Training: BCS Practitioner Certificate in Data Protection 
Brain data should receive stronger legal protections than other forms of personal data, according to a Citizens’ Jury established as part of research commissioned by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
A report on the project’s findings also found that the jury – made up of 20 members of the public – backed tighter restrictions on how such data can be collected and used.
Neurotechnology, also known as neurotech, is broadly defined in the report as devices that can record and/or send electrical signals to the brain and nervous system.
The information watchdog commissioned the research, which was carried out by the Centre for Collective Intelligence, in light of developments in the sector which have seen the technology extend beyond healthcare into more consumer-facing applications.
According to the report, most jurors were enthusiastic about the technology’s potential, particularly for medical uses like Parkinson’s treatment, cochlear implants, and managing conditions like ADHD or dementia.
But this support was contingent on there being “robust” data security and privacy rules in place, it said.
Jurors raised concerns that highly sensitive, intimate neurodata could be hacked by malicious actors or used by commercial entities for targeted marketing.
In light of these concerns, the jurors supported clear regulatory standards to build public confidence – and a new legal category.
A new legal category for brain data should be introduced to account for the difference, and mitigate the risk of exploitation of legal loopholes by commercial actors, according to the jury.
Desired new regulatory standards included restrictions on neurodata collection from children or vulnerable people, restrictions on uses of neurodata for marketing or access to services, and stricter regulations for ‘read-write’ devices.
Jurors concluded that brain data is “fundamentally different” from other forms of personal data, as it inherently captures subconscious thoughts and intentions that individuals cannot fully control.
The jury met over three online sessions which involved informational videos, specialist input and discussions guided by expert facilitators.
