News
Analysis of Legal Functionality in the Face of Technological Advancement, Case of Ecuador: Neuro-Rights.
This article analyses the impact of advancing neurotechnology on human rights, particularly regarding cognitive freedom, mental privacy, and psychological integrity. It discusses the ethical implications of brain-computer interfaces and the necessity for specific neuro-rights to protect mental domains. While Ecuador aims to address digital rights in legislation, the absence of a tailored mechanism raises concerns about safeguarding these rights amidst evolving technologies.

The development of technology has significantly impacted our lives; algorithms predicting our interests, preferences, and even health. The rise of devices enabling people to post on social media or play video games using just their thoughts has raised concerns about the consequences for human privacy and freedom. Artificial intelligence, beyond GPT chat, has managed to determine the words and images an individual thought based on the interpretation of their neural information. While the benefits for human well-being brought by devices directly interacting with the human brain are immense, the ethical debates surrounding these advancements raise concerns about human freedom and limitations in utilizing such technologies.
Neurotechnology encompasses instruments enabling direct connection of the nervous system with technological devices. The Law Society of England and Wales defines neurotechnology similarly, emphasizing the capacity of these devices to 'monitor and record neuronal activity and/or influence it. The first use of neurotechnology dates back to 1924 when Hans Berger conducted the first human electroencephalogram (EEG). Subsequently, technology advancements allowed for more efficient collection of neural data and also interference in brain functions. Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), capable of mapping, assisting, enhancing, and even repairing brain activities, were developed. These activities not only impact human motor skills but also influence thoughts or cognitive abilities. The risk of privacy violations or encroachments on personal freedom due to cerebral intrusion raises questions about the safeguards our laws offer to protect our most private sphere: our thoughts. This ethical debate is evident in neuromarketing, using neurotechnology to influence product need. Although initially thought by early advocates of neuroprotection that the commercialization of BCIs would take decades, today, we find devices in the market monitoring brainwaves or even enhancing concentration through neural data collection and sensory deprivation.
In 2017, Ienca and Andorno determined that the problems arising from the implementation of neurotechnologies could not be resolved with existing regulations safeguarding human rights in international instruments. Authors identified the need for rights specifically protecting the human neural realm, proposing four specific protection areas: cognitive freedom, mental privacy, mental integrity, and psychological continuity. While legal discussions had previously covered aspects of these rights, the commercialization of BCIs and the capacity of companies - and the State - to access and use this information call for a reinterpretation of recognized rights at minimum.
Ultimately, neuro-rights are freedoms or rights related to human mental domain. The Latin American and Caribbean Model Law of Neuro-Rights, proposed by the Latin American and Caribbean Parliament, aims to protect the brain and its activity with technological advances. However, protecting the brain itself can be achieved through safeguarding the human's physical integrity, encompassing its entirety. The substantial issue lies in the distinction between mind and body that identifies us as humans. Chile is considered a pioneer in protecting neuro-rights since late 2021, approving a constitutional amendment. Brazil followed suit in amending its constitution. Currently, Spain recognizes neuro-rights protection through the Digital Rights Charter, acknowledging 'Digital Rights in the use of Neurotechnologies' in Section XXIV. Hence, the global trend is to acknowledge these rights and their guarantees.
Before the dissolution of the National Assembly due to 'crossed death' on March 6, 2023, Ecuador presented the Organic Law Project of Digital Rights to the Assembly's secretariat. This legislative initiative awaits qualification by the Legislative Administration Council to determine priority and the Commission responsible for resuming proceedings once the new National Assembly is in session. The project consists of 39 articles, three transitional provisions, and a final provision. Among its articles, the project aims to recognize 33 rights somewhat related to the digital environment. Article 26 recognizes, among others, the right to non-algorithmic discrimination in artificial intelligence systems, while Article 27 acknowledges the right to mental integrity and not to be subject to decisions based on biased neurotechnologies. Article 28 refers to the guarantees of these rights but does not establish a specific mechanism or procedure for their protection, only mentioning the possibility of invoking 'the guarantee of these rights by the administrative authority or the competent jurisdictional body in Ecuador.' Although the recognition of these rights seems to signify progress in Ecuadorian legislation, their effective protection could develop through safeguarding other already recognized rights in Ecuador. It seems illogical for a bill to aim at recognizing 33 rights when its constitution recognizes 99 more, making it the Constitution that recognizes the most rights globally. James Madison's fear, that rights are mere parchment barriers, rings true in Ecuador.
