Privacy in the Age of Neurotechnology: Investigating Public Attitudes towards Brain Data Collection and Use
Open accessAbstract
Brain Computer Interfaces (BCIs) are expanding beyond the medical realm into entertainment, wellness, and marketing. However, as consumer neurotechnology becomes more popular, privacy concerns arise due to the sensitive nature of brainwave data and its potential commodification. Attacks on privacy have been demonstrated and AI advancements in brain-to-speech and brain-to-image decoding pose a new unique set of risks. In this space, we contribute with the first user study (n=287) to understand people's neuroprivacy expectations and awareness of neurotechnology implications. Our analysis shows that, while users are interested in the technology, privacy is a critical issue for acceptability. The results underscore the importance of consent and the need for implementing effective transparency about neurodata sharing. Our insights provide a ground to analyse the gap in current privacy protection mechanisms, adding to the debate on how to design privacy-respecting neurotechnology.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Lack of transparency, fears of job displacement, data privacy concerns, perceptions of unfairness/bias, and concerns about AI's environmental/safety impacts can fuel opposition to AI in energy.
“Lack of transparency (XAI, Ethics; Sections 3.1.4and 3.4.2),fears of job displacement (Section 3.4.1),data privacy concerns (Sections 3.1.3and 3.4.2) [22,65], perceptions of unfairness/bias [26], and concerns about AI's environmental/safety impacts (Section 3.2.4)can fuel opposition.”
From Addressing Challenges for the Effective Adoption of Artificial Intelligence in the Energy Sector (2025) · cites this paper as [65]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook
(1994) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0272-4944(05)80231-2 · Cited by 48,420 · see citing works
Prolific.ac—A subject pool for online experiments
Palan, S., & Schitter, C. (2018) · Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance · doi:10.1016/j.jbef.2017.12.004 · Cited by 3,450 · see citing works
When to use the <scp>B</scp> onferroni correction
Armstrong, R. A. (2014) · Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics · doi:10.1111/opo.12131 · Cited by 3,031 · see citing works
Woolson, R. F. (2008) · Wiley Encyclopedia of Clinical Trials · doi:10.1002/9780471462422.eoct979 · Cited by 925 · see citing works
International Differences in Information Privacy Concerns: A Global Survey of Consumers
Bellman, S., Johnson, E. J., Kobrin, S. J., & Lohse, G. L. (2004) · The Information Society · doi:10.1080/01972240490507956 · Cited by 564 · see citing works
Discovering Smart Home Internet of Things Privacy Norms Using Contextual Integrity
Apthorpe, N., Shvartzshnaider, Y., Mathur, A., Reisman, D., & Feamster, N. (2018) · Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive Mobile Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies · doi:10.1145/3214262 · Cited by 166 · see citing works
Gui, Q., Ruiz-Blondet, M. V., Laszlo, S., & Jin, Z. (2019) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3230632 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
Users’ Privacy Concerns About Wearables
Motti, V. G., & Caine, K. E. (2015) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-48051-9_17 · Cited by 145 · see citing works
Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions.
Weisberg, S., & Fleiss, J. L. (1974) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2285710 · Cited by 132 · see citing works
The Potential for a Speech Brain–Computer Interface Using Chronic Electrocorticography
Rabbani, Q., Milsap, G., & Crone, N. E. (2019) · Neurotherapeutics · doi:10.1007/s13311-018-00692-2 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Privacy-aware eye tracking using differential privacy
Steil, J., Hagestedt, I., Huang, M. X., et al. (2019) · ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications (ETRA) · doi:10.1145/3314111.3319915 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
Security in Brain-Computer Interfaces
Bernal, S. L., Celdrán, A. H., Pérez, G. M., Barros, M. T., & Balasubramaniam, S. (2021) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3427376 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
EEG Biometrics Using Visual Stimuli: A Longitudinal Study
Das, R., Maiorana, E., & Campisi, P. (2016) · IEEE Signal Processing Letters · doi:10.1109/lsp.2016.2516043 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
Emotion detection from EEG recordings
Liu, J., Meng, H., Nandi, A. K., & Li, M. (2016) · International Conference on Natural Computation, Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery (ICNC-FSKD) · doi:10.1109/fskd.2016.7603437 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
App stores for the brain: Privacy & security in Brain-Computer Interfaces
Bonaci, T., Calo, R., & Chizeck, H. J. (2014) · doi:10.1109/ethics.2014.6893415 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Using contextual integrity to examine interpersonal information boundary on social network sites
Shi, P., Xu, H., & Chen, Y. (2013) · ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) · doi:10.1145/2470654.2470660 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Using EEG-Based BCI Devices to Subliminally Probe for Private Information
Frank, M., Hwu, T. J., Jain, S., Knight, R. T., Martinović, I., Mittal, P., Perito, D., Sluganovic, I., & Song, D. (2017) · doi:10.1145/3139550.3139559 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Evaluation and Diagnosis of Brain Diseases based on Non-invasive BCI
Song, Z., Fang, T., Ma, J., et al. (2021) · International Winter Conference on Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) · doi:10.1109/bci51272.2021.9385291 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Contextual Integrity as a General Conceptual Tool for Evaluating Technological Change
O’Neill, E. (2022) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-022-00574-8 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Chile: Pioneering the protection of neurorights
Lorena Guzmán, H. (2022) · The UNESCO courier · doi:10.18356/22202293-2022-1-4 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Is the Future of Authenticity All In Our Heads?
