UPDATES
2024.03.15 Neuralink is now being used to play chess!
This morning I read an article about how brain scanning technology is causing Colorado and Minnesota to propose legislation that is aimed at establishing rights and protections for information collected from our thoughts through the neural signals that can be scanned and collected from our brains. (Brain-Scanning Technology Spurs State Moves on Neural Privacy) Kuddos to these states, and others, as these kinds of protections are being considered.
As a husband, father, friend, employee, and citizen of a crazy world that is looking more and more like a cross between Alice’s Wonderland and Stalin’s Russia by the day, this really concerns me: sometimes the greatest thing we can do is control our mouths to keep us from speaking what is going through our minds!
But in this era of the politicization of everything, when people seem so eager to use force to compel — instead of reason to persuade — others to think as they feel they must, what happens when we no longer have the ability to use our mouths (or, fingers on keyboards) as the final safety restraint to keep our thoughts and ideas from getting us into trouble? What happens when those with the power can read our thoughts before we could even speak them? With our thoughts and ideas being the greatest form of privacy, the very essence of humanity, where does this leave humanity?
You think this is too far-fetched to be bothered with? Just a few weeks ago we saw a pretty big step in this direction when the first human received the Neuralink brain chip implant that allows them to control their phone or other devices with only their mind. (MIND & MACHINE First human has received Elon Musk’s Neuralink brain chip implant with ‘terrified’ fans warning ‘first cyborg is born’) As astonishing as this may seem, if technology teaches us anything, it is that it will advance. It is not too hard to imagine that one day, what must be done now with a chip may be able to be replicated by mere scanning alone.
Speaking of far-fetched, what happens when the devices that are used to read are instead used to control — or, heaven forbid, are hacked? As you will see from the article below that I wrote 12 years ago, what may seem far-fetched now may very well become commonplace at some point in the future.
Back in early 2012, I wrote a blog post about whether hacking a human would violate the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Shortly after publishing it, I received a call from a guy in Austin who said: “dude, someone finally gets it, I need your help!” … I responded that I was a lawyer, not a psychiatrist and that I was just kidding when I wrote that, kinda.
Now, here we are 6 years later and it seems this is becoming a thing more and more of a thing. What do you think? Vulnerabilities in brain implants used to treat Parkinson’s disease could be hacked by cyber attackers and used to control people, scientists have claimed.
Here is a thought to ponder: Would it violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to hack a person?
Based on the broad definition of computer that is used in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act I believe that the answer could be “yes.” Here is why:
- The CFAA applies to anything with a microchip or data processor that is connected to the internet. See Can Stealing a Car Violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act?
- If a person were to have a microchip or data processor implanted into their bodies, and if such device were connected to the Internet, then that person would be a covered “computer” and the CFAA would apply if they were hacked.
So, you may be wondering, what made me think of this crazy idea? Well, I read the article Are You Ready for Mind-Control Warfare? and, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that it is a possibility. Technology has already advanced to the point where tiny microchips are being put under people’s skin for various reasons and there is no doubt that will continue. But, as the above article shows, these technological advances will not stop there. Now we’re looking at things like “the potential for ‘neural interface systems’ (NIS) that could control weapons with the human mind.” Pretty heavy stuff for sure but stop and think about this for a moment.
If technology reaches a point where “computer” driven devices allow the human mind to control weapons, surely someone will then try to gain control over that device and, therefore, the mind that controls those weapons. That is, they will try to “hack” that person. And, when they do, I would argue that they will have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act as it is presently written and interpreted.
