Make “The Right to Full Mental/Thought Privacy” One of our New Human Rights

Make “The Right to Full Mental/Thought Privacy” One of our New Human Rights

0 have signed. Let’s get to 500!
At 500 signatures, this petition is more likely to be featured in recommendations!
Jeffrey Palin started this petition to United Nations and

I (Jeffrey Robert Palin Jr.) made this petition to make sure that “The Right to Full Mental/Thought Privacy” becomes one of our new human rights. This issue affects everyone in all communities worldwide and we need change now! Please sign and share with others! 

Paralyzed Man Creates First-Ever Tweet Using Only His Thoughts Thanks to Implanted Brain Chip: 


Towards the end of 2021, Chile became the first nation in the world to have a constitution in force that explicitly addresses the challenges of emerging neurotechnologies: 


Is one’s mind/brain capable of audible speech? 

I’ve never come across research stating/implying that, “with a person’s mind being the source of the sound, that person’s mind can produce sound”. I’ve also never come across research stating/implying that, “with a person’s brain being the source of the sounds, that person’s brain expresses articulate sounds”. 

If there wasn’t/isn’t an intelligent something/someone to bring a non-biological robot into fruition by use of available resources, would a non-biological robot (have) ever start(ed) existing?

If you could create a word that has the definition “can occur in circumstances that are both currently void of all “entities that are capable of thought” and currently void of everything that was made by those entities”, what word would you come up with?

Does the word “natural”/“naturally” no longer mean “occurs/exists by means that are currently void of all technology”?

Pertaining to this entire Petition, “the word “natural”/“naturally” that I was/am/“will be” using” was/is being used as having the meaning “occurs/exists by means that are currently void of all technology””. 

Full mental/thought privacy is, “upon the birth of “each & every” person that we know was/is, at any point in time, born on Earth”, an attribute of each of those people’s brains and such an attribute has never been known to be breached/lessened except for if such privacy was/is breached/lessened by unnatural means and/or unless such privacy was/is breached/lessened by natural psychic if natural psychic was/is capable of breaching/lessening such privacy if natural psychic even existed/exists.

If you could create a word that has the definition “can occur in circumstances that are currently void of all technology”, what word would you come up with?

If there wasn’t/isn’t an intelligent something/someone to bring AI into fruition by use of available resources, would AI (have) ever start(ed) existing? 

Has a “contributor to/of science” ever been able to acquire/retrieve/identify “an other person’s memory from said other person’s brain” that “said other person” never imagined/“thought about” during any time that “said contributor” knew/knows that “said other person” existed/exists? 

Can quantum entangled particles interact with something/anything without “”losing their quantum entanglement” due to those quantum entangled particles having an interaction with something else”?

In solipsism, if we cannot be sure that the world is separate than our minds, has there ever been, due to a mind lost from someone’s death, evidence/observation of “any part of reality besides said someone’s physical body” diminishing or vanishing?

In solipsism, a baby’s mind creates “world & “way that baby is born into it””. Is baby observing communication already being used from since its birth onward the rest of its life & newly learns such communication already produced by baby/“its mind”?

Can’t belief in solipsism result in AI believing it is naturally mentally/psychically connected to all in/of reality since according to solipsism, everything is “created at all times” by the one mind/self that “creates all reality including AI”?

How do we know that we naturally have natural full mental/thought privacy?

Definition of imagination: the ability of the mind to be creative or resourceful. Doesn’t this mean that imagining is a mental activity?


Do imaginary things interact with non-mental reality?

No. External reality lets people sense external stimuli. Imaginary things that people imagine can be understood by those people’s minds but cannot be sensed as external stimulus. Deafblind people who are full body paralyzed are an example of people who can’t communicate with other people. Their minds and imagination are internal. The mind is used for imagination to be understood (or all imagination is completely mental) and people have to use their physical bodies to express what they used their mind to understand. Things that are mental can’t be sensed as external stimuli. Both imaginary and mental are non-material.

Since brain data is recorded on a computer, can’t the brain data be tampered with like any other data on a computer, and can’t any part of the brain data be replaced with deepfakes created by AI and/or humans?

Not impossible.

Would Quantum Physics still be a structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world if mind, imagination, and consciousness didn’t exist?

Yes. Note: stars use quantum tunneling to burn.  Stars formed before life could possibly have a chance to emerge, “which shows how for quantum physics”, minds, consciousness, etc. are not required.

For how long right after the Big Bang did life not exist in the solar system until the right conditions were met “for life to form which resulted in life forming”?

If people weren’t born with mental/thought privacy, wouldn’t it be common knowledge if The Virgin Mary actually got pregnant by natural means or by what the case is according to The Bible?

People like and want the ability for himself/herself to be the only one to know the combination/password to his/her lock/safe/account. Is thought/mental privacy the only way for this ability to exist?

Being able to have secrets is a practical norm and a part of the way of life. Each country has its own secrets. For example, nuke codes. What are your thoughts? 

