Read this; if you thought internet privacy and net neutrality were important before this became a reality, here is proof that it is one of the defining policy discussions we will have during our lifetime. While the next few months will doubtless be filled with debate over economic policy, as they should be, but soon enough we will be back to business as usual, and all too soon, the economy will be buzzing and corporations everywhere will be fighting each other to get that free market advantage.
Mind-Machine interfaces have been available to the medical community and hobbyists for years, from any major scientific manufacturer to designs that can interface through the computer soundcard. What is interesting here is that finally a manufacturer has developed a direct brain device that is (at least as advertised), sufficiently versatile to control video games, much like speech recognition can. But take a look at this.
What is interesting is the last sentence, "Emotiv is already working with IBM in hopes of developing the technology for "strategic enterprise business markets and virtual worlds", but whether others follow suit is another matter.". While facial recognition matching has amusing implications for things like second life, historically our thoughts have been regarded as a sacred and inscrutable place. Just as text messages and emails have taken fleeting interaction and held them up for later scrutiny, we are entering a new era of connectedness and openness. As we tap into that more and more sacred space of our thoughts, questions emerge, some lighthearted, but far more are dark and worrisome, particularly in the hands of the neocons we just worked so hard to shake off.
If you want some more realistic discussions and explorations of Man-Machine Interface (MMI) than the Matrix, I highly recommend anything by Masamune Shirow in his ghost in the shell universe. (Yes its Anime, however, as an electrical engineer with a good background in information systems, his work is frighteningly realistic) A very good discussion of current technology trends is discussed on wikipedia.
Now, let's pair the brain computer interface headset with things like this. As electronics become more and more inconspicuous and integrated, from water pitchers that tell one when to replace the cartridge to cars that send us email, at what point will we start seeing our environment interacting with us without us even knowing? Will our favorite shirt know that it is our favorite shirt and send an ad for a replacement to us when it gets old?
The reason that we need to face these questions is that this technology, quite literally, is sitting on top of our heads. If it is capable of controlling video games it at least as capable as speech recognition, which poses a few of these questions, though to a lesser extent. If you're not convinced that net neutrality is a big issue yet, look at it this way: Imagine if your ISP was allowed to observe which content you wanted more than others, and was permitted to charge you more to see it?
Here are some of the important questions that may be examined, by politicians, or, if we are not careful, in the courts. Until a practice or potential practice is rendered illegal, it is legal by default, and in many cases the least ethical company or application gets away with their behavior until stopped. These are just a few questions that come up, along with many others. We are entering a cybertechnology era and we should be prepared to meet it.
For legal eagles: Is it, or should it be, possible to use a mental input as evidence of mens-rea? Currently there is a fundamental assumption in law that there is no objective evidence to state of mind; it must be inferred from words, actions, attitudes, etc. What happens when emotive or thought data becomes available?
To what extent can such a device be used, or required as a standard part of business negotiations? This is of particular importance for both ethical and unethical businessmen. For example, could one businessman apply such a device as a lie detector to determine at an 'objective' level whether a business partner may be lying or concealing information? What about as part of an employer-employee interview? What about use for time-monitoring? On the other hand, should an unethical businessperson be able to use such a device to see if some sucker is falling for a scam?
And let's not forget internet activity. Imagine these devices being tapped into to evaluate the effect of advertising and other browser and revenue-generation effects. Just imagine not just getting spam, but a system that watches which types of spam aggravate one the most and send more of it? Or worse, what types of scams people fall for?
Right now these devices are entirely one-way. We are, however, only a few years away from inexpensive knockoffs being developed with a price low enough for mass-market penetration.
Now, just imagine what happens when the devices become two-way. We need to develop the guiding policies now to protect our privacy or we run the risk of major social problems due to our inaction.