For a long time, our thoughts and mental processes were protected by nature itself—no one could peek inside the cranium. But with the rise of consumer brain-computer interfaces (from meditation headbands to gaming headsets), this barrier has collapsed.
In 2024 and 2025, we witnessed a historic shift: for the first time, lawmakers officially recognized that our brain data needs protection. The state of Colorado, followed by California, passed amendments equating “neural data” to biometrics.
But do these laws actually protect us, or do they merely create an illusion of safety? As a lawyer and the founder of Cyborg Alliance, I analyzed these legal texts to understand what really changes for future cyborgs.
What Happened: The End of the “Wild West”
Previously, the situation was absurd. If you had an EEG in a hospital, your data was protected by medical privacy laws (like HIPAA in the US). But if you bought a “smart headband” on Amazon to improve your sleep, the manufacturer could do whatever they wanted with the recording of your brain activity: sell it to advertisers, use it to train AI, or transfer it to third parties.
The new laws (specifically Colorado HB 24-1058) close this loophole. Now, “biological data generated by the nervous system” is officially recognized as “sensitive data.”
What this means in practice:
-
Ban on Sale: Companies can no longer sell your neural data without your explicit, separate consent. Checking a box in a massive “User Agreement” is no longer enough.
-
Right to Delete: You have the right to demand the complete deletion of your brain activity history from company servers.
-
Transparency: Manufacturers are obliged to clearly explain exactly why they are collecting data on your alpha rhythms and how they intend to use it.
The Main Problem: Protecting Data is Not Protecting Consciousness
As a lawyer, I welcome these steps. They provide a necessary foundation. However, as a researcher of the future of augmentation, I see a critical flaw in these laws.
They protect the “file,” but not the person.
The laws of 2024-2025 focus on Privacy. Their main goal is to prevent outsiders from peeking at your data. But they virtually ignore the issues of Agency and Mental Integrity.
Imagine a neural interface that doesn’t just “read” data but analyzes it in real-time to suggest a decision. If an algorithm, based on your neural data, decides you are tired and blocks you from starting your car—is that safety, or a violation of free will?
If an advertising algorithm reads excitement in your brain and shows you a product at the exact millisecond when your willpower is weakest (the phenomenon of “real-time neuromarketing”)—is that just a sale, or manipulation of consciousness?
Current laws forbid selling data about this vulnerability, but they do not (yet) forbid using it to influence you.
The Cyborg Alliance Perspective: What We Must Do Next
The passage of laws in Colorado and California is a victory, but it is only the beginning of the battle. We are moving from the era of “information protection” to the era of “cognitive liberty.”
Cyborg Alliance insists that we need more than just amendments to consumer protection laws. We need an international Neurorights Convention that enshrines:
-
The Right to Mental Integrity: A ban on any unauthorized interference with brain function.
-
The Right to Psychological Continuity: A guarantee that technology will not imperceptibly alter our personality or behavior.
-
Algorithmic Transparency: We must know not only what data a device collects, but also the logic by which it makes decisions on our behalf.
The world has changed. Our thoughts are becoming digital code. And our task is to ensure that the keys to this code remain in our hands.