Ecuador is not the birthplace of primary initiatives aiming to map or manipulate the brain, as seen in the US, China, or Europe. However, the commercialization and use of BCIs by Ecuadorians could occur as rapidly as in any other country.
The right to cognitive freedom refers to controlling our thoughts and the ability to modify our mental states, essential for other freedoms. There's debate on the extent of this right, especially concerning external influences on our mental processes. In Ecuador, it associates with the right to personal integrity, protecting against mental coercion. In the absence of specific protection in the law, judicial protection serves as an effective path.
Mental integrity, unlike freedom of thought, seeks to preserve the mind from any harm, even that generated by social media algorithms. Defining and recognizing mental harm poses difficulties. The Ecuadorian Constitutional Court distinguishes between psychic and moral integrity, reserving the former for protection against mental damages and the latter for respecting personal convictions.
The right to mental privacy concerns control over access to neuronal information and mental processes. In Ecuador, this information is considered part of health-related data, enjoying special protection. Habeas Data is the constitutional guarantee to protect this right, allowing the owner to request access, modification, or deletion of their neuronal information.
Psychological continuity aims to preserve people's identity and protect against unauthorized intrusions into their mental activity, even if they cause no harm. This right relates to the right to personal identity recognized in the Ecuadorian Constitution.
Despite the lack of explicit recognition of neuro-rights in Ecuadorian legislation, the rights already acknowledged at the constitutional level encompass their scope. However, it underscores the need to evaluate the implications of technology on fundamental rights and the absence of an impact analysis in the creation of legal frameworks, which could hinder the effectiveness of existing laws.
Article provided by INPLP members: Andrés Terán (HEKA LAW FIRM, Ecuador)
Discover more about the INPLP and the INPLP-Members
Dr. Tobias Höllwarth (Managing Director INPLP)
News Archiv
- Alle zeigen
- Jänner 2025
- Dezember 2024
- November 2024
- Oktober 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- Juli 2024
- Juni 2024
- Mai 2024
- April 2024
- März 2024
- Februar 2024
- Jänner 2024
- Dezember 2023
- November 2023
- Oktober 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- Juli 2023
- Juni 2023
- Mai 2023
- April 2023
- März 2023
- Februar 2023
- Jänner 2023
- Dezember 2022
- November 2022
- Oktober 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- Juli 2022
- Mai 2022
- April 2022
- März 2022
- Februar 2022
- November 2021
- September 2021
- Juli 2021
- Mai 2021
- April 2021
- Dezember 2020
- November 2020
- Oktober 2020
- Juni 2020
- März 2020
- Dezember 2019
- Oktober 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- Juli 2019
- Juni 2019
- Mai 2019
- April 2019
- März 2019
- Februar 2019
- Jänner 2019
- Dezember 2018
- November 2018
- Oktober 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- Juli 2018
- Juni 2018
- Mai 2018
- April 2018
- März 2018
- Februar 2018
- Dezember 2017
- November 2017
- Oktober 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- Juli 2017
- Juni 2017
- Mai 2017
- April 2017
- März 2017
- Februar 2017
- November 2016
- Oktober 2016
- September 2016
- Juli 2016
- Juni 2016
- Mai 2016
- April 2016
- März 2016
- Februar 2016
- Jänner 2016
- Dezember 2015
- November 2015
- Oktober 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- Juli 2015
- Juni 2015
- Mai 2015
- April 2015
- März 2015
- Februar 2015
- Jänner 2015
- Dezember 2014
- November 2014
- Oktober 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- Juli 2014
- Juni 2014
- Mai 2014
- April 2014
- März 2014
- Februar 2014
- Jänner 2014
- Dezember 2013
- November 2013
- Oktober 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- Juli 2013
- Juni 2013
- Mai 2013
- April 2013
- März 2013
- Februar 2013
- Jänner 2013
- Dezember 2012
- November 2012
- Oktober 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- Juli 2012
- Juni 2012
- Mai 2012
- April 2012
- März 2012
- Februar 2012
- Jänner 2012
- Dezember 2011
- November 2011
- Oktober 2011
- September 2011
- Juli 2011
- Juni 2011
- Mai 2011
- April 2011
- März 2011
- Februar 2011
- Jänner 2011
- November 2010
- Oktober 2010
- September 2010
- Juli 2010