Cognitive Sovereignty in the Age of Neuro-Capitalism

A Global Regulatory Framework for Neural Interface Technologies and Category Zero Data

Date: 22 November 2025

The SAL AI Research Team

Abstract

The convergence of advanced neurotechnology and artificial intelligence (AI) is dissolving the once‑firm boundary between thought and data. Brain–computer interfaces (BCIs), neuro‑wearables, and affective computing systems can now record, infer, and even modulate neural correlates of perception, emotion, and decision‑making outside clinical settings. Existing privacy and data protection regimes designed around voluntary, discrete disclosures such as typed input or uploaded files are structurally misaligned with continuously emitted neural and cognitive signals.

This paper proposes a comprehensive regulatory framework grounded in the concept of cognitive sovereignty: the right of individuals to control their own mental processes, neural data, and cognitive environment. We synthesize neuroscientific evidence of mental malleability (Loftus, Milner), emotional construction (Barrett), somatic decision‑making (Damasio, LeDoux), cognitive bias (Kahneman & Tversky), and active inference (Friston) with emerging legal and ethical work on neurorights, including Chile’s constitutional amendment, Colorado’s neural data statute, and UNESCO’s 2025 Recommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology.

We introduce Category Zero Data neural and cognitive biometric information treated as inalienable, “organ‑like” data and articulate a Sovereign Protocol specifying (1) cognitive sovereignty rights, (2) a neuro‑fiduciary duty for actors handling Category Zero Data, (3) technical mandates for edge processing, temporal and spectral gating, encryption, federated learning, and kill switches, (4) prohibitions on non‑consensual neural decoding, closed‑loop subliminal manipulation, neuromarketing, and neuro‑surveillance, (5) protections for workers, children, and vulnerable populations, (6) anti‑monopoly and interoperability safeguards, and (7) an enforcement toolkit including cognitive liberty impact assessments, algorithmic disgorgement, private rights of action, and cross‑border “neural data sanctuary” regimes.

The paper argues that such a framework is both normatively justified and technically feasible, and that it can reconcile innovation in neurotechnology with the preservation of mental integrity, identity, and freedom of thought.

1. Introduction

Over the last decade, neurotechnology has shifted from the clinic

to the consumer market. What began as invasive implants to treat epilepsy or Parkinson’s disease now includes wireless BCIs for paralyzed patients, fNIRS‑based systems for cognitive assessment, and a proliferating ecosystem of consumer EEG headsets, EMG wristbands, and neuro‑enabled mixed‑reality platforms. Major technology companies have acquired BCI startups and filed patents for neural‑sensing earbuds, wrist‑based neural interfaces, and neuro‑integrated augmented reality (AR) glasses, explicitly positioning neural input as a “next generation” user interface.

This “consumerization” of neurotechnology fundamentally transforms the ethical and legal stakes. In clinical contexts, neuro‑data collection is typically governed by medical ethics, institutional review boards (IRBs), and health privacy laws. In consumer contexts, neural

signals risk becoming yet another data stream in the surveillance economy, governed only by opaque terms of service and general‑purpose privacy frameworks that were never designed for pre‑conscious signals and brain‑derived inferences.

At the same time, AI systems trained on large behavioral and physiological datasets can now infer internal states attention, stress, affective valence with increasing accuracy. When applied to neural signals, such algorithms can reconstruct aspects of visual imagery, inner speech, or recognition states, particularly in controlled settings. The combination of pervasive sensing, powerful inference, and closed‑loop modulation creates qualitatively new threat vectors for human autonomy: cognitive surveillance, neuromarketing that bypasses conscious deliberation, and identity dilution as AI agents co‑shape internal mental processes.

Yet global governance remains fragmented. Human rights law recognizes

privacy and freedom of thought, but offers little concrete guidance on how to protect neural signals. Data protection regimes treat brain data as just another form of “sensitive personal data” or “biometric data,” with consent a

nd anonymization as primary safeguards. These tools are insufficient for data that is continuously emitted, difficult to anonymize, and capable of revealing pre‑conscious states.

