In the world, also, we maybe need to insist on phylogenic or evolutionary biological verification (and the working out of/for this shown on research papers) for any new vaccine applied to a virus. We can place that virus, then on a map of existing organisms, and it can be structurally verified in terms of causality. A synthetic compound for example has a molecular structure, but no evolutionary etiology, whereas something biological necessarily does. It has to have evolved.
It can be shown on an interconnection map with the other present day viruses as well as on a phylogenic map or tree diagram showing lineage, and structural development through history until this point in the present.
From "Life sciences society and policy":
"Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology."
"For a long time, the boundaries of the skull have been generally considered the separation line between the observable and unobservable dimension of the living human being.
The umbrella term usually used to encompass all these non-invasive, scalable and potentially ubiquitous of neurotechnologies is “pervasive neurotechnology” (Fernandez, Sriraman, Gurevitz and Ouiller 2015), a notion borrowed from the most widespread notion of pervasive computing. Today, pervasive neurotechnology applications include brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) for device control or real-time neuromonitoring, neurosensor-based vehicle operator systems, cognitive training tools, electrical and magnetic brain stimulation, wearables for mental wellbeing, and virtual reality systems.
companies Emotiv and Neurosky offer a large assortment of wireless headsets for everyday use that can be connected to compliant smartphones and personal computers (Ienca and Haselager 2016). Brain-control can be used to remotely control several types of devices and engage in several activities including gaming and other forms of entertainment, marketing, self-monitoring and communicating
Some devices are currently tested for monitoring brain states with the purpose of guiding the individual’s behavior. For example, NASA and Jaguar are jointly developing a technology called Mind Sense, which will measure brainwaves to monitor the driver’s concentration in the car (Biondi and Skrypchuk 2017). If brain activity indicates poor concentration, then the steering wheel or pedals could vibrate to raise the driver’s awareness of the danger. This technology can contribute to reduce the number of accidents caused by drivers who are stressed or distracted. However, it also opens theoretically the possibility for third parties to use brain decoders to eavesdropping on people’s states of mind.
imilar implications are raised by brain printers. These are prototypical devices that are currently tested as brain-based authentication methods. For example, researchers at Binghamton University in the state of New York have devised a way to verify a person’s identity based on how their brain responds to certain words.
little focus has been directed to the implications of advancing neuroscience and neurotechnology for human right law. This neglected component of the neurolaw discourse is of particular relevance since the universal nature of the human right framework could provide a solid foundation for this emerging ‘jurisprudence of the mind’.
In 1997, the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights (UDHGHR) was adopted to prevent that genetic information is collected and used in ways that are incompatible with respect for human rights, and to protect the human genome from improper manipulations that may harm future generations.
For the purposes of our investigation we chose to adopt a broad practical conception of human rights, like the one proposed by Beitz (2011, p. 109), who argues that they are “requirements whose object is to protect urgent individual interests against predictable dangers (‘standard threats’) to which they are vulnerable under typical circumstances of life in a modern world order composed of states” (Beitz 2011). In general terms, it can be said that the scope of human rights is to guarantee both the necessary negative and positive prerequisites for leading a minimally good life (Fagan 2015).
For example, breaches for mental privacy emerged before the invention of neuroimaging and neuromonitoring technologies through more rudimental techniques such as interrogation and polygraph-based lie detection. These interventions, however, do not target neural processing directly but only via proxy-processes such as speech, behavior, and physiological indices (e.g. pulse and skin conductivity). In addition, the degree of accuracy and resolution of such techniques is remarkably low (Iacono 2008), hence often insufficient to support epistemologically justified inferences about mental information. Similarly, threats to mental integrity and psychological continuity were posed by non-computational interventions such as psychoactive drugs and hypnotic inductions way before the invention of neurostimulation and brain-machine interfacing. However, these techniques are often characterized by limited efficacy and reliability in purposively manipulating mental activity as well as low degrees of selectivity in targeting neural processes. Based on these considerations, we argue that advanced neurotechnology enables a degree of access into and manipulation of neural processes significantly higher than other techniques. Therefore, while we consider the ethical and legal analysis presented in this paper applicable to the entire spectrum of both computational and non-computational brain interventions, we argue that the degree of perturbation of advanced neurotechnology on the current ethical-legal framework is quantitatively higher than non-computational techniques. For this reason we situate neurotechnology as the focus of our proposed normative upgrade.
