Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

dc.contributor.authorCornejo-Plaza, María Isabel
dc.contributor.authorCippitani, Roberto
dc.contributor.authorPasquino, Vincenzo
dc.date.accessioned2024-06-21T20:19:52Z
dc.date.available2024-06-21T20:19:52Z
dc.date.issued2024
dc.identifier10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1330439
dc.identifier.issn16641078
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12728/11539
dc.description.abstractThis paper discusses a landmark ruling by the Chilean Supreme Court of August 9, 2023 dealing with the right to mental privacy, originated with an action for constitutional protection filed on behalf of Guido Girardi Lavin against Emotiv Inc., a North American company based in San Francisco, California that is commercializing the device “Insight.” This wireless device functions as a headset with sensors that collect information about the brain’s electrical activity (i.e., neurodata). The discussion revolves around whether neurodata can be considered personal data and whether they could be classified into a special category. The application of the present legislation on data (the most obsolete, such as the Chilean law, and the most recent EU law) does not seem adequate to protect neurodata. The use of neurodata raises ethical and legal concerns that are not fully addressed by current regulations on personal data protection. Despite not being necessarily considered personal data, neurodata represent the most intimate aspects of human personality and should be protected in light of potential new risks. The unique characteristics of neurodata, including their interpretive nature and potential for revealing thoughts and intentions, pose challenges for regulation. Current data protection laws do not differentiate between different types of data based on their informational content, which is relevant for protecting individual rights. The development of new technologies involving neurodata requires particular attention and careful consideration to prevent possible harm to human dignity. The regulation of neurodata must account for their specific characteristics and the potential risks they pose to privacy, confidentiality, and individual rights. The answer lies in the reconfiguration of human rights known as “neurorights” that goes beyond the protection of personal data. Copyright © 2024 Cornejo-Plaza, Cippitani and Pasquino.es_ES
dc.language.isoenes_ES
dc.publisherFrontiers Media SAes_ES
dc.subjectartificial intelligencees_ES
dc.subjectGDPRes_ES
dc.subjectludic neurotechnologyes_ES
dc.subjectneurodataes_ES
dc.subjectneuroenhancementes_ES
dc.subjectneurorightses_ES
dc.subjectSupreme Court judgmentes_ES
dc.titleChilean Supreme Court ruling on the protection of brain activity: neurorights, personal data protection, and neurodataes_ES
dc.typeArticlees_ES


Ficheros en el ítem

Thumbnail

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem