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

0 have signed. Let’s get to 200!

Hoping to help make the right to full mental privacy one of our new Human Rights with this Petition by Jeffrey Robert Palin Jr. . Mental Privacy’s existence is the reason that the word “privacy” exists at all. Without the existence of mental/thought privacy, the word “privacy” doesn’t apply to anything. A right to full mental privacy would protect individuals against the unconsented intrusion by third parties into their brain data as well as against the unauthorized collection of those data. The right to full mental privacy being protected by law would be protection against some invasive technology, if said right exists. The right to full mental privacy would also enable one’s freely thought thoughts (such as one’s original thought up questions and said one’s original thought up answers) to not be studied without said one’s consent, if said right exists. All thoughts are mental but how they are shared, such as through speech or writing, doesn’t have to be mental. It is evident that thoughts are mental because intrusive thoughts are among the symptoms of the mental health condition known as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). What are intrusive thoughts: Healthline explains it as “thoughts that seem to become stuck in the mind”. If “the right to full mental privacy” doesn’t include the right to full privacy of thought, then also make “the right to full privacy of thought” one of our new Human Rights.

This link makes a great case for the right to mental privacy:  . If that link is no good try this one:

. This link talks about the NeuroRights Initiative in which one of the five NeuroRights that it mentions is The Right to Mental Privacy:

. Here’s a link to an article dated 10/29/2019 that tells some of the concerns of having a lack of mental privacy:

. Here are some examples of potentially invasive technology : . fmri scans: . This Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) lets the computer generate imagery, predicting the imagery that the person is imagining, based on neural activity: . This can also be invasive technology if we can’t choose to not say certain thoughts: . This link is an example of a neural implant that doesn’t require open surgery: . This link mentions what it calls mind reading technology: . This can also become invasive technology with additions such as a transmitter/transceiver/transponder that communicates to a computer, and have a computer/person with a receiver:

. Here is an example of invasive technology that has potential to be used for Cybertorture:

. For the first time ever Professor Nils Melzer, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, will present to the 75th UN General Assembly Session in October 2020 his report on “Cybertorture” which are Forms of Computerized Remote Electronic Torture against Illegally Targeted Individuals worldwide.

I hope this includes: Illegal Remote Electronic Surveillance (for if you have a lack of mental/thought privacy (due to something electronic like an implant or something) even though you never gave any consent for such invasive technology to be used on you).

Most people know that their informed consent is required for invasive medical procedures to be done to you legally, so why shouldn’t your informed consent be required for brain-invasive technology to be used on you legally).

Generally speaking, though, 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 (Fourth Amendment protection).

So since brain data is recorded information, shouldn’t the Fourth Amendment protection “a reasonable expectation of privacy” protect us at all times from having our brain data recorded by others unless there is evidence of our consent being given for the recording of our brain data. Everyone always has “a reasonable expectation of privacy” when it comes to their brain because the brain is where thoughts emerge.

Brain data can be potentially recorded without an individual’s awareness, and therefore in absence of a real ability of said individual to consent to the collection and use of that information (For example : The individual seems comatose due to a car accident and informed consent (needed to record said individual’s brain responses to stimuli) could not be obtained since said individual never signed anything for to have a proxy decision maker to make medical decisions on said someone’s behalf. In the event that you cannot make decisions for yourself, your medical treatment decision maker will be obligated to act in a way that promotes your personal and social wellbeing). Observing brain responses to stimuli is brain data. What I suggest should be done about this is that there should be a question on your health insurance forms or ID forms (such as when you’re asked if you want to be an organ donor), when you’re filling out the forms to acquire health insurance or an ID, asking “Do you consent to having your brain data acquired In the event that you don’t have a proxy decision maker and you cannot make decisions for yourself?

The right to privacy refers to the concept that one's personal information is protected from public scrutiny. While not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution, some amendments provide some protections. Privacy is a fundamental right, essential to autonomy and the protection of human dignity, serving as the foundation upon which many other human rights are built. Privacy helps us establish boundaries to limit who has access to our bodies, places and things, as well as our communications and our information. Privacy enables us to create boundaries and protect ourselves from unwarranted interference in our lives, allowing us to negotiate who we are and how we want to interact with the world around us. Privacy protects us from arbitrary and unjustified use of power by states, companies and other actors.


If “the right to full mental privacy” doesn’t include the right to prevent illegitimate access to our brain information, as well as its sharing or publication, then also make “the right to prevent illegitimate access to our brain information, as well as the right to prevent its sharing and/or publication” one of our new Human Rights. This right is intended to plug a gap in existing legal and technical safeguards that do nothing to prevent someone from having their mind read without consent. The privacy also helps make society fair. If the new Human Rights that are mentioned in this Petition exist, there can be prevention of people (who view one’s brain data) from choosing (by knowing what said one’s goals are) to prevent said one’s good natured success . It can prevent said one’s original creations, such as song lyrics and story ideas, from being stolen and copyrighted first. This proves that the viewing of brain data is also a safety concern because there is the risk of song lyrics and story ideas being stolen and copyrighted first.

If a means to achieve “Hive Mind” is ever created, there are downsides: Hive mind lacks things like the ability to have surprise birthday parties and it causes a permanent inability to avoid toxicity of others due to inability to not know everyone’s mental/thought activity. It would also make things like showing off and impressing people much less doable. It would really take away from originality and individuality as they are today.

Hackers trying to obtain brain data also makes a whole new set of complications and crimes (for example: hackers prevent brain data from reaching its intended destinations and said brain data is being received by other criminal hackers). If brain data can be read, understood, and interpreted in real-time, things like playing the boardgame “Chess” becomes unfair because a Chess opponent may be able to know your every strategy.