CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 11EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionNeuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations

A Framework for Preserving Privacy and Cybersecurity in Brain-Computer Interfacing Applications

Open access
Kapitonova, Maryna, Kellmeyer, Philipp, Vogt, Simon, Ball, Tonio·2022·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2209.09653arXiv 2209.09653
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) comprise a rapidly evolving field of technology with the potential of far-reaching impact in domains ranging from medical over industrial to artistic, gaming, and military. Today, these emerging BCI applications are typically still at early technology readiness levels, but because BCIs create novel, technical communication channels for the human brain, they have raised privacy and security concerns. To mitigate such risks, a large body of countermeasures has been proposed in the literature, but a general framework is lacking which would describe how privacy and security of BCI applications can be protected by design, i.e., already as an integral part of the early BCI design process, in a systematic manner, and allowing suitable depth of analysis for different contexts such as commercial BCI product development vs. academic research and lab prototypes. Here we propose the adoption of recent systems-engineering methodologies for privacy threat modeling, risk assessment, and privacy engineering to the BCI field. These methodologies address privacy and security concerns in a more systematic and holistic way than previous approaches, and provide reusable patterns on how to move from principles to actions. We apply these methodologies to BCI and data flows and derive a generic, extensible, and actionable framework for brain-privacy-preserving cybersecurity in BCI applications. This framework is designed for flexible application to the wide range of current and future BCI applications. We also propose a range of novel privacy-by-design features for BCIs, with an emphasis on features promoting BCI transparency as a prerequisite for informational self-determination of BCI users, as well as design features for ensuring BCI user autonomy. We anticipate that our framework will contribute to the development of privacy-respecting, trustworthy BCI technologies.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2209.09653

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The more information about one's mental activity is available to third parties, the more likely that content and timing of stimuli might be optimised for persuasive impact.

    “For example, the more information about one’s mental activity and patterns is available to third parties, the more likely (as one concern goes) that content and timing of stimuli might be optimised for persuasive impact [41,42].”

    From Ethical considerations for the use of brain–computer interfaces for cognitive enhancement (2024) · cites this paper as [42]

    Related Work (pp. 23–24) describes using stimuli to infer private information, including subconscious preferences, and discusses restricting third parties’ access to raw EEG data. It does not say that greater access to mental-activity information enables third parties to optimise the content or timing of stimuli for persuasive impact. (LLM, conf=0.80)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 63

  1. [1]R. P. N. Rao, Brain-computer interfacing: an introduction . New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
  2. [2]J. Wolpaw and E. W. Wolpaw, Brain-Computer Interfaces Principles and Practice . Oxford University Press, Jan. 2012.
  3. [8]J. C. Bublitz, 'Privacy Concerns in Brain-Computer Interfaces,' AJOB Neuroscience , vol. 10, pp. 30-32, Jan. 2019.
  4. [9]A. Gilead, 'Can Brain Imaging Breach Our Mental Privacy?,' Review of Philosophy and Psychology , vol. 6, pp. 275-291, June 2015.
  5. [10]N. Gligorov, 'Brain Imaging and the Privacy of Inner States,' in Neuroethics and the Scientific Revision of Common Sense , vol. 11, pp. 95-116, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2016. Series Title: Studies in Brain and Mind.
  6. [11]S. Ligthart, T. Douglas, C. Bublitz, T. Kooijmans, and G. Meynen, 'Forensic Brain-Reading and Mental Privacy in European Human Rights Law: Foundations and Challenges,' Neuroethics , vol. 14, pp. 191-203, July 2021.
  7. [12]N. Minielly, V. Hrincu, and J. Illes, 'Privacy Challenges to the Democratization of Brain Data,' iScience , vol. 23, p. 101134, June 2020.
  8. [13]S. Naufel and E. Klein, 'Brain-computer interface (BCI) researcher perspectives on neural data ownership and privacy,' Journal of Neural Engineering , vol. 17, p. 016039, Jan. 2020.
