The Security and Military Implications of Neurotechnology and Artificial Intelligence

Rickli, Jean-Marc; Ienca, Marcello

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-64590-8_15

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A common feature of this thinking is the tendency to favour a techno-scientific approach and to focus on the "weaponisation of biotechnologies and neuroscience". (Giordano, 2017;Rickli and Ienca, 2021) Thus, the French Minister of Defence mentioned "a new form of threat combining capabilities in information manipulation, disinformation, cybernetics, psychology, social engineering, biotechnology, and which could be summarised as a kind of new form of warfare: cognitive warfare. Cognitive warfare is the ability to exploit the vulnerabilities of the human brain using all the methods I have just mentioned."…”

Section: The Western Approach To Cognitive Warfare: Technology Firstmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive Security: Facing Cognitive Operations in Hybrid Warfare1

Danet

2023

eccws

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The digital space is now an active area of conflict. Attacks take many forms, to the point where concepts multiply and overlap. One concept in particular raises important questions: cognitive warfare. Cognitive warfare is an issue of concern to all countries, but there are very significant differences in approach between countries such as the United States or France and countries such as Russia, Iran or China. We try to show that these very different approaches leave Western countries unprepared for a global threat and poorly identified vulnerabilities. The concept of cognitive security therefore appears to be a promising avenue for reflection.

show abstract

Section: The Western Approach To Cognitive Warfare: Technology Firstmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive Security: Facing Cognitive Operations in Hybrid Warfare1

Danet

2023

eccws

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But some recent uses, documented mainly in China, seem to indicate how the state or private companies could abuse some neurotechnology for a new type of control of students or workers, requiring them to wear helmets that read their neuronal activations 2 . We do not yet have so powerful and precise neurotechnologies to make people puppets guided by external neural stimulation, however, the fast pace of research and application of new findings suggests anticipating the ethical reflection and consideration of legal aspects ( Rickli and Ienca, 2021 ).…”

Section: Introduction: Protection From Neurotechnology Threats In Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

What Should We Do With People Who Cannot or Do Not Want to Be Protected From Neurotechnological Threats?

Inglese

Lavazza

2021

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neurotechnologies can pose a threat to people’s privacy and mental integrity. Hence the proposal of establishing neurorights (Ienca and Andorno, 2017) and technical principles for the implementation of these rights (Lavazza, 2018). However, concepts such as “the extended mind” and what might be called “the post-human objection” can be said to challenge this protection paradigm. On the one hand, it may be difficult to outline the cognitive boundaries between humans and machines (with the consequent ethical and legal implications). On the other hand, those who wish to make strong use of neurotechnologies, or even hybridize with them, reject the idea that privacy and mental integrity should be protected. However, from the latter view, issues may arise relating to the protection of persons entering into relationships with posthumanist people. This article will discuss these scenarios as well as the ethical, legal, social, and political issues that could follow from them.

show abstract