As he concisely put it, cognitive liberty is the principle that guarantees “the right to alter one’s mental states with the help of neurotools as well as to refuse to do so” (Bublitz 2013, p. 234).
Proponents of cognitive liberty suggest considering it a “fundamental human right” as well as “a central legal principle guiding the regulation of neurotechnologies” (Ibid.). The reason of its fundamental function stems from the fact that “the right and freedom to control one’s own consciousness and electrochemical thought processes is the necessary substrate for just about every other freedom” (Sententia 2004).
In addition, since cognitive life, although in various forms and degrees, is inherent in all human beings, cognitive liberty is consistent with a definition of human rights as inalienable fundamentals rights “to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being” (Sepuldeva, Van Banning, and van Genugten 2004), regardless of their nation, location, language, religion, ethnic origin or any other status. Consequently, its integration into the human right framework would enable the protection of constitutive features of human beings that are not being entirely protected by existing rights.
In the words of Nita Farahany, “there are no legal protections from having your mind involuntarily read”.Footnote 2 The reason for that stems from the fact, as Charo (2005) observes, that “technology innovates faster than the regulatory system can adapt”.
A large number of ethical, legal, and social questions arise from these neurotechnological possibilities. These include: For what purposes and under what conditions can brain information be collected and used? What components of brain information shall be legitimately disclosed and made accessible to others? Who shall be entitled to access those data (employers, insurance companies, the State)? What should be the limits to consent in this area?
the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) stipulates that “everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and correspondence” (Article 8 para 1). It is interesting to note that the right to privacy is one of the few rights that was recognized by international law as a broad, umbrella right before it was included in any state constitution (Diggelmann and Cleis 2014).
Today, the “right to be let alone” delineated by Warren and Brandeis more than one century ago has clearly become relevant to areas far removed from their original concerns.
If one has a “reasonable expectation of privacy”Footnote 4 regarding the identifying information derived from one’s blood or saliva samples, surely one has a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the data decoded from one’s own mind (Shen 2013).
It is worthy of mention that violations of mental privacy can occur also in absence of direct intrusion into the victim’s neural processing. For example, brain data collected for research purposes are usually stored for analysis on externally located EEG-databases and repositories.
Only very few rights, such as the freedom of thought, freedom from slavery, torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are regarded by international human rights law as not subject to any exceptions and, therefore, as absolute rights. In which of both categories should the right to mental privacy be placed? Can nonconsensual intrusions into people’s brain data be justified in certain circumstances or should be unconditionally banned? More concretely, does the right to mental privacy protect individuals from being compelled by courts or the state to brain-based interrogations?
Paul Root Wolpe has suggested that due to fears of government oppression, we should draw a bright line around the use of mind-reading technologies:
“The skull should be designated as a domain of absolute privacy. No one should be able to probe an individual’s mind against their will. We should not permit it with a court order. We should not permit it for military or national security. We should forgo the use of the technology under coercive circumstances even though using it may serve the public good” (Wolpe 2009).
For an action X, to qualify as a threat to mental integrity, it has to: (i) involve the direct access to and manipulation of neural signaling (ii) be unauthorized –i.e. must occur in absence of the informed consent of the signal generator, (iii) result in physical and/or psychological harm.
However, threats to this right are more likely to happen outside clinical settings. For instance, in the context of intelligence and military agencies, it has been reported that over the last decades violations of human rights might have taken place in experiments involving brain electrodes, LSD, hypnosis, the creation of Manchurian candidates,Footnote 10 the implantation of false memories and induction of amnesia. Many of these experiments were conducted on unwitting civilians and in the absence of any external review, or representation for the experimental subjects, or any meaningful follow-up (Ross 2007).