This paper advances the concept of cognitive sovereignty and develops a detailed Sovereign Protocol as a model global standard. The goal is not to halt neuro‑innovation, but to civilize it—ensuring that integration between human minds and machines augments, rather than undermines, mental integrity and freedom of thought.

2. Cognitive Science Foundations for Cognitive Sovereignty

Regulation of neurotechnology must be grounded in an empirically accurate p

icture of the mind. Several strands of cognitive science converge on the conclusion that human cognition is constructive, context‑sensitive, and manipulable.

2.1 Malleable Memory

Elizabeth Loftus and colleagues have shown that human memory is reconstructive: suggestions, leading questions, and repeated exposure can implant false memories or distort existing ones. Brenda Milner’s work on patients with hippocampal lesions further illustrates the fragility and modularity of memory systems. This means that neurotechnologies capable of repeatedly cueing or modulating memory‑related neural patterns especially in closed‑loop systems could, in principle, alter autobiographical narratives and identity.

2.2 Constructed Emotion

Lisa Feldman Barrett’s theory of constructed emotion argues that emotions are not hard‑wired reflexes, but

predictions the brain makes to interpret bodily sensations and context. Affective computing systems that feed back stimuli to nudge these predictions e.g., by adjusting music, lighting, or content in response to detected brain states are therefore not just “measuring” emotion but co‑constructing it. Non‑transparent “affective nudging” risks reshaping users’ emotional landscapes without awareness.

2.3 Somatic Decision‑Making

Antonio Damasio’s somatic marker hypothesis and Joseph LeDoux’s work on fear circuits show that emotional and bodily signals are integral to decision‑making, even in ostensibly rational domains. Neural and biometric data streams that capture subtle changes in physiological arousal, reward anticipation, or threat detection give AI systems leverage over the somatic substrate of choice.

2.4 Cognitive Bias and System 1 Exploitation

Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky’s dual‑process model disting

uishes between fast, automatic “System 1” and slower, reflective “System 2” cognition. System 1 relies on heuristics that are systematically exploitable: framing effects, loss aversion, anchoring, and confirmation bias. Algorithmic personalization already leverages these biases at scale in content feeds and online advertising. When combined with neural and cognitive biometrics, such systems can time stimuli to moments of heightened susceptibility (e.g., fatigue, stress, craving), increasing manipulation power.

2.5 Active Inference and Agency

Karl Friston’s active inference framework models the brain as a prediction machine minimizing “free energy” or surprise. Agents seek to reduce uncertainty by matching sensory inputs to expectations or by acting to bring the world in line with predictions. AI systems that aggressively minimize surprise—via filter bubbles, hyper‑personalized content, or affect regulation—may reduce experiential diversity and opportunities for learning, atrophying critical thinking and agency over time.

Taken together, these research lines support three core claims:

1. Mental states are plastic and context‑dependent: neurotechnology can, in principle, reshape memory, emotion, and decision‑making.

2. Cognitive vulnerabilities are systematic and exploitable: AI can learn individualized patterns of bias and somatic response.

3. The line between measurement and manipulation is thin: closed‑loop systems blur observation, prediction, and intervention.

These findings justify treating neural and cognitive data as uniquely sensitive and designing regulatory regimes that emphasize prevention of manipulation, not just control over data copies.

3. Legal and Ethical Landscape: From Human Rights to Neurorights

3.1 Existing Human Rights and Data Protection Frameworks

International human rights law protects privacy (e.g., ICCPR Article 17), freedom of thought (ICCPR Article 18), and bodily integrity. Regional instruments such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU Charter further articulate rights to private life, physical and mental integrity, and non‑discrimination. However, these norms remain high‑level, and case‑law on neurotechnology is sparse.