Merrill, N., Curran, M. T., & Chuang, J. C.-I. (2017) · New Security Paradigms Workshop · doi:10.1145/3171533.3171537 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Mandal, A., & Saxena, N. (2022) · ACM Conference on Security and Privacy in Wireless and Mobile Networks (WiSec) · doi:10.1145/3507657.3528541 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Enhancing the Security & Privacy of Wearable Brain-Computer InterfacesPreprint
Tarkhani, Z., Qendro, L., Brown, M. O., et al. (2022) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2201.07711 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 17
- Devon Adams, Alseny Bah, Catherine Barwulor, Nureli Musaby, Kadeem Pitkin, and Elissa M. Redmiles. 2018. Ethics Emerging: the Story of Privacy and Security Perceptions in Virtual Reality. In Fourteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2018). USENIX Association, Baltimore, MD, 427-442. https: //www.usenix.org/conference/soups2018/presentation/adams
- Noah Apthorpe, Sarah Varghese, and Nick Feamster. 2019. Evaluating the Con- textual Integrity of Privacy Regulation: Parents' IoT Toy Privacy Norms Versus COPPA. In 28th USENIX security symposium (USENIX security 19). 123-140.
- Patricia Arias-Cabarcos, Thilo Habrich, Karen Becker, Christian Becker, and Thorsten Strufe. 2021. Inexpensive Brainwave Authentication: New Techniques and Insights on User Acceptance. In 30th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 21). USENIX Association, 55-72. https://www.usenix.org/conference/ usenixsecurity21/presentatiogenaron/arias-cabarcos
- Richard A Armstrong. 2014. When to use the Bonferroni correction. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics 34, 5 (2014), 502-508.
- Jacob Cohen. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and psychological measurement 20, 1 (1960), 37-46.
- Nita A Farahany. 2023. The Battle for Your Brain: Defending the Right to Think Freely in the Age of Neurotechnology. St. Martin's Press.
- Simon Hanisch, Patricia Arias-Cabarcos, Javier Parra-Arnau, and Thorsten Strufe. 2021. Privacy-Protecting Techniques for Behavioral Data: A Survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.04120 (2021). · arXiv
- Marcello Ienca and Roberto Andorno. 2017. Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology. Life sciences, society and policy 13, 1 (2017), 1-27.
- Nader Karamzadeh, Yasaman Ardeshirpour, Matthew Kellman, Fatima Chowdhry, Afrouz Anderson, David Chorlian, Edward Wegman, and Amir Gandjbakhche. 2015. Relative brain signature: a population-based feature extraction procedure to identify functional biomarkers in the brain of alcoholics. Brain and behavior 5, 7 (2015), e00335.
- Patrick Gage Kelley, Joanna Bresee, Lorrie Faith Cranor, and Robert W Reeder. 2009. A" nutrition label" for privacy. In Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security. 1-12.
- Naresh K Malhotra, Sung S Kim, and James Agarwal. 2004. Internet users' information privacy concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal model. Information systems research 15, 4 (2004), 336-355.
- Anuradha Mandal and Nitesh Saxena. 2022. SoK: Your mind tells a lot about you: On the privacy leakage via brainwave devices. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM Conference on Security and Privacy in Wireless and Mobile Networks. 175-187.
- Ivan Martinovic, Doug Davies, Mario Frank, Daniele Perito, Tomas Ros, and Dawn Song. 2012. On the Feasibility of {Side-Channel} Attacks with {Brain- Computer} Interfaces. In 21st USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 12). 143-158.
- Helen Nissenbaum. 2004. Privacy as contextual integrity. Wash. L. Rev. 79 (2004), 119.
- Shravani Sur and Vinod Kumar Sinha. 2009. Event-related potential: An overview. Industrial psychiatry journal 18, 1 (2009), 70.
- Yu Takagi and Shinji Nishimoto. 2022. High-resolution image reconstruction with latent diffusion models from human brain activity. bioRxiv (2022), 2022-11.
- Jerry Tang, Amanda LeBel, Shailee Jain, and Alexander G Huth. 2022. Seman- tic reconstruction of continuous language from non-invasive brain recordings. bioRxiv (2022), 2022-09.
- Authors
- Kablo, E., & Arias-Cabarcos, P.
- Affiliations
- Paderborn University (DE)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2023 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2023-11-15
- Pages
- 225-238
- ISSN
- 1543-7221 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4388858773
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3
- FWCI
- 13.00
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
- Keywords
- brain-computer interface, consumer neurotechnology, public attitudes, privacy expectations, consent, transparency, privacy mechanisms
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