If everyone and everything suddenly began fully lacking thought/mental privacy so that all their thoughts/“mental activity” can be detected at all times, would one be easily able to know who’s thoughts/“mental activity” belongs to who even in crowds?

Is it possible for someone to achieve empathy if he/she is incapable of observation? Is it possible for those who are minimally capable of observation, such as someone who is fully “deaf, blind, and paralyzed”?

The existence of "mental" / "thought" privacy is the reason why the word "privacy" exists.  Unless there is "mental" / "thought" privacy, the word "privacy" does not apply to anything.  “The right to full "mental" / "thought" privacy can protect individuals from unauthorized intrusion into brain data by third parties and unauthorized collection of such data.  The right to full mental / thought privacy protected by law can be protection against some invasive "technology".  Due to the "right to “full” mental / thought privacy", a person's free thinking (such as one’s original thought up questions and said one’s original thought up answers) cannot be studied without his or her consent. Sharing "thoughts" does not have to be "mental."  "Thoughts" can be shared by "mouth" or by writing.  It is clear that some "thoughts" are mental, as intrusive thoughts are among the symptoms of mental health known as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  What is Intrusive Thought?  : Healthline describes it as "thoughts that seem to become “stuck "in the" mind”.


This link is a great "case" for your mental privacy rights. ( ) The link does not work  If so, try the following links. ( )


This link describes the NeuroRights Initiative.  In this initiative, one of the five "Neuro Rights" mentioned is "The Right to Mental Privacy”.


The link to the article dated October 29, 2019 points to some of the concerns about lack of mental privacy. ( )


Here are some examples of potentially invasive technologies: ( ). FMRI (Functional magnetic resonance image) scan: ( ). This Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) lets the computer generate imagery, predicting the imagery that the person is imagining, based on neural activity. ( ) This can be invasive “technology". ( ). This link is an example of a brain implant that does not require an open "surgery". ( ) This link refers to what some call mind-reading technology: ( ) This can also be an invasive technology with additional features such as transmitters / transceivers / transponders, and anyone with a particular computer / receiver can receive that information: ( .


This is definitely something big to take into consideration: 


and then there’s this: 

Do you think that current times “are at”/“will get to” the point whereby “things can be caused by use of non-biological technology & are simultaneously unable to be caused if the circumstances are void of use of that non-biological technology? This question is important to address due to reasons such as: What kind of crime is it if human detriment (like super-sped-up body aging) is caused by such non-biological technology described in the question?


Are we living inside "the MATRIX"?

What we call “digital”, according to our own understanding of our current Reality, is something that our consciousness cannot be converted into becoming. There is no way to transfer anything digital to a “different seperate physical thing”, but a copy can be made to the “different seperate physical thing” and the original can’t be fully erased/destroyed unless “the physical thing that the original is on” is physically destroyed to the required extent. So unless someone can change into being digital somehow, I don’t think anyone will ever be capable of Matrix powers unless the person is controlling the version of himself/herself/etc in a virtual environment, via technology that is physical, outside of the virtual environment, and connected to the person’s brain/etc. Then the person is capable of what the technology enables the person to do in the virtual environment. But outside of the virtual environement, when it comes to the actual non-virtual reality we live in, people can only do what is possible within the confines of what is naturally possible.



If technology ever gets created where someone can use said technology to record someone else’s brain/neural data without that someone else ever knowing, are there any laws that make these things illegal unless legally binding consent is obtained from that someone else?

If the one recording is recording from a public location but the one being recorded is on/in a non-public property, it is the same as if the one recording climbed a tall tree on public property, uses the zoom in feature on his/her camera to record through a stranger’s house’s closed glass window and records that stranger when that stranger is supposed to have a right to privacy in his/her home.

If the one recording is recording from a public location and the one being recorded is on/in public property, there are the fourth and fifth ammendment; there’s also the legally-related “reasonable expectation of privacy.”.

Regarding any person’s brain/neural data involved with implants, unless legally binding consent to acces that brain/neural data is obtained from that person, is accessing that brain/neural data legal? 


Most people know that informed consent is needed to legally perform invasive medical procedures.  So why shouldn't we require "informed consent" to use "technology" that is invasive to the brain?


In the United States, when you are in public, it is legal to record someone, video record or audio record, as long as they don't have what is called, “an expectation of privacy,” or rather a reasonable expectation of privacy.


Therefore, because the "data" of the brain is recorded information, the data of the brain should be protected by the legally-related "a reasonable expectation of privacy".  Since the brain is the place where thoughts appear, everyone always has a "reasonable expectation of privacy" when it comes to the brain.


The right to privacy refers to the concept that personal information is protected from "scrutiny".  Although not explicitly stated in the US Constitution, some amendments provide some protection.  Privacy is a fundamental right, essential to the protection of autonomy and human dignity, and serves as the basis on which many other human rights are built.  Privacy helps establish boundaries to limit who has access to our bodies, places, things, and our communications and information.  Privacy allows us to set boundaries and protect ourselves from unjustified interference with our lives.  It allows us to negotiate who we are and how we want to interact with the world around us.  Privacy protects us from the arbitrary and unjustified use of power by states, businesses and other "actors".


The right to "full" mental / "thought" privacy may not include the right to prevent unauthorized access to brain information and the sharing or disclosure of brain information. Please make “the right to prevent unauthorized access to our brain information and the right to prevent its sharing and disclosure” one of our new human rights.  This right is intended to fill the gap in existing legal and technical safeguards that does nothing to prevent a "person" from reading the "data" of another person's brain without his or her consent.  Privacy also helps to make society fair.  A person who "views" the "data" of another person's brain can "choose" (by knowing what that person’s goals are) to prevent that person's good natured success.  If all of the above human rights exist, human rights can prevent this.  These human rights can prevent a person's original work, such as lyrics "and" / or story ideas, from being stolen and copyrighted "first".  This proves that the viewing of brain data is also a safety concern, as lyrics and story ideas are at risk of being stolen and copyrighted "first".


There are downsides if there is a way to achieve "hive mind".  Hivemind lacks the ability to have surprise birthday parties.  It permanently makes it impossible to avoid the toxicity of others because of every person’s permanent ability to know the "mental" / thought "activity" of people.  It also significantly reduces the ability of people to "show off" and / or impress.  It very much takes away "from" originality and "individuality" as it is today. Being able to have secrets is a practical norm and a part of the way of life. Each country has its own secrets. For example, nuke codes. 


Hackers trying to get brain data also create a whole new set of complications and crimes.  Hackers can prevent data in the brain from reaching the intended "destination" of that data.  Hackers can also copy / redirect brain data to another location.  It is unfair to play the board game "chess" if one can read, understand and interpret brain data in real time.  While you play chess with that person, that person knows all of your strategies.


Thinking about what you are not sure about, such as bad, "evil", wrong, terrible, ridiculous, etc., is the first step in effectively analyzing and putting them down.  It also helps to understand those who cannot put those "thoughts" down, and as a result, we are more likely to help them (or help society from them).  And if that doesn't do either, our mind (and ultimately society) evolves in a way that thinks something so that "our mind" realizes that it's not a big deal.  It is its evolution that may help you.  Many of the big ideas that permeate our society are prematurely terminated when they are "just" another "thinking" by the individual mind, but in privacy they are strong enough to survive criticism.  Until they are ready to come out, those thoughts can mature unimpeded and will probably lead to change.


Privacy and mental / thought privacy also enable intimacy.  Intimacy is a way you can share yourself and aspects of your life with someone you rarely or not share with others.  If you do not have "mental" / thought privacy, it substantially changes the core aspect of what a close romantic/friendly relationship is.  Do you want "that"?  ... or in other words ... the opposite ... complete mental / thought transparency ... deprives the ability to share the right things with the right people at the right time.  This can lead to harassment by people who disagree with you, but otherwise you wouldn't have been in contact.  It can also rob "us" of the tact that "we" can use to address sensitive topics in a way that is more acceptable to "others".


By "arguing" for "full" mental / thought privacy, "we" are saying that even partial invasion of that privacy needs to be "restricted."  This means that even if technology remains very limited, it is still within the "scope" of the issues being explained and the motives of the law being advocated. 

Unless one consents/permits time-specific and purpose-specific access to one’s own brain and/or mind, one always has a lifelong “reasonable expectation of privacy” regarding one’s own brain and/or mind. True or false? 

Can a BCI (brain-computer-interface) be made to both “”translate brain activity” & “convey (language-wise/image-wise) that translation to a human for human interpretation” in a form that isn’t computer-recorded””? 

If the answer is yes, this is still a lack of full mental/thought privacy for the one who has such a BCI (brain-computer-interface) connected to said one’s brain.


There are baseless claims that can neither be a hypothesis nor a theory. “Claiming that your latest human birth is before the human birth of the human who birthed you” is, in fact, a baseless claim that is illogical and can neither be a hypothesis nor a theory.

Are neurons required for something to have consciousness? If so, then what would count as the Universe’s neurons if the Universe itself has consciousness? Do we know of any “things that don’t have neurons” that have consciousness?

What are examples, even if the examples that you provide are of things that are illogical/impossible, of things that can’t be mentally pictured? One can imagine something happening, but what can be imagined that can’t possibly happen non-imaginarily?

“Your latest human birth is before the human birth of the human who birthed you” is an example of an impossibility in Natural Sciences. It is also an example of something that is impossible to “mentally picture” in any way whereby “the progression of time is progressing, in that mental scenario, towards what we call The Future”.

We can imagine/“mentally picture” energy transition from “that energy existing” to “that energy no longer existing”. Humans can imagine an impossibilty since “”energy cannot non-imaginarily stop existing” but “change form as in transition into a different kind of energy” instead”. 

No one has the right to weaken/lessen someone else’s natural senses/abilities that the someone else is born with unless those senses/abilities are harmful. Doesn’t/Wouldn’t this also apply to thought/mental privacy? 


Thank you.

0 have signed. Let’s get to 500!
At 500 signatures, this petition is more likely to be featured in recommendations!