0:03

WearableTech, your Fitbit, smartwatch, and the

0:05

like, they can already do things

0:08

like measure your heart rate or

0:10

how well you're sleeping just based

0:12

on how you're moving or

0:14

signals through your skin. So

0:17

what do you think the next frontier

0:19

might be in WearableTech? The

0:21

next new thing devices can monitor

0:23

and measure. Just

0:26

think about it. What

0:28

do you think? I

0:31

use my earbuds every day because I

0:33

want to know how my brain changes

0:35

based on all of the things that

0:37

I do because my brain is changing

0:39

all the time. It's the most sophisticated

0:41

learning apparatus that we have. So

0:44

I use my earbuds as a way to

0:46

understand what's happening to my brain as

0:48

I play with my daughter, hang out with my

0:50

cat, listen to music, work,

0:54

and it's really interesting. I learn a lot about

0:56

myself. I learn a lot about what

0:59

makes me happy and

1:01

perform better and when I'm

1:03

really stressed, what impact that has

1:05

on me. This

1:08

is Tan Lee, co-founder and

1:10

CEO of Emotive, one of

1:12

a new crop of companies

1:14

that sees great potential in

1:16

BCI, or Brain Computer Interface

1:18

Technology. Lee believes

1:20

the possibilities for such tech

1:23

are endless, helping the elderly

1:25

experiencing cognitive decline, empowering the

1:27

disabled community to perform actions

1:29

simply through thinking, even helping

1:31

you understand yourself better, how

1:34

to be happier or

1:36

more efficient. Lee

1:38

says Brain Computer Interface Tech will

1:40

one day be able to do

1:43

all of these things through major

1:45

advances in miniaturized electroencephalography technology, or

1:47

EEG, which can read signals from

1:50

the human brain and send them

1:52

to amplifiers, which in her company's

1:54

case, are in those earbuds. It's

1:57

giving you a feedback on your

1:59

computer. So if I click on the icon

2:01

to see what's going on in my brain

2:03

at the moment, I can see what's happening

2:05

in my brain. And then I can also

2:07

see a report over the course of the

2:10

day, when during the day my brain was

2:12

in an optimal state. And then I

2:14

can correlate that with what I was

2:16

doing at that time. So when I

2:18

look back on my afternoon on Sunday,

2:20

I knew exactly what I was doing. So I

2:22

knew why that was different to

2:25

the barrage of the meetings

2:27

I had on Friday afternoon, which

2:29

caused my brain to be a much more intense

2:32

state. And so that allows me to

2:34

change my day a little bit, carve

2:37

out more time for focused work, so

2:39

that I can actually work more optimally.

2:43

Well, Tan Lee isn't the only one

2:45

who thinks this is utterly fascinating. Her

2:48

three-year-old daughter sees her at her desk, wearing

2:50

her earbuds and checking in on her state

2:53

of mind. She said, Mommy, I want to

2:55

see. And I said, this is Mommy's brain.

2:57

And she said, I want to see

2:59

my brain. And I said, you're

3:01

too little. And

3:03

so it doesn't fit her, but she's so

3:05

intrigued by it. Currently,

3:08

Emotives earbuds are available only

3:10

on their website. Lee

3:12

says she hopes that one day they'll

3:14

be available in stores for widespread use

3:16

in the consumer market. But for

3:18

now, her main clients are not

3:20

consumers, they're employers. One

3:23

of our clients is JLL. JLL is

3:26

a large real estate organization. And JLL

3:28

came to saying that, you know, the

3:30

future of work is changing rapidly. How

3:33

can we design our workplaces better

3:35

so that we can make

3:38

sure that when people are at work, they're getting

3:40

what they want from the work environment?

3:42

So in that case, we will

3:44

invite volunteers within the organization to

3:46

sign up for a research study,

3:48

where they will wear a device

3:50

for a certain period of time.

3:52

And what we do is we

3:55

capture brain data from those experiences

3:57

in order to try and map

3:59

out. Now, what is the relationship

4:01

between an environment that's conducive

4:03

to teamwork and collaboration versus

4:06

something that doesn't actually

4:08

achieve those desired outcomes? By

4:12

the way, JLL is also known as

4:15

Jones Lang Lissau Inc., one

4:17

of the largest real estate companies in the world,

4:19

ranked 185th on the Fortune 500, $20 billion in

4:21

revenue last year, and

4:26

100,000 employees worldwide. Some

4:29

of which have been asked to participate in the kind

4:32

of research study Lee mentioned. So

4:35

what happens to the data those employees' brains

4:37

are pumping out into Emotives earbuds?

4:40

What's really important about Emotives is that

4:42

fundamentally we do not believe in how

4:46

companies have transacted with data in the past. We're

4:49

a company that was born about 10 years ago,

4:51

and so we've seen a lot of the changes

4:54

in the public's view of

4:56

how data is mined for

4:58

corporate advantage without the informed

5:01

consent of the users and

5:03

participants. And so we conduct ourselves

5:05

in a very thoughtful and ethical manner

5:07

in regards to data. The users need

5:09

to have control of when

5:12

they collect data, how data is

5:14

shared, and in fact, we don't

5:16

sell or share your data with

5:18

anyone without your explicit consent. Well,

5:22

this is on point. I'm Meghna

5:24

Chakrabarti, and that was Tan Lee,

5:26

co-founder and CEO of the neuro-technology

5:29

firm Emotives, one of a new

5:31

group of companies that's rapidly advancing

5:33

the possibilities of brain-computer-interface technology. Well,

5:36

my guest today says the positive

5:39

possibilities of such tech are exciting

5:41

and essential, but it's naive to

5:43

think that power to read brainwaves

5:46

will be used exclusively for good

5:48

because the potential for exploitation is

5:50

just too great, both

5:52

by corporations and governments.

