Source: in-cyprus.philenews.com
Scientists clashed at parliament’s Human Rights Committee on Monday over whether consumer devices that track brain activity, such as smart earphones, threaten democracy. The committee heard that Cyprus’s laws have a gap on neurotechnology and that nobody knows how many such devices are in the country.
Committee chairman Christos Christofides proposed five steps, starting with a review within three months of which applications are available or in use in Cyprus, who supervises them and where protection falls short. The committee will return to the issue in a month.
Cyprus University of Technology (CUT) professor Nikos Konstantinou warned that the technology endangers democracy and social cohesion. Former education minister Andreas Demetriou pushed back strongly, saying he did not believe anyone would be checking soon whether people vote AKEL or DISY, and that it might never happen.
Voters and consent
Konstantinou opened the session with a scenario. He asked the committee to picture a citizen in the run-up to an election, watching a debate or scrolling through social media while wearing a sleep-tracking headband or smart earphones. These devices use artificial intelligence to track biological changes, he said, and can even pick up brain activity linked to thoughts, emotions and unconscious reactions.
Algorithms can then adjust in real time and serve the next advert based on heart rate and other biological signals, he explained, before people have even worked out how they feel about what they are seeing or hearing. He said the process is known as neurofeedback. He insisted it is not science fiction and needs regulating.
Konstantinou argued that this is more than a simple breach of personal data. If someone can manipulate how people vote, the whole process becomes meaningless, he said, and the risks extend to consumers, children and every citizen.
“How can you give consent for data you don’t know you are producing?” he asked, adding that this raises ethical and legal questions. The data is also used to train future algorithms, he said, which he described as a threat to human dignity with political and social consequences.
‘Nobody knows how humans produce thought’
Demetriou is a professor and a member of the Cyprus Academy of Sciences, Letters and Arts. He pointed to a multimillion programme to map the human brain, which had collapsed.
“Nobody knows how humans produce thought,” he said. He added that linking brain signals to movements of the hands and legs is one thing, but claiming to know how people think is quite another.
Artificial intelligence is a long way from acting on its own, he said, despite recent claims that it might launch a nuclear strike. Disaster is not around the corner, he added.
Demetriou was more interested in the technology’s medical uses. Elon Musk’s Neuralink aims to restore movement in people who have had a stroke or an accident, he said, but the volume of data involved is so huge that no implant can handle it.
He said he wanted to reassure the public that society would not wake up tomorrow to Orwell’s Big Brother. He still called for laws to protect the privacy of thought, for technology designed with respect for democratic institutions, and for real protection for citizens.
The committee’s proposals
Christofides’s other proposals include working with the Commissioner for Personal Data Protection on safeguarding brain data and the conclusions drawn from it, including in wellness products. The data would be collected only for a clear purpose, kept for as short a time as possible and left under citizens’ control. He said a specific ban on using it for manipulative political targeting should also be considered.
He also called for special safeguards for children and workers, limiting monitoring used for grades, hiring or performance reviews. Nobody should be penalised for refusing to use such a device, he said. Any exceptions for treatment or safety would need strict justification and independent oversight.
He proposed considering CUT’s suggestion for an interdisciplinary advisory group of scientists, lawyers and representatives of the people affected. The group would support parliament through the committee and keep track of developments. Finally, he wants to link the work to the committee’s initiative for a Declaration of Digital Rights and equal access to treatments proven to be beneficial.
Law and privacy
Alexia Kountouri, speaking for the Cyprus Bar Association, said the European Convention on Human Rights protects the privacy of thought. Until now, she said, that protection has covered how thoughts are expressed rather than how they are formed.
“Today we are talking about a possible violation of the sanctuary of thought,” she said. If existing law falls short, new legislation will be needed, she added.
Haris Xinari, a professor at European University Cyprus, said she was particularly worried about artificial intelligence. Correcting your text is one thing, she said, but writing it for you shapes how you think. She also wanted to know who has access to the data, what conclusions can be drawn from it and who handles it.
Demetrios Devetzis, an assistant professor of law at Frederick University, said a legal framework was clearly needed, and pointed to the issue of consent.
Fofi Constantinidou, a psychology professor at the University of Cyprus and director of its Center for Applied Neuroscience, noted that data unrelated to neurotechnology is already being collected, for example from videos and reels.
Giorgos Pittas, of the Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics, said the long-term effects of using these devices are still unclear, and that they currently focus on functional anatomy. Medical research and commercial use are two different things and should be kept apart, he said.
Read more: