Is European Data Protection Regulation sufficient to deal with emerging data concerns relating to neurotechnology?

Simple item page
dc.cclicenceCC-BY-NCen
dc.contributor.authorRainey, Stephen
dc.contributor.authorMcGillibray, Kevin
dc.contributor.authorAkintoye, Simisola
dc.contributor.authorFothergill, Tyr
dc.contributor.authorBublitz, Christoph
dc.contributor.authorStahl, Bernd Carsten, 1968-
dc.date.acceptance2020-06-22
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-30T09:05:44Z
dc.date.available2020-06-30T09:05:44Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.descriptionopen access journalen
dc.description.abstractResearch-driven technology development in the fields of the neurosciences presents interesting and potentially complicated issues around data in general, and brain data specifically. The data produced from brain recordings is unlike names and addresses in that it may result from the processing of largely involuntarily brain activity, it can be processed and reprocessed for different aims, and is highly sensitive. Consenting for brain recordings of a specific type, or for a specific purpose, is complicated by these factors. Brain data collection, retention, processing, storage, and destruction are each of high ethical importance. This leads us to ask: Is present European data protection regulation sufficient to deal with emerging data concerns relating to neurotechnology? This is pressing especially in a context of rapid advancement in the fields of brain computer interfaces (BCIs), where devices that can function via recorded brain signals are expanding from research labs, through medical treatments, and beyond into consumer markets for recreational uses. One notion we develop herein is that there may be no trivial data collection when it comes to brain recording, especially where algorithmic processing is involved. This article provides analysis and discussion of some specific data protection questions related to neurotechnology, especially BCIs. In particular, whether and how brain data used in BCI-driven applications might count as personal data in a way relevant to data protection regulations. It also investigates how the nature of BCI data, as it appears in various applications, may require different interpretations of data protection concepts. Importantly, we consider brain recordings to raise questions about data sensitivity, regardless of the purpose for which they were recorded. This has data protection implications.en
dc.funderEuropean Union (EU) Horizon 2020en
dc.identifier.citationRainey, S., Bublitz, C., Akintoye, S. Fothergill, T., McGillivray, K. (2020) Is European Data Protection Regulation sufficient to deal with emerging data concerns relating to neurotechnology? Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 7 (1), 51en
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsaa051
dc.identifier.issn2053-9711
dc.identifier.urihttps://dora.dmu.ac.uk/handle/2086/19868
dc.language.isoenen
dc.peerreviewedYesen
dc.projectid945539 en
dc.projectid785907en
dc.publisherOxford University Pressen
dc.researchinstituteCentre for Computing and Social Responsibility (CCSR)en
dc.subjectBCIsen
dc.subjectBrain Dataen
dc.subjectData Governanceen
dc.subjectGDPRen
dc.subjectBrain recordingen
dc.subjectNeurotechnologyen
dc.titleIs European Data Protection Regulation sufficient to deal with emerging data concerns relating to neurotechnology?en
dc.typeArticleen

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
LawandBioSci_Rainey_Revision_FINAL.docx
Size:
100.46 KB
Format:
Microsoft Word XML
Description:
Main article
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
4.2 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download

Collections

School of Computer Science and Informatics