5:55

So she says now, as

5:58

brain-computer-face technology is starting

6:00

to enter our lives and our minds,

6:03

now is the time to establish new

6:05

rules, to defend the right to think

6:07

freely, and to keep our minds

6:10

our own private property.

6:13

Well, that comes from Nita Farahani, professor

6:16

of law and philosophy at Duke University.

6:19

Her new book is The Battle for Your

6:21

Brain, Defending the Right to Think Freely in

6:23

the Age of Neurotechnology. Professor

6:26

Farahani, welcome back to On Point. Thank

6:29

you. It's great to be here. So

6:31

I would like you to take

6:33

us back to the first moment

6:35

you realized that this revolution

6:37

in tech was coming. You write

6:39

about a 2018 summit at the

6:43

Wharton School in Pennsylvania. What

6:46

happened there? So I

6:48

had been studying neurotechnology and

6:50

even consumer neurotechnology for quite

6:52

a few years. But

6:54

at that summit, early

6:57

on in the summit, Josh Deweyen stood

6:59

up. He was one of

7:01

the people at a company that was a

7:03

startup called Control Labs. And

7:06

he was showcasing this new device where

7:08

they were taking electrodes and putting

7:11

them into what looks like an

7:13

everyday watch. And

7:15

he held up his hands and he said, you know, wouldn't

7:18

it be great if instead of

7:20

having the kind of clumsy output

7:23

that we have, that is these

7:25

hands, these like sledgehammer-like devices, we

7:28

could interact much more seamlessly with all

7:30

of the rest of our technology with

7:33

a device like the one on my wrist. Or

7:35

if we wanted to type, we

7:37

could type by thinking about typing

7:39

rather than by having to pound

7:41

away on a keyboard and how

7:43

we've gone backwards in time typing

7:45

on phones with our two thumbs.

7:49

But he was showcasing with something altogether

7:51

different than anything I had seen before

7:53

because while I had played with and

7:55

seen these devices in the past, they

7:57

hadn't really solved the form factor. They

7:59

were still... electrodes that

8:01

you would have to wear across your forehead and

8:03

a headband that was both

8:05

silly looking and uncomfortable, but

8:07

the applications were also much more limited.

8:10

They were limited to things like meditation

8:12

or, you know, personal gaming devices that

8:14

you might play. This idea that you

8:17

could take and make brain

8:19

wearable devices integrated into our everyday

8:21

devices to power our

8:23

interaction with all of the rest of our

8:26

technologies, that was the moment when I realized

8:28

all the things that I'd been thinking about

8:30

and worrying about for quite a long time, suddenly

8:33

we're going to come true. And I

8:35

was convinced, given the form factor, that

8:37

it would just make sense for Apple

8:39

to acquire control labs. But,

8:42

you know, I was floored when a

8:44

year later it was Meta who acquired

8:46

them instead. I thought that was the

8:48

pivotal acquisition and I then

8:50

I was like, okay, it is time to get writing this book.

8:53

A.K.A. Facebook,

8:55

A.K.A. Mark Zuckerberg.

8:58

Exactly. Exactly. I was like, if Mark

9:01

Zuckerberg is investing in this technology, I

9:03

mean, the things I was worried about,

9:05

they are going to come true. And

9:08

it also just made it so clear to me

9:10

that this is a mainstream movement. This is the

9:12

next big thing. It's not

9:15

a niche application for people who are interested

9:17

at home and, you know, trying to quantify

9:20

and see their own brains. This

9:22

was going to be come the way in which

9:24

we interact with the rest of our technology by

9:26

using our brains and our thoughts

9:29

as the way we interact with everything around

9:31

us. That was a revolutionary moment

9:33

and that acquisition was both

9:35

terrifying but also a call

9:38

to action to me to get writing and to

9:40

get this message out. A.K.A. Okay. So, but your

9:42

view on the brain computer interface technology is

9:44

quite nuanced. I mean, you don't see it as a

9:46

universal bad. So we're going to talk about its potentials,

9:50

the complex potential in

9:53

a minute here. But it doesn't it

9:55

make sense though that this would be

9:57

sort of the next front.

10:00

I mean, you call it the last fortress, that

10:03

technology hasn't yet fully overwhelmed.

10:06

But the brain is very much how

10:08

we, in a sense, what happens in

10:10

the brain is how we define ourselves as human

10:12

beings. So it is

10:15

what generates all our thoughts, feelings,

10:17

actions. So it would seem very

10:19

logical that technology would want

10:21

to understand,

10:24

harness and maximize what it can do with

10:26

that. Absolutely right. So first of

10:28

all, you're right. My view is

10:30

nuanced, and my view is nuanced because I

10:32

believe that this technology is the

10:34

next step for humans in ways that can

10:36

be deeply empowering. And I also think the

10:39

fact that our brains have remained this black box

10:41

and mysterious even to us, that we can only

10:44

access through self-reflection in ways

10:46

that aren't objective, you

10:49

know, that's not good for addressing

10:51

any of the major causes of

10:54

human suffering, such as neurological disease

10:56

and disorder and mental illness, or

10:58

even just understanding ourselves. So

11:01

of course, it makes sense that this

11:03

is where the next step in both

11:06

self-quantification, but also the thing that

11:08

we as humans would be pushing

11:10

for, which is access to and

11:12

understanding our own brains would

11:14

be happening. It also just makes sense

11:16

that we have all of these clumsy

11:19

interfaces between us and other technology and

11:21

the ability to be able to much

11:24

more seamlessly interact with other technology would

11:26

be deeply appealing to other companies. But

11:29

I'm also a skeptic on

11:31

motivations and, you

11:34

know, both I think my own cultural heritage,

11:36

but just the work that I

11:38

do as an ethicist and

11:40

a law professor, it's

11:43

always made me look at, okay, but what

11:45

are the complex set of motivations that bring

11:48

these different organizations to the table? Yeah, that

11:50

makes is what makes you our favorite kind of

11:52

guest, Professor Ferhani. So we'll

11:55

talk a lot more about the positives,

11:57

the negatives, and really most importantly, what

11:59

kind of questions you say we should

12:01

be asking ourselves now as a society,

12:03

as this technology comes at us at

12:05

full pace. So, Nita

12:07

Farahani, stand by for just a moment. We'll be

12:10

right back. This is On Point. Support

12:22

for the On Point podcast comes from

12:25

Indeed. We're driven by the search for

12:27

better, but when it comes to hiring,

12:29

the best way to search for a

12:31

candidate isn't to search at all. Don't

12:33

search, match with Indeed. Ditch the busy

12:35

work and use Indeed for scheduling, screening

12:37

and messaging so you can connect with

12:39

candidates faster. And listeners will

12:41

get a $75 sponsored

12:43

job credit to get your

12:46

job's more visibility at indeed.com/on

12:48

point. That's indeed.com/on point. Terms

12:51

and conditions apply. Need to

12:53

hire? You need Indeed. This

12:56

is On Point. I'm Magna Chakrabarti and Nita

12:58

Farahani joins us today. She's a professor

13:00

of law and philosophy at Duke

13:02

University, and she's out with a

13:04

new book titled The Battle for Your Brain,

13:06

defending the right to think freely in the

13:08

age of neurotechnology. Professor

13:11

Farahani, you've actually worn some of

13:13

these devices that currently exist

13:15

yourself. Can you tell us a little bit about

13:18

what it is that you wore, how it worked and what it felt

13:20

like to have it? Sure. So

13:23

I have been, I guess, toying around in

13:25

some ways with many of these devices, but

13:27

also using them personally for

13:30

some applications. So the earliest of

13:32

these devices were kind of

13:34

hard plastic devices that

13:36

would go across your forehead

13:38

and some of them tuck

13:40

behind your ears or fit

13:42

tightly across your scalp. And

13:45

the idea was to make contact with

13:47

dry electrodes to your forehead or to

13:50

different parts of your scalp that could

13:52

allow the electrical activity in your brain to

13:54

be picked up and then interact with, through

13:57

Bluetooth, some kind of application on your phone.

14:00

And the more recent devices, as

14:02

you described, and as the conversation

14:04

with Ton Lee made clear that

14:07

I also have had access to are electrodes

14:09

that are embedded inside of earbuds. And these

14:11

feel just like the normal earbuds you would

14:14

use to make a phone call or listen

14:16

to music or, you know, do a Zoom

14:18

call or headphones where the soft cups that

14:20

go around your ears have electrodes inside of

14:23

them as well. So you can't detect them.

14:25

They're just like the rest of the technology

14:27

that you would wear or one

14:29

of these watches that has a sensor

14:31

inside. I've used them primarily both

14:34

to test them out but also for

14:36

meditation. So I'm not

14:38

great at self-meditation, being able

14:40

to both keep my focus and ability to

14:43

stay in that state but also like,

14:45

am I doing it right? And

14:48

so what's neat about these devices

14:50

is the interaction with an application

14:53

lets you get real-time what's called

14:55

neurofeedback. So if I get my

14:57

brain states into a way

14:59

that brings down my stress levels and

15:02

shows that I'm in this kind of meditative

15:04

state, you have signatures in your brain that

15:06

can be detected and decoded that suggest that,

15:09

then you get something like chirping

15:11

birds or, you know, some

15:13

other kind of audible feedback. And

15:16

that's been really helpful for me. I'm a chronic migrainer

15:19

and high stress levels can really

15:21

trigger a migraine for me. And

15:24

using these as sort of a preventive

15:26

tool, something where even if I just

15:28

spend a few minutes of bringing my

15:31

stress levels down and remaining in a

15:33

meditative state, for me have been really

15:35

helpful in limiting the frequency and the

15:37

severity of my migraines. You

15:40

know, it occurs to me

15:42

that there are then there's so many

15:44

potential applications, positive applications, right,

15:46

for this technology. Like, you know, I've suffered from

15:49

depression for most of my life and I think

15:51

it would be kind of amazing to have

15:54

a device that would give me some sort

15:56

of feedback to say, you know, your

15:58

brain patterns right now. are indicating,

16:01

I don't know, some sort of negative

16:03

feedback loop that's going to deepen

16:05

your depression or something, anything like that. No,

16:07

you're right. You're right. So first,

16:09

I'm so sorry that it's grappled with, but

16:12

I mean, but that's, you know, you're one

16:14

of many millions of people who are grappling

16:16

with different effects of

16:18

the brain, whether it's migraines or

16:20

depression or people who suffer for

16:22

epilepsy, for example, and need an

16:24

early warning of having an epileptic

16:26

seizure. These devices can be

16:28

quite powerful. In fact, I talk about some of

16:30

those in the book from using

16:33

both feedback, but also neurostimulation,

16:35

which has been transformative for

16:37

some people with depression or people

16:40

who have ADHD, for example, there are a

16:42

lot of studies that show that using

16:44

neurofeedback, especially in children, over

16:47

a number of weeks can

16:50

actually be more powerful than drugs

16:52

or drugs alone and certainly have

16:55

far fewer side effects or somebody

16:57

who has epileptic seizures, like a

17:00

very close family friend of ours died of

17:02

an epileptic seizure without

17:04

early warning. She was alone

17:07

at the time. She vomited from the

17:09

epileptic seizure and then died from,

17:11

they believe, choking on her own vomit. If

17:13

she had had a one hour, you know,

17:15

in advance early warning of having that seizure,

17:17

she could have gotten herself to safety. She

17:19

could have, you know, made sure that she

17:21

took just in time medication. You

17:24

know, there's so much good

17:26

that could come from being able

17:28

to track our own brains and

17:30

improve them, enhance them, use neurofeedback.

17:34

Our own daughter, our eight year

17:36

old, while she doesn't use one

17:38

of these neurological devices uses biofeedback

17:41

through a heart rate monitor, which

17:43

has been gamified. She can play

17:45

games which get harder when her

17:47

stress levels and heart rate increase.

17:50

And then the way that she

17:52

wins the game is by being

17:54

able to self control, by emotionally

17:56

regulate and learning those skills at

17:58

a young age, I think, are... powerful and

18:00

important. So I'm definitely not, you

18:03

know, a Luddite when it comes to this technology.

18:05

I think it's both coming, but it also has

18:08

a lot of promise for

18:10

humanity if done right, if implemented with the

18:12

right safeguards, if used in

18:14

ways that benefit individuals, I think

18:16

it can be incredibly transformative. That

18:18

poor word, if it carries so much

18:20

weight on its shoulders. It does. And unfortunately,

18:22

I, you know, I have to say

18:25

that because I, you know, I

18:27

am somebody who is deeply optimistic and

18:29

I want the good of this technology

18:31

for humanity, but, but I see the

18:34

risks and, and I see the risks,

18:37

you know, especially in this domain, because there

18:39

is really nothing more sensitive and fundamental than

18:41

what it means to be human than having

18:44

that space of inner monologue of

18:46

private thought of being able to

18:49

entertain and turn over ideas in

18:51

your own mind without fear of it being misused

18:53

by other people, accessed by other people,

18:56

commodified by companies, interfered with

18:58

by governments and, and the

19:00

potential of connecting

19:02

our brains to technology makes

19:05

all of those risks a possibility. So

19:08

just as a side thought, there's

19:10

the technology in and of itself,

19:12

the hardware, then there's the, you

19:14

know, the means by which we

19:17

can interpret it, right? The kind

19:19

of feedback it, the machines generate,

19:21

but how much confidence at this

19:23

moment do you have about the interim

19:25

phase, like the analysis of what

19:28

the brain, those EEG signals are

19:30

sending? Do we actually know and understand

19:33

how to read what the signals

19:35

are? Yeah, it's a great question. So,

19:38

you know, a lot of people ask me how

19:40

good are the devices? And my

19:43

answer to that is it depends on

19:45

what you're using them for. You know,

19:47

can it decode your literal thoughts? You

19:49

know, the true inner monologue that you're

19:51

having? No, both the

19:54

technology itself, like the electrodes, the

19:56

sensors, the hardware, have

19:59

improved that. over the past decade,

20:01

but there's still some noise and interference

20:03

and different people may have

20:05

them applied in different ways that aren't quite

20:08

the right fit to pick up exactly the

20:10

right signal, and there can be interference from

20:12

muscle twitches or eye blinks or other devices

20:14

in your environment because it's electrical activity that

20:17

is picking up. And then

20:19

the software, the AI, I think

20:21

everybody knows that AI has been

20:23

having just exponential growth in its

20:26

capabilities. And what

20:28

we're picking up here from the brain

20:30

through these devices, what they're detecting

20:33

really is patterns of data, and those

20:35

patterns of data increasingly can be interpreted

20:38

and decoded with the sophistication of the

20:40

algorithms that play. So I think depending

20:42

on what we're talking about, it can

20:45

be very accurate and very good for

20:47

basic brain states like attention and boredom

20:49

and cognitive decline and stress, and are

20:52

you happy or are you sad? It

20:55

can be very accurate for probing

20:57

the brain for information through particular

20:59

signals of recognition in the brain, but

21:02

it doesn't do unless it's

21:04

implanted neurotechnology. There's not very

21:07

good real-time decoding

21:09

of speech, for example, even though that

21:11

is coming in many ways, and in

21:13

some ways we can talk about even

21:16

your intention to type or to communicate

21:18

or send a text message can be

21:20

decoded with this technology. Intention. Okay. Well,

21:23

intention, right? I'm going to say that because

21:25

there's like you thinking in your

21:27

mind and having a kind of moment

21:30

of self-reflection, and then you intending to

21:32

type something, which is speech

21:34

that you mean to go from your

21:36

mind out into the rest of the world. And

21:39

that has different representation in the brain. It's

21:41

easier to decode speech you

21:43

intend to communicate than that

21:45

inner monologue. Yeah. So this is

21:48

where we get into minority report territory, but we're going to hold that

21:50

thought, if I

21:52

can use that pun here for a

21:54

moment. Because now what I'd

21:56

like to do is sort of push

21:58

into the possible. The futures

22:00

that you think through. In

22:02

the book, the Battle for your

22:04

Brain because Ah will get governments

22:06

in a few minutes. But I

22:08

think the most immediate place of

22:10

change we might see was hinted

22:13

at by Timely at the beginning

22:15

of our show. Because yes, workplaces.

22:17

Who would be very very interested?

22:19

Or are very very interested in

22:22

whatever meaning. Already had a headache

22:24

as it had to make. It

22:26

work better workers, more efficient. What have you?

22:28

So if you don't mind, I will read

22:30

a little bit of a scenario that you

22:33

imagine here at the beginning of the book

22:35

and then you can sort of talk us

22:37

through the rest of the So. This is

22:39

what need a Thera Honey says we might

22:41

be closer to than we think. So the

22:43

like this: you're in the zone. You can

22:45

even believe how productive you been. Your memo

22:47

is finished and sent, your inbox is under

22:49

control and you're feeling sharper than you haven't

22:52

a decade. Sensing your joy, your playlist shifts.

22:54

To your favorite song sending. Chills up your

22:56

spine. As the music begins to play, you

22:58

glance at the program running in the background.

23:00

On your computer screen. And notice a now

23:02

familiar sight that appears. whenever. You are

23:05

overloaded with pleasure. Your saida brain

23:07

wave activity decreasing in the right

23:09

central and right temporal regions of

23:11

your brain. You mentally move the

23:13

cursor to the left and scroll

23:15

through your brain data. Over the

23:17

past few hours. You can see

23:19

your stress levels rising as the

23:21

deadline to finish your approached, causing

23:23

your beta brain wave activity to

23:25

peak right before an alert popped

23:27

up telling you to take a

23:29

brain break. But what's unusual?

23:31

change in your brain activity when you

23:33

sleep? It started earlier in the month.

23:35

You compose a text your doctor in

23:38

your mind and send it with a

23:40

mental flight. Of your cursor. Could.

23:43

You take a quick look at my

23:45

brain data. Anything to worry about. So

23:47

what happens next? In your imagine

23:49

scenario here. So.

23:52

from their ah is nita

23:55

there's there's a number of

23:57

different pieces from the employer

24:01

looking at the brain data and sending

24:03

a message to the employees saying, congratulations

24:05

on your brain metrics over the past

24:07

quarter. And you know,

24:09

you've earned another performance bonus. You're

24:11

excited about that. You still have your earbuds

24:14

in, not thinking about all of the data

24:16

that you're giving to your employer as you

24:18

go home, jamming to

24:20

the music and having forgotten that brainwave

24:22

data is being collected at the

24:24

same time. And then you come to the office the

24:26

next day and a somber cloud has fallen over the

24:28

office and you discover that

24:30

the government has subpoenaed all of

24:33

the brainwave data, along with all

24:35

of the other information about employees

24:37

because they're looking for co-conspirators for

24:39

a crime. And

24:41

you know, and it's funny that, that scenario,

24:45

my, my brilliant editor at St. Martin's Press,

24:47

he invited me to write a

24:49

scenario that could really put it all

24:51

together in kind of

24:53

one easy to understand narrative.

24:56

You know, what's the full spectrum of this

24:58

from the promise, which is

25:00

your ability to do things like hone

25:02

your own focus and attention and track

25:05

your own brain activity and bring down your

25:07

own stress levels and have real time feedback

25:09

about when you're suffering from

25:11

cognitive overload to the risks

25:13

and the ways in which employers

25:15

are already using this technology where you

25:19

know, it's dystopian in what I describe

25:21

it as, I believe of

25:24

having your brain be part of the

25:26

performance metrics. There's so much happening in

25:28

the workplace right now on productivity scoring

25:30

and you know, the, I

25:32

think over surveillance of employees in ways

25:34

that really are not helping morale or

25:37

the dignity of work. And this, these

25:41

brain metrics are already being used by

25:44

companies and increasingly well. And

25:46

then the frightening possibility, which we've already

25:48

seen with other kinds of personal health

25:51

data, whether it's Fitbit data or heart

25:53

rate data, which has been

25:55

subpoenaed by law enforcement and used in

25:57

criminal cases. And the idea that. Once

26:00

you open up your brain passively

26:02

thinking that you're using it to track your

26:04

own attention, that all is

26:06

fair game and can give

26:09

a lot of insights. The example that I

26:11

use in that scenario is that they're looking

26:13

for synchronization of brain activity between different workers.

26:15

It turns out when you're working with people,

26:17

you have higher degrees of synchronization

26:19

in your brainwave patterns and you

26:21

could actually use that to figure

26:24

out who's collaborating, who's developing a

26:26

union, who's working together, who you

26:28

wouldn't expect to see those patterns

26:30

of synchronization. So, as I start

26:32

to imagine all of that and

26:35

all of those scenarios are

26:37

possible with existing research

26:39

and existing technology, I

26:43

think it makes clear what the kind of

26:45

dystopian possibilities are of surveillance

26:47

of the brain. Well,

26:49

you even talk about in this imagined scenario

26:52

that maybe you might find a

26:54

coworker attractive and that would be

26:57

recorded. Your brain activity

26:59

of course. Because you can pick up those.

27:01

You can tell Amorous feelings. These

27:05

inward and deeply held feelings

27:08

are not things you would want to reveal. I'll

27:10

tell you a funny story, Magda, which is my

27:12

eight year old has her

27:14

first crush. She will be embarrassed that I'm sharing

27:16

this with you. With the world. With

27:19

the world. With the world. But

27:22

her friend apparently

27:24

has a crush on her as well. This

27:27

most mortifying thing to them possible that they

27:29

both have a crush. It's

27:31

the thing that everybody is teasing them about

27:33

even though we think it's darling and wonderful.

27:38

But that, imagine when you were

27:40

a child and you have these

27:42

early crushes which are so incredibly

27:44

formative. You don't want anybody

27:47

else to know and you're in a classroom required

27:49

to wear neural interface brain

27:52

wearables to track your attention and focus which

27:55

can pick up so much more information including

27:58

these kind of Amorous feelings. Those

28:00

are things you should be able to keep to

28:02

yourself. Those are things that other people shouldn't have

28:04

access to. Those are things that are so formative

28:06

to self-identity. And so when

28:08

I talk about these ideas of mental

28:11

privacy and the importance of this last

28:13

bastion of freedom, this last fortress, I

28:16

think it's the most important fortress. It's the one

28:18

that's most formative to who you are as a

28:20

human being. Yeah. You know, about

28:22

the workplace then, it seems like there's

28:25

two major sets of issues here.

28:27

One is A, how this technology

28:29

can have an impact on workers,

28:31

both positively and negatively.

28:34

But B, in terms of the economy

28:37

that we all function in, this all

28:39

sounds like surveillance capitalism potentially on

28:42

mega, mega steroids. And

28:45

so we've got about a minute and

28:47

a half before the next break, Professor Farahani. Can

28:50

you just walk us through a couple of

28:53

the major questions there where you think we should

28:55

be asking ourselves as a society right now when

28:57

it comes to commercial or

28:59

capitalism's use of this technology? Right.

29:02

I think the first and most important is, is

29:05

there any justified use of

29:07

brain metrics by employers? And I

29:09

outlined an example in the book

29:11

of commercial drivers who are already

29:13

having their brain activity monitored for

29:15

fatigue levels. And if

29:17

you were just measuring that, the only thing

29:20

that you were extracting through the algorithms and

29:22

brainwave data was whether or not a commercial

29:24

pilot or truck driver was sleepy or awake

29:26

and it was more precise than other kinds

29:29

of information, maybe those are circumstances

29:31

in which we might think it's a good

29:33

use of the technology. But

29:35

when you're using it to track attention

29:38

when periods of mind wandering are

29:40

punished rather than celebrated as the

29:42

most important moments of insights, when

29:44

you're introducing a more kind of

29:46

global surveillance of even what a

29:48

person is thinking and feeling, I

29:51

think that can be so undermining

29:53

for just the abilities for

29:55

humans to flourish, to feel

29:57

like they have trust in the

29:59

workplace. Who wants to continue to think

30:01

freely so that those are the kind

30:04

of worries that I have in that

30:06

context, so again the need to? Guard

30:09

Rails Legal and ethical guardrails around

30:11

this or we're going to explore

30:13

more. But what that means regarding

30:15

the you know what governments might

30:17

be interested in when it comes

30:19

to being able to. Use

30:22

technology to understand what's going on in your

30:24

brain is so offensive or on his closest

30:26

thing with us for another minute will be

30:28

right back on. This is on point. And

30:32

and. I'm

30:42

Kathleen Coal Tar and I'm the host of

30:44

a new podcast. Crime Story. Every

30:47

week we bring you a different crime

30:49

told by the storyteller who knows it

30:51

best. The one with missiles can

30:53

be fail. Got another witness was murdered

30:55

who couldn't sugar coat the story? I

30:57

was getting calls from cause of his

30:59

attorney threatening to sue every day. Every

31:01

crime in one way or another is

31:03

a reflection of who we are as

31:05

a people, as a city, as a

31:07

country. You find us wherever you get

31:09

your podcast. This

31:12

is on point a magnet chakrabarti. Today

31:14

we are talking with Professor Need a Thera Honey.

31:16

Her new book is the battle for your brain,

31:19

defending the right to think freely. It's in the

31:21

age. Of neurotechnology. And

31:23

just before the break professor. Farahani had

31:25

talked about, you know, hard, there's a world

31:27

in which. Kids in school

31:29

classrooms might see no put on headbands

31:31

and teachers would. Foot would be

31:33

able to measure how much they're focusing

31:36

or how much they're able. To concentrate

31:38

on a given assignments? Well, she

31:40

wasn't just making that up because

31:42

that world actually exists. The Wall

31:44

Street Journal recently visited a classroom

31:46

just a few hours outside of

31:48

Shanghai to see how both Ai

31:50

and brain computer interface technology is

31:52

being used in Chinese. Classrooms.

31:56

For. This History class as he begins

31:58

the sitting. On a brain. The device is

32:00

made in China and

32:02

has three electrodes, two behind

32:05

the ears and one on the

32:07

forehead. These sensors pick up electrical stiffness

32:09

sent by neurons in the brain. The

32:12

neural data is then sent in real time

32:14

to the teacher's computer. The

32:16

student is moving back to the room. The

32:19

teacher can quickly find out who's

32:21

paying attention and who's not. The

32:24

student is moving back to

32:26

the room. The teacher can quickly

32:28

find out who's paying attention and who's

32:30

not. The student should get a special

32:32

notification. The report is

32:34

then generated that shows how well the

32:36

class was paying attention. It even

32:39

details each student's concentration level

32:41

at 10 minute intervals. It's

32:44

then sent to a chat group for parents. Well,

32:48

that's from a Wall Street Journal documentary about

32:50

AI in China. And the journal's

32:52

reporters noted that it's not entirely clear

32:54

what the headbands are measuring or if

32:56

they're accurate, but you can

32:58

see the potential and the use

33:01

and purpose of this kind of

33:03

technology. Now, combine that with what

33:05

we already know about China's well-established

33:08

surveillance state that is carefully observing

33:10

its citizens. Here

33:13

in this Shanghai surveillance center,

33:15

no resident goes unwatched. Hundreds

33:19

of millions of cameras are installed

33:21

all over China. We

33:26

have algorithms that automatically recognize

33:28

certain behaviors. If someone is

33:31

wearing a mask, for example, we immediately

33:33

protect this wrongdoing. So

33:36

that's a little bit about China's

33:38

established surveillance state from the documentary

33:40

wing of the German broadcaster, DW.

33:43

Joining us now is Margaret Kozol. She's

33:46

an assistant professor and teaches international affairs

33:48

at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She's

33:51

currently on leave to the Savannah River National

33:53

Laboratory. Professor Kozol, welcome to you.

33:57

Thank you, Bagnah. I'm very happy

33:59

to be here. to be here to talk

34:01

about emerging technology and international security. So

34:04

I started my work

34:07

as a PhD chemist and

34:10

having experience in the high-tech startup

34:12

field before I got to this

34:14

work. And by the way, I'm

34:16

an associate professor, not

34:19

an assistant professor. Oh, you know what? In fact,

34:21

I had the word associate written on my page,

34:23

but somehow my brain and mouth said

34:25

assistant. My apologies. If I'd been working the

34:27

right kind of device, maybe I wouldn't have

34:29

made that mistake. But

34:32

so go ahead, tell us a little bit more. And

34:34

China is an easy place for us to

34:37

focus because, again, they already have such an

34:39

established surveillance state. Do

34:41

we know how the Chinese government is viewing

34:44

the potential of this kind

34:46

of brain-computer interface technology? So there

34:50

is a whole wealth

34:53

of information to unpack there in your

34:55

question. And I do have to

34:57

start out by saying that while I am

34:59

currently a professor of international affairs at Georgia

35:02

Tech, I have to

35:04

be sure to convey that my views

35:06

do not necessarily reflect the positions of

35:08

the Department of Energy, Department of Defense,

35:11

or any other organization that I've been

35:13

affiliated. Back to

35:15

your question. So some

35:17

of the empirical and quantitative work

35:20

that I've done has looked at

35:22

this question of likely

35:24

adoption of brain-computer interfaces, as

35:26

well as other neuro-technologies,

35:29

particularly by China in comparison

35:31

to the United States. So

35:35

first of all, understanding the

35:38

inner workings of the PRC

35:41

often is very difficult, but

35:43

China has been quite

35:47

articulate on some of its

35:49

aspects of where they're going with

35:51

what they call the Brain

35:53

China Project.

35:56

And particularly, they have

35:58

this articulate vision

36:01

of what they call one

36:03

body, two wings. So

36:05

that's for building the core and

36:07

developing the applications. And

36:10

some of this is

36:12

intentionally going to effective

36:14

approaches for diagnosis, intervention

36:16

of brain disorders, and

36:19

some of it is intentionally

36:21

to more security implications

36:24

in terms of the types

36:26

of technologies. Okay,

36:29

excuse me. Pardon

36:31

me, but let's focus on that second

36:33

part because that's really where we wanted

36:35

to take the conversation. Can you just

36:37

give me what the maybe top concern

36:40

is amongst the national security

36:42

establishment here regarding China's view

36:44

of the potential of brain-computer

36:47

interface technology? So

36:50

there hasn't been articulated a

36:52

specific concern here within the

36:54

United States with respect

36:56

to any details. It

36:59

is in the broader concerns about

37:01

Chinese technology, Chinese

37:06

acquisition and the ability for them to

37:08

challenge us. One

37:10

of the concerns that in my

37:12

work we have articulated is

37:14

that because of the likelihood,

37:17

looking at these different factors

37:19

and studying them, not just

37:22

the technology but understanding how

37:25

different technology gets deployed,

37:27

it is more

37:29

likely for these

37:32

kind of technologies,

37:34

in particular BCIs,

37:36

to be deployed

37:39

and adopted first

37:41

in the PRC. Okay,

37:45

so now help me understand something. Does

37:48

China have this phrase

37:50

of the sixth domain? I've seen that floating

37:52

around. What does that mean? So

37:55

that's in reference to the war fighting

37:57

domain. So we have war fighting

37:59

domains. domains in the United States

38:02

too. So the sixth war

38:04

fighting domain in China,

38:07

in the People's Liberation Army,

38:10

is the cognitive domain. And

38:12

the cognitive domain can be

38:14

split up into a number

38:16

of different pieces. The

38:19

biggest piece is things like information

38:21

warfare, which that can be

38:23

everything from misuse,

38:27

mischaracterization, disinformation, via

38:29

traditional propaganda to

38:33

use of the internet. But

38:35

it also can be things

38:37

that are targeting neuro-technologies, targeting

38:39

the brain, targeting the ability

38:42

to undermine the self. Wow.

38:45

Okay. So Associate Professor

38:47

Margaret Kozol teaches international

38:49

affairs at Georgia Tech and currently on

38:52

leave to the Savannah River National Laboratory.

38:54

Thank you so much for joining us

38:56

today. You're most welcome. Okay.

38:59

So Professor Farahani, just

39:01

give me your quick thoughts about what the China

39:03

example tells us we need to be thinking about.

39:07

So I think a couple of things. One is, we can

39:09

think about it from a national security perspective

39:12

in the United States. So the

39:14

Biden administration in late

39:16

December 2021 sanctioned

39:19

a number of Chinese companies for

39:22

creating so-called or purported brain control

39:24

weapons. And on this kind of

39:26

idea of the

39:28

cognitive domain, there

39:30

is both influence campaigns. This is what we're

39:32

worried about, for example, with TikTok and

39:35

shaping views and minds, but also

39:37

picking up biometric data and precise

39:39

profiles on American citizens. But

39:42

also this anxiety about a

39:44

kind of arms race and brain computer interface. And

39:47

that could be everything from the development

39:49

of kind of super soldiers. So there's

39:51

been a lot of talk about that.

39:53

There's even a conference that was just

39:55

recently held by the Commerce Department here

39:57

in the US with all of the

39:59

major implications. planted BCI manufacturers

40:01

about whether there should be export controls to

40:04

prevent China from using our technology

40:06

and what could be a race

40:09

for capabilities within the military. But

40:12

then beyond the kind of, you know,

40:14

domain of influence and military use, there's

40:17

been these anxieties around the

40:19

creation of weapons that could

40:21

disable or disorient minds. And

40:24

while the Havana syndrome, you

40:27

know, cases have largely been dismissed

40:29

by the intelligence community at this

40:31

point as being fueled

40:34

by or funded by foreign adversaries,

40:36

there's still a lot of worry

40:38

about that kind of focus of

40:40

developing kinds of technologies, whether it's

40:42

electromagnetic or microwave technologies that

40:44

could be aimed at human

40:46

brains and minds. And so, you

40:48

know, I think we need to worry about it from

40:51

a national security perspective. And then we

40:53

also need to learn from and worry

40:55

about government use

40:58

of the technology in surveillance

41:00

or in interference with freedom of

41:02

thought. And so I worry about

41:04

it not just from a, you know,

41:06

U.S. versus China perspective, but

41:08

what their example of the surveillance state

41:10

shows us of interfering with what

41:13

I think is the most important, again, aspect

41:15

of what it means to have human flourishing,

41:17

the ability to think freely. And whether

41:20

or not the technology works, if you're

41:22

required, whether in the workplace or in

41:25

everyday life, to where

41:27

bring computer interface technology that could

41:29

be intercepted by the government, the

41:31

informational asymmetry is usually so

41:34

powerful that you might be

41:36

afraid to even think bad

41:38

thoughts or dissident thoughts. So,

41:41

you know, I think their example teaches

41:43

us a lot about the risks of

41:45

the technology. That's right. And not

41:47

just in the national security context, just in our

41:49

own lives based on what governments

41:52

can do to their own people anywhere

41:55

in the world. I mean, look, we're already living in a world

41:57

where people are afraid to say certain things. I mean, I can

41:59

make... very much see a next

42:01

step being afraid to even think them.

