Scholarlink

<p>As a representative of new quality productive forces, brain–computer interface (BCI) technology raises high expectations but also acute concerns about brain‑privacy protection. Brain privacy has both personal and social attributes; its protection therefore implicates individual interests and technological development. We argue that privacy rights under the empowerment model cannot fully protect brain privacy. Even creating a new brain‑privacy right would invite weak protection and insufficient incentives for brain‑data supply. By contrast, a behavioral‑regulation model better reflects the multi‑interest, non‑exclusive nature of brain privacy and balances risk control with innovation. We propose: (a) applying the principles of lawfulness, legitimacy, necessity and good‑faith to all brain‑privacy processing; (b) establishing a compliance filing‑review mechanism for BCI privacy policies; and (c) implementing a “pre-market regulatory sandbox + post‑market tracking” regime to manage product risks. Together, these measures can properly establish a behavioral‑regulation model for brain‑privacy protection.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Empowerment or behavioral regulation? governing brain–computer interface privacy risks under new quality productive forces

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月27日

查看全文
  • Shenggang Yang,
  • Yuan Feng

摘要

As a representative of new quality productive forces, brain–computer interface (BCI) technology raises high expectations but also acute concerns about brain‑privacy protection. Brain privacy has both personal and social attributes; its protection therefore implicates individual interests and technological development. We argue that privacy rights under the empowerment model cannot fully protect brain privacy. Even creating a new brain‑privacy right would invite weak protection and insufficient incentives for brain‑data supply. By contrast, a behavioral‑regulation model better reflects the multi‑interest, non‑exclusive nature of brain privacy and balances risk control with innovation. We propose: (a) applying the principles of lawfulness, legitimacy, necessity and good‑faith to all brain‑privacy processing; (b) establishing a compliance filing‑review mechanism for BCI privacy policies; and (c) implementing a “pre-market regulatory sandbox + post‑market tracking” regime to manage product risks. Together, these measures can properly establish a behavioral‑regulation model for brain‑privacy protection.