  9. [14]S. D. Richmond, G. Rees, and S. J. L. Edwards, eds., I Know What You're Thinking: Brain imaging and mental privacy . Oxford University Press, Aug. 2012.
  10. [15]M. Ienca, J. J. Fins, R. J. Jox, F. Jotterand, S. Voeneky, R. Andorno, T. Ball, C. Castelluccia, R. Chavarriaga, H. Chneiweiss, A. Ferretti, O. Friedrich, S. Hurst, G. Merkel, F. Molnár-Gábor, J.-M. Rickli, J. Scheibner, E. Vayena, R. Yuste, and P. Kellmeyer, 'Towards a Governance Framework for Brain Data,' Neuroethics , vol. 15, p. 20, July 2022.
  11. [16]P. Kellmeyer, 'Big Brain Data: On the Responsible Use of Brain Data from Clinical and Consumer-Directed Neurotechnological Devices,' Neuroethics , vol. 14, pp. 83-98, Apr. 2021.
  12. [17]K. E. Himma and H. T. Tavani, eds., The Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics . Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., May 2008.
  13. [18]A. Moore, 'Toward informational privacy rights,' San Diego Law Review , pp. 809-845, 2007.
  14. [20]M. v. Gerven, J. Farquhar, R. Schaefer, R. Vlek, J. Geuze, A. Nijholt, N. Ramsey, P. Haselager, L. Vuurpijl, S. Gielen, and P. Desain, 'The brain-computer interface cycle,' Journal of Neural Engineering , vol. 6, p. 041001, Aug. 2009.
  15. [21]I. Martinovic, D. Davies, M. Frank, D. Perito, T. Ros, and D. Song, 'On the Feasibility of Side-Channel Attacks with Brain-Computer Interfaces,' in In Proceedings of the 21st USENIX Security Symposium , pp. 143-158, 2012.
  16. [22]M. Frank, T. Hwu, S. Jain, R. T. Knight, I. Martinovic, P. Mittal, D. Perito, I. Sluganovic, and D. Song, 'Using EEG-Based BCI Devices to Subliminally Probe for Private Information,' in Proceedings of the 2017 on Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society , (Dallas Texas USA), pp. 133-136, ACM, Oct. 2017.
  17. [23]S. L. Bernal, A. H. Celdrán, G. M. Pérez, M. T. Barros, and S. Balasubramaniam, 'Security in Brain-Computer Interfaces: State-of-the-Art, Opportunities, and Future Challenges,' ACM Computing Surveys , vol. 54, pp. 1-35, Jan. 2022.
  18. [24]M. Deng, K. Wuyts, R. Scandariato, B. Preneel, and W. Joosen, 'A privacy threat analysis framework: supporting the elicitation and fulfillment of privacy requirements,' Requirements Engineering Journal , vol. 16, pp. 3-32, 2011.
  19. [25]D. Huth and F. Matthes, ''Appropriate Technical and Organizational Measures': Identifying Privacy Engineering Approaches to Meet GDPR Requirements,' in AMCIS 2019 Proceedings. 5. , Dec. 2019.
  20. [26]S. Gürses, C. Troncoso, and C. Diaz, 'Engineering privacy by design,' Computers, Privacy & Data Protection , vol. 14, no. 3, p. 25, 2011.
  21. [27]A. E. Waldman, 'Data Protection by Design? A Critique of Article 25 of the GDPR,' Cornell International Law Journal , vol. 53, Jan. 2021.
  22. [32]K. Brigham and B. V. K. V. Kumar, 'Imagined Speech Classification with EEG Signals for Silent Communication: A Preliminary Investigation into Synthetic Telepathy,' in 2010 4th International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedical Engineering , (Chengdu, China), pp. 1-4, IEEE, June 2010.
  23. [33]S. Zhang, S. Yuan, L. Huang, X. Zheng, Z. Wu, K. Xu, and G. Pan, 'Human Mind Control of Rat Cyborg's Continuous Locomotion with Wireless Brain-to-Brain Interface,' Scientific Reports , vol. 9, p. 1321, Dec. 2019.