42:04

So in the last few minutes of the conversation,

42:06

Professor Farahani, I mean the real purpose of your

42:09

book is, as you say, to get

42:11

us to start thinking about a new

42:13

aspect of freedom that we

42:16

need to incorporate into social

42:18

norms, into ethical guidelines, into

42:21

our legal structure. And

42:23

you call it cognitive liberty,

42:25

which includes mental privacy, freedom

42:28

of thought, and self-determining determination.

42:31

So tell us more about how you conceive of this

42:34

notion of cognitive liberty. Thank

42:36

you. That I think is part of

42:39

what gives me the optimism and the hope that we

42:41

were talking about in the beginning of the conversation. You

42:44

know, we're at the forefront of this

42:46

transformational moment with this technology, which really

42:48

is going to become much more ubiquitous

42:51

and part of our everyday lives. And

42:54

the question is, are we going to give up

42:56

our rights, our mental privacy, our

42:58

freedom of thought just as easily as

43:00

we've given up all of the rest

43:02

of our privacy in exchange for the

43:04

convenience of typing or swiping with our

43:06

minds? And I think we

43:08

at this moment, at this juncture, at this

43:11

earlier stage, have a choice to make to

43:13

change the terms of service and put it

43:15

in favor of individuals. I see

43:17

cognitive liberty as an update to our conception

43:20

of liberty, but in the digital age. It's

43:23

a concept that applies well beyond

43:25

just neurotechnology. It applies to how

43:27

we think about social media and

43:29

addictive technologies and neuromarketing and weapons

43:32

that are being designed to attack

43:34

the brain. And how

43:36

I think of it is both as a

43:38

legal but also a cultural and social norm.

43:41

As a legal norm, it would invite

43:43

us and require us to update our

43:45

international human rights to recognize

43:48

this right to cognitive liberty as

43:50

a civil and political right, which would

43:53

direct us to update three existing rights,

43:55

our right to privacy to explicitly include

43:57

the right to mental privacy. freedom

44:00

of thought to apply more broadly than just

44:02

religious freedom and belief, but to include a

44:04

right not to have our thoughts used against

44:06

us and not to be punished for our

44:09

thoughts and not to have our thoughts manipulated.

44:12

And self-determination, updating that

44:15

from a concept of what's really been

44:17

understood as a political and collective right

44:19

to an individual right to access our

44:21

own brains to be able to enhance

44:24

or change them and to determine how

44:26

we want to shape our own mental

44:28

experiences. Well,

44:33

I want to continue living in a world

44:35

where my last truly safe and protected

44:37

space is inside my own mind, right?

44:39

It's our final retreat, right? Yes,

44:41

yes. It is our last fortress. And it's

44:44

one I think we can't

44:46

afford to quietly let go. I

44:48

think it's so urgent that people

44:50

join the conversation and the call

44:52

to action now because it

44:54

will be too late to claw it back later. But

44:57

it isn't too late now to

44:59

really define the way in which this

45:01

technology will be integrated into

45:03

society and how our relationships with others will

45:06

be when it comes to the most precious

45:08

thing we have, which is our minds, our

45:10

ability to think freely. We have

45:12

one minute left, Professor Frejani. And there's something you

45:14

teased us with a little earlier that I'd love to

45:17

sort of close with. And that

45:19

is your own family background, your cultural background,

45:21

and how this plays into how

45:24

you're thinking about these technologies. So

45:27

I'm Iranian American. My parents

45:29

left Iran really a decade

45:32

before the revolution, but always intended to

45:34

go back. Weren't able to

45:36

as the political unrest occurred. But all of

45:38

my first cousins, all of my aunts and

45:40

uncles still live in Iran. And

45:42

I've grown up in a world in

45:44

which I understand and see people who

45:46

are afraid to speak freely, family

45:49

members who are afraid to tell

45:51

us what's happening for fear of

45:53

being persecuted. And that world, those

45:55

conversations, I think attune me to the

45:57

ways in which technology can be mixed use.

46:00

the ways in which surveillance can interfere

46:02

with people's ability to rise up, defend

46:05

their own freedom, defend their own rights. It's

46:07

a world I don't want us to unveil

46:10

through a kind of Orwellian future

46:13

of neurotechnology, but to ensure we

46:15

safeguard our right to think freely. Right,

46:17

but you also talk about how in the Iran example

46:19

you see the power of technology to mobilize people for

46:21

change. Yeah, yeah. All the Durranian women, for

46:23

example. Yes, and the Twitter,

46:25

you know, the use of Twitter during the

46:28

Green Revolution. There is hope and

46:30

there is peril, and we get to decide which

46:32

one we decide to champion in life. Well,

46:35

Nita Farahani, professor of law and philosophy

46:37

at Duke University, the book is

46:39

The Battle for Your Brain, defending the right

46:41

to think freely in the age of neurotechnology.

46:44

We have an excerpt of it at

46:47

onpointradio.org. Thank you so much for joining

46:49

us. Thank you. I'm Magna

46:51

Trachra Barty. This is On Point. Thank

46:58

you.