Tag: Neurorights-Foundation

2 articles

Policy & Regulation

UN Secretary-General recommends banning coercive use of neurotechnology in justice systems

In a report to the UN General Assembly dated 27 August 2026 (A/81/351), Secretary-General António Guterres recommends that member states prohibit the compulsory or coercive use of neurotechnology in the administration of justice, including brain-based deception detection, predictive applications, decoding applications that claim to read thoughts, intentions or memories, neuromodulation, and arbitrary or unlawful cognitive surveillance and monitoring. He asks states to recognise neural data as highly sensitive personal data with the highest level of legal protection and clear limits on its collection, processing, sale, storage, retention, reuse and sharing, to require free, prior, informed, explicit and revocable consent for any use of neurotechnology in justice settings, and to urge neurotechnology companies to carry out human rights due diligence. The report, requested by the General Assembly in December 2024, warns, citing outside research, that neural data gathered by consumer devices may be accessed by state authorities or introduced as evidence. Its recommendations do not bind governments.

Oct 11

Policy & Regulation

California AB 1883 would prohibit employer collection of brain data unless used for safety

California Assemblymember Isaac Bryan's AB 1883, which regulates workplace surveillance including a specific prohibition on employer collection of neural data with a safety-use carve-out, has cleared the Assembly and moved most of the way through the Senate per CalMatters' 10 August 2026 tracking. A parallel Assembly Bill 1542 authored by Assemblymember Christopher Ward would prohibit the sale of neural data. Vermont S.71 (signed 16 June 2026) and H.814 (signed May 2026) are the most recent enacted comparators.

Aug 11