  24. [35]A. Jalaly Bidgoly, H. Jalaly Bidgoly, and Z. Arezoumand, 'A survey on methods and challenges in EEG based authentication,' Computers & Security , vol. 93, p. 101788, June 2020.
  25. [36]H.-L. Chan, P.-C. Kuo, C.-Y. Cheng, and Y.-S. Chen, 'Challenges and Future Perspectives on Electroencephalogram-Based Biometrics in Person Recognition,' Frontiers in Neuroinformatics , vol. 12, p. 66, Oct. 2018.
  26. [37]M. R. Boubakeur, G. Wang, C. Zhang, and K. Liu, 'EEG-Based Person Recognition Analysis and Criticism,' in 2017 IEEE International Conference on Big Knowledge (ICBK) , (Hefei, China), pp. 155-160, IEEE, Aug. 2017.
  27. [38]D. Kuhner, L. Fiederer, J. Aldinger, F. Burget, M. Völker, R. Schirrmeister, C. Do, J. Boedecker, B. Nebel, T. Ball, and W. Burgard, 'A service assistant combining autonomous robotics, flexible goal formulation, and deep-learning-based brain-computer interfacing,' Robotics and Autonomous Systems , vol. 116, pp. 98-113, June 2019.
  28. [40]A. N. Belkacem, 'Cybersecurity Framework for P300-based Brain Computer Interface,' in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC) , (Toronto, ON, Canada), pp. 1-6, IEEE, Oct. 2020.
  29. [42]E. T. Martínez Beltrán, M. Quiles Pérez, S. López Bernal, A. Huertas Celdrán, and G. Martínez Pérez, 'Noise-based cyberattacks generating fake P300 waves in brain-computer interfaces,' Cluster Computing , vol. 25, pp. 33-48, Feb. 2022.
  30. [43]E. T. Martínez Beltrán, M. Quiles Pérez, S. López Bernal, A. Huertas Celdrán, and G. Martínez Pérez, 'SecBrain: A Framework to Detect Cyberattacks Revealing Sensitive Data in Brain-Computer Interfaces,' in Advances in Information Security, Privacy, and Ethics (B. B. Gupta, ed.), pp. 176-198, IGI Global, 2022.
  31. [45]B. Cusack, K. Sundararajan, and R. Khaleghparast, 'Neurosecurity for brainware devices,' Australian Information Security Management Conference , 2017.
  32. [46]K. Sundararajan, Privacy and security issues in Brain Computer Interface . PhD thesis, 2017.
  33. [47]Y. Xiao, Y. Jia, X. Cheng, J. Yu, Z. Liang, and Z. Tian, 'I Can See Your Brain: Investigating Home-Use Electroencephalography System Security,' IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 6, pp. 6681-6691, Aug. 2019.
  34. [49]M. van Vliet, C. Mühl, B. Reuderink, and M. Poel, 'Guessing What's on Your Mind: Using the N400 in Brain Computer Interfaces,' in Brain Informatics (Y. Yao, R. Sun, T. Poggio, J. Liu, N. Zhong, and J. Huang, eds.), vol. 6334, pp. 180-191, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010.
  35. [50]M. V. Martin, V. Cho, and G. Aversano, 'Detection of Subconscious Face Recognition Using Consumer-Grade Brain-Computer Interfaces,' ACM Transactions on Applied Perception , vol. 14, pp. 1-20, Aug. 2016.
  36. [51]C. Bellman, M. Vargas Martin, and S. MacDonald, '(WKSP) On the Potential of Data Extraction by Detecting Unaware Facial Recognition with Brain-Computer Interfaces,' in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Computing (ICCC) , (San Francisco, CA), pp. 99-105, IEEE, July 2018.
  37. [52]J. P. Rosenfeld, 'P300 in detecting concealed information,' in Memory Detection (B. Verschuere, G. Ben-Shakhar, and E. Meijer, eds.), pp. 63-89, Cambridge University Press, 1 ed., Feb. 2011.
  38. [53]J. Lange, C. Massart, A. Mouraux, and F.-X. Standaert, 'Side-Channel Attacks Against the Human Brain: The PIN Code Case Study,' in Constructive Side-Channel Analysis and Secure Design (S. Guilley, ed.), vol. 10348, pp. 171-189, Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017.
  39. [54]T. Bonaci, Security and Privacy of Biomedical Cyber-Physical Systems . PhD thesis, 2015.
  40. [55]M. Quiles Pérez, E. T. Martínez Beltrán, S. López Bernal, A. Huertas Celdrán, and G. Martínez Pérez, 'Breaching Subjects' Thoughts Privacy: A Study with Visual Stimuli and Brain-Computer Interfaces,' Journal of Healthcare Engineering , vol. 2021, pp. 1-12, Aug. 2021.
  41. [57]B. Friedman, P. H. Kahn, A. Borning, and A. Huldtgren, 'Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems,' in Early engagement and new technologies: Opening up the laboratory (N. Doorn, D. Schuurbiers, I. van de Poel, and M. E. Gorman, eds.), vol. 16, pp. 55-95, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2013.
  42. [58]B. Friedman, I. Smith, P. H. Kahn, S. Consolvo, and J. Selawski, 'Development of a Privacy Addendum for Open Source Licenses: Value Sensitive Design in Industry,' in UbiComp 2006: Ubiquitous Computing (D. Hutchison, T. Kanade, J. Kittler, J. M. Kleinberg, F. Mattern, J. C. Mitchell, M. Naor, O. Nierstrasz, C. Pandu Rangan, B. Steffen, M. Sudan, D. Terzopoulos, D. Tygar, M. Y. Vardi, G. Weikum, P. Dourish, and A. Friday, eds.), vol. 4206, pp. 194-211, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2006.
  43. [59]K. Wahlstrom, N. B. Fairweather, and H. Ashman, 'Privacy and brain-computer interfaces: identifying potential privacy disruptions,' ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society , vol. 46, pp. 4153, Mar. 2016.
  44. [61]S. Pazouki, A. Aydeger, and S. M. Kazemi-Razi, 'False Data Injection Cyberattacks to Human Brain Implants' Power Source,' in 2021 International Conference on Electrical, Computer and Energy Technologies (ICECET) , (Cape Town, South Africa), pp. 1-6, IEEE, Dec. 2021.
  45. [64]K. Wuyts, L. Sion, and W. Joosen, 'Linddun go: A lightweight approach to privacy threat modeling,' pp. 302-309, IEEE, 2020.
  46. [66]J. Wang and X. Peng, 'A Study of Patent Open Source Strategies Based on Open Innovation: The Case of Tesla,' Open Journal of Social Sciences , vol. 08, no. 07, pp. 386-394, 2020.
  47. [67]Lorena Guzmán H., 'Chile: Pioneering the protection of neurorights,' The UNESCO Courier , vol. 2022, pp. 13-14, Feb. 2022.
  48. [69]J.-H. Hoepman, 'Privacy Design Strategies,' in ICT Systems Security and Privacy Protection (N. Cuppens-Boulahia, F. Cuppens, S. Jajodia, A. Abou El Kalam, and T. Sans, eds.), vol. 428, pp. 446-459, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2014.
  49. [70]N. Notario, A. Crespo, Y.-S. Martin, J. M. Del Alamo, D. L. Metayer, T. Antignac, A. Kung, I. Kroener, and D. Wright, 'PRIPARE: Integrating Privacy Best Practices into a Privacy Engineering Methodology,' in 2015 IEEE Security and Privacy Workshops , (San Jose, CA), pp. 151158, IEEE, May 2015.
