscience could potentially solve some of these issues by directly examining the brain, given scientific confidence in the neuroimaging techniques. However, this raises questions concerning balancing legal usages of neuroscience with neuroprivacy protections.

In the US, there are certain existing rights that could be interpreted to protect neuroprivacy. The Fifth Amendment, which protects citizens from self-incrimination, could be interpreted to protecting citizens from being incriminated by their own brain. However, the current interpretation is that the Fifth Amendment protects citizens from self-incriminating testimony; if neuroimaging constitutes physical evidence instead of testimony, the Fifth Amendment may not protect against neuroimaging evidence. The Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment help protect unspecified rights and fair procedures, which may or may not include neuroprivacy to some extent.

One interpretation of neuroimaging evidence is categorizing it as forensic evidence rather than scientific expert testimony; detecting memories and information of a crime could be compared to collecting forensic residue from a crime scene. This distinction would make it categorically different than a polygraph test, and increase its legal permissibility in Canadian and US legal systems.

Ethical arguments
Some general ethical concerns regarding neuroprivacy revolve around personal rights and control over personal information. As technology improves, it is possible that collecting neurodata without consent or knowledge will be easier or more common in the future. One argument is that the collection of neurodata is a violation of both personal property and intellectual property, as the collection of neurodata involves scanning the both the body and the analysis of thought.

One of the main ethical controversies regarding neuroprivacy is related to the issue of free will, and the mind-body problem. A possible concern is the unknown extent to which neurodata can predict actions and thoughts - it is not currently known if the physical activity of the brain is conclusively or solely responsible for thoughts and actions. Examining the brain as a way to prevent crimes or disorders before they manifest raises the question of if it is possible for people to exercise their agency despite their neurological condition. Even using neurodata in a way to treat certain disorders and diseases preemptively raises questions about identity, agency and how society defines morality.

Popular culture

 * In the television show Westworld, hats are used as neuroimaging devices that record experiences and data without the consent or knowledge of the users. This data is mainly used for research for neuromarketing and commercial pursuits, namely the pursuit of immortality.
 * In the Dark Forest novel by Liu Cixin, one of the projects developed to ensure the survival of humanity involved extensive human brain mapping to develop ways to improve cognition. This project was eventually used to imprint human brains with "mental seals", artificially implanted unshakeable beliefs in a person's psyche.
 * In the Harry Potter series by J. K. Rowling, brain privacy can be invaded by the use of Legilimens, which involves the extraction of the contents of the mind such as thoughts and emotions. One way to increase neuroprivacy in the Harry Potter world is by practicing Occlumency, which involves defending the mind against Legilimens and other forms of mental invasion.