The right to identity was developed by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) from the right to private life included in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.Footnote 11 As we have seen in the first section, Article 8 protects against unwanted intrusion and provides for the respect of an individual’s private space. However, privacy and personal identity should be distinguished. What the right to psychological continuity aims to prevent is not the unrestricted access to brain information but the induced alteration of neural functioning.
Malicious agents, for example, could use neuromodulation to exert malevolent forms of mind control. These potentially include religious leaders and coordinators of religiously inspired terrorist groups who want to achieve effective indoctrination and recruitment of youngsters, as well as leaders of authoritarian regimes who want to enforce political compliance and prevent rebellion. More mildly, marketing companies could use these techniques to modulate customers’ preferences and attitudes towards their products.
This proposal of neuro-specific human rights in response to emerging advancements in neurotechnology is consistent with and a logical continuation of the proposal of developing genetic-specific human rights in response to advancements in genetics and genomics as set out by the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights (UDHGHR) and the International Declaration on Human Genetic Data (IDHGD).
Extensive future debate is required to test the normative solidity of this proposed expansion of the human right framework to the neurotechnology dimension. In parallel, future research is required to investigate the implications of such proposed human rights on other levels of law such as international humanitarian law, criminal law, tort law, property law and consumer law. Ideally, this debate should benefit from the active and cross-disciplinary participation of legal experts, neuroscientists, technology developers, neuroethicists and regulation bodies."
(Above quotations also From "Life sciences society and policy":
"Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology."
The previous link, Linked to from this article in "The Guardian Newspaper" (2017):
"New human rights to protect against mind hacking and brain data theft proposed, A response to advances in neurotechnology that can read or alter brain activity, new human rights would protect people from theft, abuse and hacking"
"In 2011, scientists led by Jack Gallant at the University of California in Berkeley used brain scans to reconstruct clips of films people had watched beforehand."
“We cannot afford to have a lag before security measures are implemented,” he said. “It’s always too early to assess a technology until it’s suddenly too late.”
Also on this subject, neurosecurity, and the violation of privacy through
"The problems of technology misuse and security of biological information are particularly critical in the context of neurotechnology as this type of technology applies (either directly or indirectly) to a very important organ in the human body, the brain. The brain not only contributes signiﬁcantly to life-maintaining processes (such as nutrition and respiration) but also to faculties such as consciousness, perception, thinking, judgment, memory and language and is of great importance to our behavior and our self-identiﬁcation as sentient-beings or persons. Therefore, misusing neural devices for cybercriminal purposes may not only threaten the physical security of the users but also inﬂuence their behavior and alter their self-identiﬁcation as persons. We call the realm of cybercriminal activities enabled by the misuse of neural devices neurocrime".
An approach toward wireless brain–computer interfacesystem using EEG signals: A review
" These electrical activities can be measured and recorded from the scalp of the human. Normally,the electrical activities of the brain signal can be recorded byinvasive, partially invasive, or noninvasive methods. In invasivemethod or partially invasive method, the electrodes areimplanted into or on the gray matter of the brain duringneurosurgical operations. In noninvasive method, the electro-des are placed on the surface of the scalp. The brain signalsfrom electroencephalography (EEG), magnetoencephalogram(MEG), blood-oxygen-level dependent (BOLD) signals, electro-occulogram (EOG),and oxyhemoglobin concentrations areused as inputs for noninvasive BCIs."
Wireless Non-contact EEG/ECG Electrodes for Body Sensor Networks:
"non-contact capacitive electrodes do not require an ohmic connection to the body."
