As technology advances into uncharted territories, the protection of personal data takes on new dimensions. Today, we’re diving into a critical and emerging issue—neural data privacy—with Rupert Marais, our in-house security specialist. With deep expertise in endpoint and device security, cybersecurity strategies, and network management, Rupert offers a unique perspective on how brain activity data is becoming a frontier for both innovation and potential exploitation. In this interview, we explore the implications of neural data collection, the legislative efforts to safeguard it, the risks of misuse in areas like advertising and insurance, and the challenges of regulating this complex space.
How would you describe neural data, and why is it gaining so much attention lately?
Neural data refers to the information derived from brain activity, like thoughts, emotions, or cognitive patterns, often captured through devices that measure brain signals. It’s becoming a big deal now because technology has advanced to the point where companies can collect this data with increasing precision, whether through wearable tech or more invasive tools like brain-computer interfaces. Unlike other data, it’s incredibly intimate—it’s literally a window into how someone thinks or feels, which makes its potential for misuse so much higher and why there’s an urgent push to address it.
What sets neural data apart from other personal information, such as browsing history or location tracking?
The key difference is the depth of insight it provides. Browsing history or location data can suggest what you’re interested in or where you’ve been, but neural data can reveal your emotional state, decision-making processes, or even subconscious biases. It’s not just about what you do—it’s about why you do it. That level of access makes it uniquely sensitive, as it could be used to predict or even manipulate behavior in ways that other data types can’t.
What’s the core purpose behind the Management of Individuals’ Neural Data Act of 2025?
The main goal of this legislation is to protect consumers by setting up guardrails around how neural data is collected, used, and shared. It aims to prevent tech companies and data brokers from exploiting this information to influence people’s decisions, emotions, or purchases. By directing the Federal Trade Commission to establish standards, the bill seeks to ensure privacy and consent are prioritized, so innovation doesn’t come at the cost of personal autonomy.
How could neural data be exploited to target individuals with manipulative advertising or risky financial schemes?
Neural data can reveal when someone is emotionally vulnerable or more likely to make impulsive decisions. Imagine a company using that insight to push ads for expensive products or high-risk investments right at the moment you’re feeling stressed or desperate. It’s not just tailoring content—it’s exploiting your mental state. This kind of targeting could strip away a person’s ability to make rational choices, turning personal data into a weapon for profit.
How do you see the Federal Trade Commission approaching the task of creating standards for neural data protection?
I think the FTC will need to take a collaborative approach, bringing together experts from tech, healthcare, and consumer advocacy to build a framework that balances innovation with privacy. They’ll likely start by mapping out how neural data is currently collected and used, then identify gaps in existing laws. Public input will be critical, as will learning from past data privacy efforts. The goal would be to create enforceable rules that are flexible enough to adapt as technology evolves.
What challenges might the FTC face in regulating something as cutting-edge and intricate as neural data?
One major challenge is the sheer novelty of the field—there’s no clear precedent for regulating brain data, so they’re starting from scratch. Another issue is enforcement; neural data collection often happens across borders, involving global companies, which complicates jurisdiction. Plus, there’s the risk of stifling innovation if rules are too rigid, or leaving loopholes if they’re too vague. Striking that balance while keeping up with rapid tech advancements will be incredibly tough.
With companies already collecting neural data with little oversight, how concerned should the average person be?
People should be quite concerned, honestly. Right now, many companies in the wearable tech and brain-interface space are gathering this data without clear rules on how it’s stored, shared, or used. Without oversight, there’s a real risk of it being sold to third parties or used in ways that prioritize profit over privacy. For the average person, this could mean losing control over some of their most personal information without even realizing it.
Can you explain how neural data abuses might lead to discrimination in areas like insurance?
Absolutely. Insurance companies could potentially use neural data to infer things like stress levels, cognitive decline, or predisposition to certain mental health conditions. If they access this data, they might raise premiums, deny coverage, or cherry-pick clients based on perceived risks. It’s a form of profiling that could unfairly penalize individuals for traits they can’t control, turning private brain activity into a tool for exclusion.
Beyond insurance, where else might the misuse of neural data cause harm?
There are several areas. In employment, for instance, employers could use neural data to screen candidates or monitor workers for productivity, potentially leading to bias or invasion of privacy. In marketing, beyond just ads, it could enable hyper-targeted campaigns that exploit fears or desires. Even in personal relationships, if this data falls into the wrong hands, it could be used for manipulation or coercion. The possibilities for harm are vast because the data is so deeply personal.
What’s your forecast for the future of neural data privacy and regulation over the next decade?
I believe we’re at a pivotal moment. Over the next decade, I expect neural data to become a central focus of privacy debates, much like social media data was in the 2010s. We’ll likely see a patchwork of regulations emerge globally, with some regions taking a stricter stance than others. Technology will keep outpacing policy, though, so public awareness and advocacy will be key to pushing for stronger protections. My hope is that we’ll see proactive self-regulation from industry alongside government efforts, but without sustained pressure, there’s a risk that privacy will take a backseat to innovation.