Modern data protection regimes like the EU’s General Data Protection Regula

tion (GDPR) classify health and biometric data as “special categories,” requiring explicit consent or narrow exceptions. Yet GDPR’s conceptual model assumes discrete data points that can be anonymized or pseudonymized and governed by consent and purpose limitation. Continuous neural signals and derived cognitive profiles challenge these assumptions: they are difficult to anonymize (as they can function as biometric signatures) and can reveal rich internal states beyond what is explicitly collected.

U.S. law remains sectoral and fragmented, with no federal comprehensive privacy regime. Health data is governed by HIPAA, but consumer neuro‑devices typically fall outside its scope. Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) offers strong protections for biometric data, including a private right of action and a ban on data sale. Some scholars and legislators see BIPA as a model for neural data, but BIPA was not drafted with BCIs and continuous cognitive inference in mind.

3.2 Neurorights and Chile’s Constitutional Experiment

Academic and advocacy groups have proposed neurorights as new or clarified human rights tailored to neurotechnology. Ienca and Andorno suggested four rights: cognitive liberty, mental privacy, mental integrity, and psychological continuity. The Neurorights Foundation and the Morningside Group have popularized a set of five neurorights: mental pri

vacy, personal identity, free will (agency), fair access to mental augmentation, and protection from algorithmic bias in neural systems.

Chile became the first country to integrate neurorights into its constitution, amending Article 19 to protect mental integrity and to treat brain data similarly to organs, not commodities. In a 2023 case involving the BCI company Emotiv, the Chilean Supreme Court held that brain activity data is protected and ordered deletion of a user’s neurodata, effectively treating unauthorized retention as a rights violation.

These moves are pioneering but somewhat abstract and have attracted criticism for potential “rights inflation” and conceptual dualism between mind and body. They also risk over‑medicalizing consumer neuro‑devices, potentially overburdening regulators.

3.3 State‑Level Initiatives: Colorado and California

In the absence of U.S. federal law, states like Colorado and California have amen

ded their privacy statutes to explicitly define and regulate neural data. Colorado’s HB 1058 modifies the Colorado Privacy Act to treat “neural data” as sensitive data, defined as information generated by measuring activity of the central or peripheral nervous system and processed by a device. Processing such data generally requires opt‑in consent.

California has similarly updated the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) to classify neural data as sensitive personal information, granting consumers specific rights to limit its use and request deletion. These statutes are important but still operate within a consent‑and‑control paradigm and do not fully address the inalienability of neural data or the broader problem of cognitive manipulation.

3.4 UNESCO and OECD Soft‑Law Standards

At the international level, UNESCO’s 2025 Recommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology is the first global standard explicitly dedicated to neurotech. It calls for protecting mental privacy and freedom of thought, recognizing neural data as sensitive, banning certain manipulative practices (e.g., subliminal neuro‑marketing), and promoting equitable access and responsible innovation.

The OECD’s work on responsible innovation in neurotechnology similarly recommends privacy‑by‑design measures such as edge processing, encryption, and minimal data use, while emphasizing human rights and societal oversight.

These instruments provide valuable ethical baselines but remain non‑binding and high‑level. There is a need for more operational guidance: definitions, concrete r

ights, technical mandates, and enforcement structures.

4. Conceptualizing Category Zero Data and Cognitive Biometrics

This paper proposes treating neural and certain cognitive data as Category Zero Data, a distinct legal category above conventional “sensitive data.” Category Zero Data encompasses:

• direct neural measurements from CNS and PNS (EEG, EMG, invasive BCIs); and

• behavioral/physiological proxies (e.g., gaze, microsaccades, HRV) when used to infer internal mental states.

  
  

Several properties justify this categorization:

1. Depth of Insight. Neural and cognitive biometrics can reveal not just identity, but intentions, emotional responses, recognition of specific stimuli, and possible mental health conditions.

2. Pre‑consciousness. Signals often precede conscious awareness (e.g., motor intention, P300 responses), allowing systems to access and act on mental content before users can exercise reflective control.

