Brainhacking calls for a multidisciplinary approach

We should do this far more often, says Bob de Graaff, Professor of Intelligence and Security Studies at Utrecht University. During the working conference 'Hersenvredebreuk', scientists from the UU discussed brainhacking and brainjacking with representatives of the police, the armed forces and intelligence and security services.

Brainhacking is, according to Bob de Graaff, defined as by electronic means taking note of someone’s thought or intentions, without informed consent, whereas brainjacking would also imply the manipulation of someone’s thought or intentions.

The working conference on 4 October was organised by the Centre for Global Challenges, in collaboration with the Centre for the Humanities and  specifically intended to bring together representatives of politics, the intelligence and security services, the supervision thereof, the judiciary and journalism. The aim was to explore the theme of possible future brainhacking by intelligence and security services from these different areas, and to identify needs for further investigation.

Manipulate brains

The central question of the working conference was whether intelligence and security services can apply  brain extensions (brain-computer interfaces, brain wearables and the like) and if,  in the near future they will be able to penetrate and manipulate the brains of citizens. This question is topical in connection with the evaluation of the Dutch Intelligence and Security Services Act, which is planned for the spring of 2020.

Questions arose from numerous scientific disciplines. What is historically known about previous attempts (for example with pharmaceuticals) of intelligence and security services to "read" and influence people's brains? Are brain hacking and brain jacking ethically justified? Are there legal limits or should they be? What is the role of language, not only when naming the method (brain hacking or breach of mind), but also: is wording a necessary condition for thinking? What are the possibilities now and in the near future of neurotechnology and in particular neuroprosthetics? Is the skin-and-skull barrier still an adequate philosophical limitation of the body?

Multidisciplinary approach

The multifaceted nature of the theme called for a multidisciplinary approach to contribute to the discussion. Four scholars from Utrecht University provided a ‘tour d’horizon’ of the state of the art in various relevant disciplines: Bob de Graaff, Professor intelligence and security studies,Utrecht University, Nick Ramsey, Professor Neurology and Neurosurgery,  UMC Utrecht, Joel Anderson, Associate Professor  Philosophy  of the Ethics Institute, Utrecht University, and Elaine Mak, Professor Legal Theory, Utrecht University.

After this introduction to the problem, representatives of politics and society were given the opportunity to formulate needs regarding the knowledge that they would like to see brought up on this topic from the academic side. In addition to the plenary presentations,  the working group discussed the what could be considered the most urgent questions, and how Academia and the Security Sector can work together to address these issues. ‘The discussion between practitioners from the working field and UU scientists turned out to be very fruitful’, says Bob de Graaff. ‘We are looking now at how Academia and the Security Sector can work together to address these issues. The working conference demonstrated the importance of the connection between science and the professional field. This is something we should do more often.’

The Centre for Global Challenges aims to be a platform where UU colleagues seek to confront global challenges in transformative ways by engaging stakeholders from around the world in a two-way dialogue. This conference was part of the CfGC project Disrupting Technological Innovation? Towards an Ethical and Legal Framework (2019).

See also the article in NRC and on the website of the Faculty of Humanities (both in Dutch).