Lawyers of the future can bill customers for “notice units” monitored by computers directly connected to their brains, as suggested by a report prepared by Law Society.
Neurotechnology, Law and the Legal Profession analyses some of the problems that will arise from the adoption of brain-computer interfaces such as those that are already developed and used in physical diseases. The latest report asks the question what the regulatory environment of neurotechnology in the field of law should be.
"The debate on whether and how we should prepare our brains to "connect" to technical devices must begin today," writes Dr. Kion Ahadi, Director of Strategy, Future and View of Law Society.
Neurotechnology is a technology that interacts directly with the nervous system, combined with sensors worn on the body or even a chip placed in the brain. According to the report, such technology is already used to treat neurological diseases such as Parkinson's disease, and to monitor the attention of employees during work. Neurotech is also very interesting for the military – with the prospect of cognitively improved super-cyborg soldiers on the horizon.
One of the intriguing possibilities is the brain Internet, which does not necessarily have to limit itself to human brains. The report notes that scientists have already shown that cockroaches can be “controlled” by the power of human thought.
According to the report, the legal implications of neurotechnology include:
Concerns about privacy and surveillance due to the large amount of brain data that such systems can collect. Such data can give rise to new powers to manipulate people.
Issues of equality and neurotechnical discrimination if some people in society have increased mental capacity and others do not.
Possible monitoring of brain function by employers. "While the ability to download new skills is not the current option, brain monitoring at the workplace is already and is not difficult to imagine that some of these technologies can generate anxiety and questions about labour law," the report says.
Questions arise as to whether, in the case of crime and punishment, the accused may claim that their criminal behavior is the result of hacking their neurotechnological device or even hacking their brain? Can neurotechnical implants or other types of brain monitoring be legally ordered?
The report's author, Dr. Allan McCay, said: This technology is coming and we need to think about regulation. Action is needed now because there are significant neurotechnical investors such as Elon Musk and Meta (Facebook). We need law reform bodies, policy makers and researchers to look at these technological developments instead of waiting for problems.