"US Electromagnetic Weapons and Human Rights"
By Peter Phillips, Lew Brown and Bridget Thornton As Study of the History of US Intelligence Community Human Rights Violations and Continuing Research in Electromagnetic Weapons Completed December 2006
This article quoted below, on the mid 200's american law change allowing domestic human rights abuses, with the "Military commission act of 2006":
"For the US Government to unilaterally declare that our country will not comply with international human rights laws, nor uphold the core values of our nation’s foundation is an indication of extremism that supersedes the values and beliefs of the American people. When such extremism exists we need to take seriously the founders’ declaration that, “ to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” (Declaration of Independence 1776)".
^("Human Rights belong to people collectively. To believe in rights for some and not others is a denial of the humanness of people worldwide. Yet, denial is exactly what Congress and George W.Bush did with the signing of the Military Commission Act of 2006. The new official US policy is that torture and suspension of due process are acceptable for anyone the president deems to be a terrorist or supporter. This act is the overt denial of the inalienable rights of human beings propagated in our Declaration of Independence and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. More so, US actions declared to the world that the US suspends human rights for those it believes are evil.")
"Hearing of microwave pulses by humans and animals: effects, mechanism, and thresholds":
^("The hearing of microwave pulses is a unique exception to the airborne or bone-conducted sound energy normally encountered in human auditory perception. The hearing apparatus commonly responds to airborne or bone-conducted acoustic or sound pressure waves in the audible frequency range. But the hearing of microwave pulses involves electromagnetic waves whose frequency ranges from hundreds of MHz to tens of GHz. Since electromagnetic waves (e.g., light) are seen but not heard, the report of auditory perception of microwave pulses was at once astonishing and intriguing. Moreover, it stood in sharp contrast to the responses associated with continuous-wave microwave radiation. Experimental and theoretical studies have shown that the microwave auditory phenomenon does not arise from an interaction of microwave pulses directly with the auditory nerves or neurons along the auditory neurophysiological pathways of the central nervous system. Instead, the microwave pulse, upon absorption by soft tissues in the head, launches a thermoelastic wave of acoustic pressure that travels by bone conduction to the inner ear.")
This above is an explanation of the phenomena/technology "Voice to skull", or "wireless sound broadcast to the auditory cortex", in some articles people are saying that this phenomenon was dscovered in world war two during radio testing, this is stated in the wikipedia:
It is named "The Frey effect".
Articles on "Synthetic telepathy" a field of technology also referred to as "Silent communication":
"Physicians for safe technology".
"The World Health Organisation" (W.H.O)
Affordable/possibly rentable e.m.f diagnostic/field testing equipment:
the "Narda" nbm 580, and 550 handheld emf field meter, up to 60ghz £3000+,
the "Narda" handheld "8719", available from ebay for £2-400, and is rentable here;
the "brainmaster" a portable, affordable e.e.g tester, demonstrating consumer purchasable technology using brainwaves, £3000-£5000,
There are portable possibly solenoid or magnet based e.m.f diffusers for around £1000, I can't remember the brandname, however be very careful with magnetic fields/solenoids as the body has a electromagnetic component.
Other public research in brain computer interfaces, including the darpa "big brain" project (2010)
I was personally unaware of this until about 2019.
Other resources collated so far:
The United Nations declararation of human rights;
The United Nations human rights page;
U.K human rights
the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020 (‘the Regulations’).
"This note aims to highlight factors relevant to whether a person may be designated under the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020 (‘the Regulations').
The Regulations permit a Minister to designate a person only if the Minister has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is an “involved person” in relation to certain human rights violations or abuses1."
From the .gov website;
Human rights watch
by Philips, Brown, and Thornton;
(I've not yet looked at these myself)
Just also noting here I tried to post this on one of the other reddit human rights forums, but it required no wikipedia links, you actually get banned from ever posting to it if you include a wikipedia article, so worth noting academics only accepted there.
(I've used the
"inline code mode" (this symbol </>) on some text here, only, to get the text to be pink for design reasons, as I feel alternating blocks of different blacks and greys only, is a little too much of a "dualistic" sort of interference pattern style visual complexity, If anyone knows how to change color on the standard text/if that is something that could cause any actual problem, let me know, at least i've learnt it exists now).