By Sigal Samuel
Brain-reading tech is coming. The law is not ready to protect us.
“Nothing was your own except the few cubic centimeters inside your skull.” That’s from George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984, published in 1949. The comment is meant to highlight what a repressive surveillance state the characters live in, but looked at another way, it shows how lucky they are: At least their brains are still private.
“除了你脑袋里的那几立方厘米以外，没有什么是属于你自己的了。
”这句话出自乔治·奥威尔1949年出版的反乌托邦小说《1984》。
这样的描述意在强调书中的人生活在多么专制的监控之下，但从另一个角度来看，这也表明他们是多么幸运：
至少他们的大脑仍然属于个人隐私。
Over the past few weeks, Facebook and Elon Musk’s Neuralink have announced that they’re building tech to read your mind — literally.
在过去的几周里，Facebook和Neuralink（由埃隆·马斯克创办，开发脑机接口的公司）宣布，他们正在研发一项能读懂你内心的技术——绝无夸张。
Mark Zuckerberg’s company is funding research on brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) that can pick up thoughts directly from your neurons and translate them into words. The researchers say they’ve already built an algorithm that can decode words from brain activity in real time.
马克·扎克伯格的公司正在资助一项脑机接口(BCIs)的研究，该接口可以直接从你的神经元中提取想法，并将其转化为文字。
研究人员表示，他们已经建立了一种算法，可以从大脑活动中实时解码单词。
And Musk’s company has created flexible “threads” that can be implanted into a brain and could one day allow you to control your smartphone or computer with just your thoughts. Musk wants to start testing in humans by the end of next year.
马斯克的公司发明了一种可以植入大脑的柔性线程，有一天你可以用你的思想控制你的智能手机或电脑。
马斯克希望在明年年底之前实现真人测试。
Other companies such as Kernel, Emotiv, and Neurosky are also working on brain tech. They say they’re building it for ethical purposes, like helping people with paralysis control their devices.
其他公司，如Kernel、Emotiv和Neurosky也在研究大脑技术。
他们说构建大脑技术是出于道德目的，比如帮助瘫痪患者控制他们的设备。
This might sound like science fiction, but it’s already begun to change people’s lives. Over the past dozen years, a number of paralyzed patients have received brain implants that allow them to move a computer cursor or control robotic arms. Implants that can read thoughts are still years away from commercial availability, but research in the field is moving faster than most people realize.
这听起来可能像是在写科幻小说，但它的确已经进入人们的生活。
在过去的十几年中，许多瘫痪患者接受了大脑植入物，使他们能够移动电脑光标，还可以控制机器手臂。
虽然能读懂想法的植入物还需要数年时间才能投入商业应用，但是该领域的研究进展比大多数人以为的要快。
Your brain, the final privacy frontier, may not be private much longer.
你的大脑，曾经最后的隐私底线，可能不再是隐私了。
Some neuroethicists argue that the potential for misuse of these technologies is so great that we need revamped human rights laws — a new “jurisprudence of the mind” — to protect us. The technologies have the potential to interfere with rights that are so basic that we may not even think of them as rights, like our ability to determine where our selves end and machines begin. Our current laws are not equipped to address this.
一些神经伦理学家认为，这些技术被滥用的可能性很大，因此我们有必要对人权法律进行修改，用一种全新的“精神法学”来保护我们。
这些技术有可能会侵犯我们的权利，而这些权利恰恰是最基本的，以至于我们甚至没把它们当作权利，比如我们决定让机器代替自我的能力。
我们现行的法律却没有能力解决这个问题。
4 new rights we may need enshrined in law
4项我们需要载入法律的新权利
Several countries are already pondering how to handle “neurorights.” In Chile, two bills that would make brain data protection a human right will come before parliament for a vote in November, thanks in part to the advocacy of neuroscientist Rafael Yuste. In Europe, the OECD is expected this year to release a new set of principles for regulating the use of brain data.
