Neurosecurity: Building the firewall around your mind

We might argue (and for legitimate reasons) that the era of brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) is already underway, albeit in its early stages. Consumer EEG headsets used for neurofeedback and sleep tracking, such as those from NeuroSky, InteraXon’s Muse, and Emotiv, are gaining traction worldwide.

Meanwhile, the number of FDA-cleared AI-enabled devices for neurological monitoring and diagnosis continues to rise each year. And although still largely in clinical trials, companies like Neuralink periodically announce their breakthroughs in headlines all over the media. Finally, researchers at the ATR Computational Neuroscience Laboratories in Kyoto have been working on decoding dreams, using AI to interpret EEG and fMRI data with reported accuracies of around 60–70%.

But right now the “firewall” around the mind is still under construction. So what’s the deal?

While extremely popular, Neuralink is far from the only player working to bridge human thought with machines. Other major contenders include: the multi-institutional BrainGate program; Synchron, backed by big tech founders; Paradromics, whose Connexus interface records activity from individual neurons; Blackrock Neurotech, developer of the widely used Utah-array of microelectrodes; and Precision Neuroscience, founded by a former Neuralink executive.

These companies are also advancing different approaches, ranging from high-bandwidth cortical implants to less invasive stent-mounted or skull-penetrating arrays, each trading off data quality against surgical risk, with early trials showing promise for restoring communication and movement in paralysed patients and even targeting mood disorders, though broad applications like human enhancement remain far from reality.

Yet while headlines fixate on futuristic visions of mind-reading or memory hacking, the real threat is quieter and closer: the systematic failure to apply rigorous cybersecurity and data-privacy protections to the most sensitive data stream ever collected: the human neural code.

This isn’t science fiction. It’s a new digital frontier. And it’s expanding faster than the safeguards meant to protect it. Despite not being cleared by regulators yet, BCIs are not something new. In 1973, Jacques Vidal at UCLA coined the term brain-computer interface (BCI), supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation and later DARPA. His early experiments used electroencephalography (EEG) to translate brain signals into simple outputs: a cursor moving on a screen or a light turning on.

Also Read: Southeast Asia’s gaming boom is bigger than you think — and brands are still getting it wrong

By the 1990s, with the famous “Decade of the Brain” in the United States, funding surged. Laboratories implanted electrodes in animal subjects, enabling them to control robotic arms or levers. Neuroprosthetics became the anchor use case: artificial devices designed to replace lost function and restore mobility, speech, or agency to those who had lost them.

Outside the labs, however, culture was already decades ahead. William Gibson’s cyberpunk fiction imagined humans as (digital) data conduits. Johnny Mnemonic (1995, dir. Robert Longo) gave us a data courier with a hard drive in his brain. The cult status achieved by the film continues to inspire small (but passionate and rebellious) biohacking communities worldwide.

Of course, there was also the beloved TV series adaptation of the manga Ghost in the Shell (2002–2005, dir. Kenji Kamiyama), which featured neural implant hackers. Where the labs sought restoration, fiction promised augmentation and conquest. BCIs, in other words, were born twice: once in careful experiments, and again in the imagination of writers. That dual birth continues to shape how the field is perceived even today.

BCIs are classified by how close they get to neurons, and that proximity dictates both fidelity and risk:

• Non-invasive systems such as EEG, magnetoencephalography (MEG), and functional MRI (fMRI) are safe and accessible but provide low-resolution data. Researchers have even demonstrated real-time game control in scanners: famously, two humans playing Pong through fMRI, which I’m sure you have seen if you’re browsing the internet all day like me;
• Partially invasive approaches such as electrocorticography (ECoG) place electrodes under the skull but outside grey matter, while endovascular stent-based BCIs (such as Synchron’s) reach the cortex through blood vessels without open-brain surgery;
• Invasive systems use microelectrode arrays implanted directly in neural tissue. These yield the highest resolution but require brain surgery and carry serious long-term safety trade-offs.

The principle is simple: the deeper the electrode, the cleaner the signal… but also the steeper the ethical AND medical stakes.

That said, the first field where BCIs matter is not entertainment or productivity, but medicine. Neuroprosthetics anchor the discipline in restoring dignity BEFORE pursuing augmentation.

Patients with ALS have used cortical implants to type sentences (at around 10–20 words per minute). Robotic arms have been controlled by thought alone. More recently, experiments have decoded internal speech into text, offering voice to those who had lost it. The most powerful technologies often begin with therapy. In BCIs, the first battlefield is not convenience, but human agency itself.

Every BCI collapses the distance between thought and action. For millennia, human expression was mediated through language, gesture, or tool. Now, neurons themselves can become the interface.

Also Read: The neuroscience of startups: Unlocking the brain’s potential for business success

The first step to a realistic policy is abandoning the idea of a single great risk. BCIs vary enormously in capability and vulnerability. One approach might be looking at the threat landscape in tiers:

• Tier one: The present. Consumer-grade EEG headsets are already shipping. While some process signals locally, others can send raw waveforms and attention metrics to cloud servers. That data (focus, stress, emotional state) is a goldmine for targeted advertising and behavioural analytics. It’s less about hacking and more about legalised exploitation under vague consent forms.
• Tier two: The near future. Implanted medical BCIs present a different (and far more urgent) danger. For a person using a neural implant to control a robotic arm or speech synthesiser, the plausible nightmare isn’t “memory injection” but ransomware or denial of service, not to mention hijacked motor commands, silenced voices. Side note: yes, medical (cyber) hackers are real (I’m going to talk about this another time). Today, hospitals and clinics are the 3rd most targeted type of organisation, although these attacks usually do not put people’s lives at risk. You might remember the ransomware attack on multiple Romanian hospitals in 2024, as well as the famous WannaCry virus from 2017 affecting units in the US and UK.
• Tier three: The long game. Manipulating perception or memories at high fidelity remains speculative, but it’s a useful guidepost. Thinking decades ahead helps engineers and lawmakers design guardrails before technology matures.

Law and ethics are struggling to keep up. However, Chile’s constitutional neurorights amendment (the world’s first country to have legislation to protect mental privacy, since 2021) and the OECD’s guidelines on neurotechnology (the Neurotechnology Toolkit from 2025) are early attempts to define mental privacy and identity. But enforcement is weak, and without clear liability standards, manufacturers have little incentive to prioritise security over speed. International standards and funding are needed to keep neurosecurity from becoming another axis of inequality.

So what can be done? From principles to protocol, we must agree that vague calls for “better encryption” (or similar terms) aren’t enough. Instead, greater focus should be on:

• A security bill listing every software component for regulators to audit;
• User-controlled safeguards such as configurable connectivity and even physical kill switches, balanced with medical necessity;
• Public research into how the brain naturally filters or adapts to spurious signals;
• Mandatory red-team (simulated adversary) penetration testing for high-risk neural devices before they reach market.

Also Read: Mind the gap: How understanding the brain can help your startup succeed

Future frameworks should act as a progressive levy on neurotechnology revenues to fund a billion-dollar trust, rapid-response cyber teams, satellite-linked monitoring of supply chains, and regional hubs to ensure equitable access. Ideally, governance would be shared among governments, industry, and civil society, with an independent ethics committee wielding veto power.

The plan borrows lessons from medical-device regulation, environmental treaties, and financial oversight: clear rules, global coordination, and financial penalties for non-compliance. In this model, neurosecurity becomes a public good (like clean water or air traffic control) rather than an afterthought. It requires neuro-specific amendments to laws like GDPR and CCPA, legally defining neural data as a privileged category.

Of course, one might assume such concerns only become relevant once fully fledged BCIs are approved and on the market. Yet signals such as eye movements, facial expressions, speech patterns, respiration, heart rate variability, inertial measurements, and behavioural telemetry can already be gathered, interpreted, and combined without any invasive or even noninvasive brain scans.

In the end, the neurotechnology race won’t be won by whoever decodes the brain fastest, but by whoever earns public trust. Protecting the “brain as a sanctuary” (BaaS, haha) is less about glossy innovation and more about firmware updates, anomaly detection, liability law, and tedious but essential audits.

If engineers, regulators, and ethicists get it right, BCIs could transform medicine, communication, and human capability. If they get it wrong, they could open the most intimate parts of ourselves to exploitation. The firewall around the mind is still under construction. The question is whether the world will finish it before the threats arrive.

But these are just my thoughts on this. What do you think? Is there a real risk, or is it just pure science fiction?

—

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. You can also share your perspective by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.

The post Neurosecurity: Building the firewall around your mind appeared first on e27.