  50. [71]H. Karim and D. Rawat, 'A Trusted Bluetooth Performance Evaluation Model for Brain Computer Interfaces,' in 2019 IEEE 20th International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration for Data Science (IRI) , (Los Angeles, CA, USA), pp. 47-52, IEEE, July 2019.
  51. [75]G. James, D. Witten, T. Hastie, and R. Tibshirani, An Introduction to Statistical Learning , vol. 103 of Springer Texts in Statistics . New York, NY: Springer New York, 2013.
  52. [78]O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, 'U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation,' in Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention - MICCAI 2015 (N. Navab, J. Hornegger, W. M. Wells, and A. F. Frangi, eds.), vol. 9351, pp. 234-241, Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2015.
  53. [79]L. A. Gatys, A. S. Ecker, and M. Bethge, 'Image style transfer using convolutional neural networks,' in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , June 2016.
  54. [81]Y. Yao, J. Plested, T. Gedeon, Y. Liu, and Z. Wang, 'Improved Techniques for Building EEG Feature Filters,' in 2019 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) , (Budapest, Hungary), pp. 1-6, IEEE, July 2019.
  55. [82]R. C. Oldfield, 'The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory,' Neuropsychologia , vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 97-113, 1971.
  56. [83]D. A. Engemann, A. Mellot, R. Höchenberger, H. Banville, D. Sabbagh, L. Gemein, T. Ball, and A. Gramfort, 'A reusable benchmark of brain-age prediction from M/EEG resting-state signals,' preprint, Neuroscience, Dec. 2021.
  57. [84]J. Hammer, J. Fischer, J. Ruescher, A. Schulze-Bonhage, A. Aertsen, and T. Ball, 'The role of ECoG magnitude and phase in decoding position, velocity, and acceleration during continuous motor behavior,' Frontiers in Neuroscience , vol. 7, 2013.
  58. [85]E. Bezzam, M. Vetterli, and M. Simeoni, 'Learning rich optical embeddings for privacypreserving lensless image classification,' June 2022. arXiv:2206.01429 [cs, eess]. · arXiv
  59. [86]M. Finck and F. Pallas, 'They who must not be identified-distinguishing personal from nonpersonal data under the GDPR,' International Data Privacy Law , vol. 10, pp. 11-36, Feb. 2020.
  60. [88]M. R. Leiser and F. Dechesne, 'Governing machine-learning models: challenging the personal data presumption,' International Data Privacy Law , vol. 10, pp. 187-200, Aug. 2020.
  61. [89]A. J. Bidgoly, H. J. Bidgoly, and Z. Arezoumand, 'Towards a universal and privacy preserving EEG-based authentication system,' Scientific Reports , vol. 12, p. 2531, Dec. 2022.
  62. [90]P. Tangkraingkij, C. Lursinsap, S. Sanguansintukul, and T. Desudchit, 'Personal Identification by EEG Using ICA and Neural Network,' in Computational Science and Its Applications ICCSA 2010 (D. Hutchison, T. Kanade, J. Kittler, J. M. Kleinberg, F. Mattern, J. C. Mitchell, M. Naor, O. Nierstrasz, C. Pandu Rangan, B. Steffen, M. Sudan, D. Terzopoulos, D. Tygar, M. Y. Vardi, G. Weikum, D. Taniar, O. Gervasi, B. Murgante, E. Pardede, and B. O. Apduhan, eds.), vol. 6018, pp. 419-430, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010. Series Title: Lecture Notes in Computer Science.
  63. [91]M. V. Ruiz-Blondet, Z. Jin, and S. Laszlo, 'Permanence of the CEREBRE brain biometric protocol,' Pattern Recognition Letters , vol. 95, pp. 37-43, Aug. 2017.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kapitonova, M., Kellmeyer, P., Vogt, S., & Ball, T.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2022
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2209.09653
arXiv
2209.09653
OpenAlex
W4296595169
Cited by
11
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
Keywords
brain-computer interface, privacy, cybersecurity, risk assessment, privacy engineering, privacy by design, user autonomy, informational self-determination, systems engineering

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