一些国家已经在考虑如何处理“神经权利”。
在智利，两项将大脑数据保护作为人权的法案将于11月提交议会进行表决，这在一定程度上要归功于神经学家拉斐尔·尤斯特的倡导。
在欧洲，经济合作与发展组织(OECD)预计今年将发布一套新的原则，用于规范大脑数据的使用。
One of the main people pushing for these new human rights is neuroethicist Marcello Ienca, a researcher at ETH Zurich, one of Europe’s top science and technology universities. In 2017, he released a paper outlining four specific rights for the neurotechnology age he believes we should enshrine in law. I reached out to ask what he thought of the recent revelations from Facebook and Neuralink.
推动这些新人权的主要人物之一是神经伦理学家马尔塞洛·艾恩卡，他是欧洲顶尖科技大学苏黎世联邦理工学院的研究员。
他在2017年发表了一篇论文，概述了他认为我们在神经技术时代应该加入法律的四项具体权利。
我联系到了艾恩卡并且采访了他对最近Facebook和Neuralink的看法。
“I’m very concerned about the commercialization of brain data in the consumer market,” he said. “And I’m not talking about a farfetched future. We already have consumer neurotech, with people trading their brain data for services from private companies.” He mentioned neurogaming, where you control your movements in a video game using your brain activity rather than a traditional controller, and self-tracking, where you use wearable devices to, say, monitor your sleep. “I’m tempted to call it neurocapitalism.”
“我非常担心大脑数据在消费级市场的商业化，这并不是未来不着边际的事。
我们如今已经有了消费级神经技术，人们用他们的大脑数据交换私人公司的服务。
”他还提到了神经游戏和自我追踪这两项技术，前者是指通过大脑活动而不是传统的操作手柄来控制电子游戏中的动作，后者是指使用可穿戴设备来监控你的睡眠。
“我很想称之为神经资本主义。
”
BCI tech includes systems that “read” neural activity to decode what it’s already saying, often with the help of AI-processing software, and systems that “write” to the brain, giving it new inputs to actually change how it’s functioning. Some systems do both.
BCI技术包括两种，一种是“读”神经活动的系统，通常是在人工智能处理软件的帮助下来解码它已经说过的话，另一种是“写”给大脑的系统，给它新的输入实际上是改变它的运作方式。
有些系统两者都具备。
When I asked Ienca to explain each of the four human rights he believes we need and to give a concrete example of how neurotechnology might violate it, he came up with some frightening scenarios, some of them already underway. Let’s break them down.
当我请艾恩卡分别解释他认为我们需要的四项人权，并给出具体的例子来说明神经技术可能如何侵犯人权时，他提出了一些可怕的设想，其中一些已经在发生了。
让我们一一来看。
1. The right to cognitive liberty
You should have the right to freely decide you want to use a given neurotechnology or to refuse it.
1. 认知自由权
你应该有权自由地决定你想不想使用某一特定的神经技术。
In China, the government is already mining data from some employees’ brains by having them wear caps that scan their brainwaves for depression, anxiety, rage, or fatigue. “If your employer wants you to wear an EEG headset to monitor your attention levels, that might qualify as a violation of the cognitive liberty principle,” Ienca said, because even if you’re told that wearing the device is optional, you’ll probably feel implicit pressure to do so since you don’t want to be at a competitive disadvantage.
在中国，有些企业给员工戴上可以扫描脑电波的帽子，来发现抑郁、焦虑、愤怒
或疲劳。
“如果你的老板想要你佩戴脑电波耳机来监控你的注意力水平,这可能违反了认知自由原则。
”艾恩卡说，因为即使告诉你可以选择是否佩戴戴着设备，不想处于竞争劣势的隐性压力也有可能迫使你佩戴。
He added that the US military is also looking into neurotechnologies to make soldiers more fit for duty. Down the line, that could include ways to make them less empathetic and more belligerent. Soldiers may be pressured to accept interventions.
