•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
In recent years, rights to data and brain integrity—often referred to as “neuro rights”—have been proposed worldwide as a way to protect human rights from interference by technology. Chile has moved to embed this concept into its Constitution, alongside the development of a legal framework that other countries may look to as a model.
Neuro technologies are advancing medicine, technology, and education. At the same time, the ability to collect, monitor, and analyze brain data—and to stimulate brain activity—raises concerns about privacy and the protection of fundamental freedoms.
The central challenge is safeguarding human rights against risks such as data intrusion, manipulation of thought, and impacts on personal identity.
Neural data is fundamentally distinct from ordinary biometric information. It can reflect intention, emotion, thought, and subconscious processes. As a result, actors who collect such data may not only obtain identifying information, but also be able to decode how individuals make decisions.
When neuro technologies combine multiple categories of personal data—physiological, behavioral, biographical, and others—they can infer mental states and predict behavior that users may not be aware they are revealing.
In criminal justice, neuro technologies could change how evidence is gathered and how rehabilitation is carried out. Instead of relying solely on testimony, investigators could use brain-reading devices to record unconscious neural responses when suspects are exposed to crime-scene imagery.
In an execution or monitoring context, implanted devices could be used to detect and suppress angry impulses in violent offenders through algorithms designed to intervene as emotions arise.
These scenarios represent a level of privacy intrusion deeper than typical data breaches, creating an urgent need for a legal framework focused on freedom of will.
The discussion around neuro rights has intensified, particularly regarding their legal basis and scope. Two main positions dominate the debate.
Marcello Ienca and Roberto Andorno (2017) helped systematize neuro rights from a reformist perspective, arguing that existing human rights protections are inadequate to safeguard the brain’s integrity. They describe neuro rights as built on:
Building on this framework, researchers at Columbia University and the Neurorights Foundation—represented by Professor Rafael Yuste—proposed two additional elements: fair access to cognitive enhancement and protection from algorithmic bias.
In summary, neuro rights are defined as: “Individuals have the ultimate right to control their own decision-making, free from covert or unclear sources of influence from external neuro technologies.” The definition emphasizes human autonomy as a core value in the era of neuro technologies.
Overall, the proposals aim to protect human dignity and autonomy, going beyond data protection or ordinary privacy. Without a legal mechanism, people could face the risk of being “programmed” by algorithms, undermining independent thinking that supports legal and ethical responsibility.
Chile’s process of constitutionalizing neuro rights began in 2019 at the Congreso Futuro forum. The initiative was developed with collaboration among lawmakers and scholars, guided by Dr. Rafael Yuste’s work on the ability to read thoughts and subconscious processes through neuro technologies.
Although some debate exists about whether neuro rights are redundant with existing privacy rights, the bill advanced in a specific social context. The social momentum at the end of 2019 and the need to reform the constitution to expand human rights were described as key catalysts that helped neuro rights overcome theoretical obstacles and be formally considered a fundamental constitutional right.
In October 2021, Chile introduced neuro rights through an amendment to the Constitution. The country amended Article 19 to protect mental integrity and to immunize individuals against adverse effects of neuro technologies.
The provision is intended to protect individuals’ physical and mental integrity in the development and application of neuroscience and neurotechnology, while also recognizing freedom to use these technologies within limits defined by the Constitution and law.
Chile recognizes three main purposes for neuro technologies: medical use, research and development, and commercial use, each governed by separate provisions. Any neuro technology proposed for use in Chile must be registered with the Public Health Institute, which registers medicines and devices used for medical purposes.
During registration, intended uses must be clearly stated. The competent authority may restrict or prohibit uses when:
Chile’s constitutional recognition is presented as part of a wider global trend in governance. As the boundary between biology and technology blurs, nations and international bodies face pressure to redefine the scope of human rights.
Recognizing neuro rights is described as an effort to safeguard freedom of thought and ensure that technological progress serves human development rather than reducing people to data.
Premium gym chains are entering a “golden era” that is ending or already in decline, as rising operating costs collide with shifting consumer preferences toward more flexible, community-based ways to exercise. Long-term memberships are shrinking, margins are pressured by higher rents and facility expenses, and competition from smaller, more personalized…