他补充说，美国军方也正在研究让士兵更适合执行任务的神经技术。
从长远来看，这可能会让他们的同理心减少并且更加好战。
而士兵可能会被迫接受干预。
“There is already military-funded research to see if we can monitor decreases in attention levels and concentration, with hybrid BCIs that can ‘read’ deficits in attention levels and ‘write’ to the brain to increase alertness through neuromodulation. There are DARPA-funded projects that attempt to do so,” Ienca said, referring to the Defense Department’s advanced research agency.
“为了弄清我们到底能否监测注意力水平和集中程度的下降，军方对研究进行了资助。
这种混合的BCIs可以‘读取’注意力水平的不足，并‘写入’大脑，通过神经调节来提高警觉性。
有一些由美国国防部高级研究机构资助的项目试图这样做。
”艾恩卡说。
2. The right to mental privacy
You should have the right to seclude your brain data or to publicly share it.
2. 精神隐私权
你应该有权选择将你的大脑数据封闭还是共享。
Ienca emphasized that neurotechnology has huge implications for law enforcement and government surveillance. “If brain-reading devices have the ability to read the content of thoughts,” he said, “in the years to come governments will be interested in using this tech for interrogations and investigations.”
艾恩卡强调，神经技术对执法和政府监控有着巨大的影响。
他说:“如果大脑阅读设备能够阅读思想内容，那么在未来的几年里，政府将有兴趣使用这种技术进行审讯和调查。
”
The right to remain silent and the principle against self-incrimination — enshrined in the US Constitution — could become meaningless in a world where the authorities are empowered to eavesdrop on your mental state without your consent.
若当局有权在未经你同意的情况下“窃听”你的精神状态，那么美国宪法中规定的保持沉默的权利和反对自证其罪的原则可能变得毫无意义。
It’s a scenario reminiscent of the sci-fi movie Minority Report, in which a special police unit called the PreCrime Division identifies and arrests murderers before they commit their crimes.
这让人想起科幻电影《少数派报告》中的场景。
在这部电影中，一个名为“犯罪前科”的特别警察小组在杀人犯犯罪前就识别出了他们并进行逮捕。
3. The right to mental integrity
You should have the right not to be harmed physically or psychologically by neurotechnology.
3.精神完整性的权利
你应该有权不被神经技术伤害身体或心理。
BCIs equipped with a “write” function can enable new forms of brainwashing, theoretically enabling all sorts of people to exert control over our minds: religious authorities who want to indoctrinate people, political regimes that want to quash dissent, terrorist groups seeking new recruits.
具备“写”功能的BCIs可以催生新的洗脑方式，从理论上讲，它可以让任何人对我们的思想施加控制：
想要向人们灌输思想的宗教当局、想要镇压异见的政治政权、想要招募新成员的恐怖组织。
What’s more, devices like those being built by Facebook and Neuralink may be vulnerable to hacking. What happens if you’re using one of them and a malicious actor intercepts the Bluetooth signal, increasing or decreasing the voltage of the current that goes to your brain — thus making you more depressed, say, or more compliant?
更重要的是，像Facebook和Neuralink这样的设备可能很容易受到黑客攻击。
如
果你在使用它们时被坏人截取了蓝牙信号，增加或减少了进入你大脑的电流电压，从而使你更加抑郁，或者更加顺从怎么办呢?
Neuroethicists refer to that as brainjacking. “This is still hypothetical, but the possibility has been demonstrated in proof-of-concept studies,” Ienca said, adding, “A hack like this wouldn’t require that much technological sophistication.”
神经伦理学家将其称为“大脑劫持”。
“虽然这仍只是假设，但其可能性已经在概念验证研究中得到了证明，”艾恩卡说，“并且这样做并不需要多复杂的黑客技术。
”
4. The right to psychological continuity
You should have the right to be protected from alterations to your sense of self that you did not authorize.
4. 心理连续性的权利
你应该有权被保护，不受到在你没有授权的自我意识的影响。
In one study, an epileptic woman who’d been given a BCI came to feel such a radical symbiosis with it that, she said, “It became me.” Then the company that implanted the device in her brain went bankrupt and she was forced to have it removed. She cried, saying, “I lost myself.”
在一项研究中，一名患有癫痫的女性接受了BCI治疗，她感到自己与它之间存在一种极端的共生关系。
她说，“它变成了我。
”后来，在她大脑中植入该装置的公司破产了，她被迫将其取出。
她哭着说:“我迷失了自我。
”
Ienca said that’s an example of how psychological continuity can be disrupted not only by the imposition of a neurotechnology but also by its removal. “This is a scenario in which a company is basically owning our sense of self,” he said.
艾恩卡说，这只是能说明心理连续性不仅会被神经技术所干扰，还会被移除的其中一个例子。
“在这种情况下，公司基本上掌握了我们的自我意识，”他说。
Another threat to psychological continuity comes from the nascent field of neuromarketing, where advertisers try to figure out how the brain makes purchasing decisions and how to nudge those decisions along. The nudges operate below the level of conscious awareness, so these noninvasive neural interventions can happen without us even knowing it. One day a neuromarketing company is testing a subliminal technique; the next, you might find yourself preferring product A over product B without quite being sure why.
对心理连续性的另一个威胁来自新兴的神经营销领域，广告主试图弄清楚大脑是如何做出购买决定，以及如何推动这些决定的。
这种推动是在你察觉不到的水平上进行的，所以这些非侵入性的神经干预可能在我们不知不觉中已经发生。
总有一天，神经营销公司会开发出潜意识技术，而接下来你可能会发现自己更喜欢产品A而不是产品B，却不知道原因。
Consumer advocate organizations have raised the alarm about neuromarketing. Jeff Chester, the executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, has said that adult advertising should be regulated “if the advertising is now purposely designed to bypass those rational defenses” that formerly allowed us to discern what’s true and untrue.
消费者权益组织已经对神经营销发出了警告。
数字民主中心执行主任杰夫·切斯特曾表示，理性的防御以前让我们能够辨别真假。
如果广告现在被有意设计去绕过那些理性的防御，那么成人广告应该受到监管。
“Brain data is the ultimate refuge of privacy”
“大脑数据是隐私的终极避难所”
Given the worries about neurocapitalism, I asked Ienca whether neurotechnologies should be taken out of the control of private companies and reclassified as public goods. He said yes — both to prevent companies from inflicting harm and to prevent them from affording benefits only to rich people who can pay for their products.
考虑到对神经资本主义的担忧，我问艾恩卡，神经技术应该脱离私营企业的控制，重新归类为公共产品吗？
他对此表示赞同：
这既是为了防止公司造成伤害，也是为了防止它们只向那些买得起产品的富人提供好处。
“One risk is that these technologies could become accessible only to certain economic strata and that’ll exacerbate preexisting social inequalities,” he said. “I think the state should play an active role in ensuring these technologies reach the right people.”
他说:“这些技术可能只对某些经济阶层开放是风险之一，这将加剧先前存在的社会不平等。
我认为，政府应该在确保这些技术惠及正确人群方面发挥积极作用。
”
It’s hard to say whether Ienca’s neurorights or the OECD’s or Chile’s will effectively keep neurotechnology’s risks in check. But given how fast this tech is developing, it does seem likely that we’ll need new laws to protect us, and now is the time for experts to articulate our rights. Lawmakers move slowly, and if we wait for devices like Facebook’s or Neuralink’s to hit the market, it could already be too late.
很难说艾恩卡、OECD或智利方面所指出的神经权利能否有效地控制神经技术的风险。
但是考虑到这项技术的发展是如此之快，我们似乎确实需要新的法律来保护我们，让专家为我们守护权利的时候到了。
考虑到立法行动的缓慢，如果我们等着Facebook或Neuralink研发的设备上市，可能为时已晚。
“Brain data is the ultimate refuge of privacy. When that goes, everything goes,” Ienca warned. “And once brain data is collected on a large scale, it’s going to be very hard to reverse the process.”
“大脑数据是隐私的终极避难所，当这条底线都被突破时，一切都结束了。
”艾恩卡向人们发出警告，“一旦大脑数据被大规模收集，人们将很难再逆转局面。
”