3. Continuity. Unlike discrete communication events, neural activity is continuous and difficult to “pause” while using a device, making true “opt‑out” challenging without removing the hardware entirely.

4. Anonymization Limits. Neural signatures can be used for biometric identification; even “anonymized” data sets may be re‑identifiable based on unique neural patterns.

5. Inalienability. Neural signals are entwined with personal identity and integrity in a way analogous to organs: one cannot change one’s brain “password” if compromised.

   
   

These properties undermine the sufficiency of standard consent, anonymization, and purpose‑limitation tools. The paper therefore argues for organ‑like treatment of Category Zero Data: it may be donated or authorized for specific uses, but not sold or transferred as property, and core rights over it are non‑waivable.

5. Cognitive Sovereignty and the Sovereign Protocol

We define cognitive sovereignty as the bundle of capacities that allow individuals to:

• decide whether, when, and how their mental states are accessed or influenced;

• maintain control over their own cognitive and affective trajectories;

• preserve continuity of identity and authorship over their thoughts; and

• be free from systematic, opaque manipulation by technological systems.

  
  

Building on cognitive science and emerging neurorights discourse, the Sovereign Protocol is a proposed global legislative standard structured around three pillars:

1. Rights: articulation of cognitive sovereignty and neurorights (mental privacy, mental integrity, identity, free will, fair access, anti‑bias, refusal of neurotech, special protection for children).

2. Structures: legal status of Category Zero Data, neuro‑fiduciary duty, technical architecture (edge‑only processing, encryption, federated learning, kill switches, gating), application to workplaces and education, and anti‑monopoly measures.

3. Teeth: concrete enforcement mechanisms (impact assessments, certification, algorithmic disgorgement, private rights of action, cross‑border sanctuary regimes).

   
   

The remainder of the paper outlines and justifies these design elements.

6. Core Components of the Sovereign Protocol

6.1 Cognitive Sovereignty Rights

The Protocol elaborates neurorights as operational legal interests:

• Cognitive Liberty protects the right to self‑determine mental processes, including the right to refuse neurotechnology and to disconnect from neural networks without losing essential services.

• Mental Privacy prohibits unauthorized recording, decoding, or inference of mental content from neural or cognitive data.

• Mental Integrity protects individuals from unconsented interventions that significantly alter neural processes or mental states.

• Personal Identity & Psychological Continuity protect against technological interventions that disrupt the sense of self or narrative continuity, particularly via memory editing or persistent mood modulation.

• Free Will & Agency safeguard decision‑making from covert exploitation of biases via closed‑loop AI.

• Fair Access & Anti‑Bias ensure augmentation does not create a cognitive caste system and that decoding algorithms do not reproduce discrimination.

  
  

Children and vulnerable populations receive special protection due to heightened neural plasticity and weaker bargaining positions. This includes prohibitions on child neuro‑advertising and restrictions on neuro‑surveillance in schools.

6.2 Category Zero Data as Sovereign and Inalienable

The Protocol declares Category Zero Data Sovereign and inalienable:

• individuals cannot transfer away core rights over their neural data stream;

• “click‑wrap” agreements purporting to waive mental privacy or permit unrestricted future uses are void;

• sale, leasing, or collateralization of Category Zero Data is prohibited, analogizing neurodata to organs or votes.

  
  

This responds directly to concerns that socio‑economically disadvantaged individuals may be coerced into trading mental privacy for access to digital services, and that surveillance capitalism will evolve into “neuro‑capitalism.”

6.3 Neuro‑Fiduciary Duty

Recognizing the information asymmetry between users and neuro‑tech providers, the Protocol designates any entity handling Category Zero Data as a Neuro‑Fiduciary with duties of loyalty, care, and confidentiality.

A fiduciary must act in the best interests of the user regarding their mental data and may not exploit that data for purposes that reasonably conflict with user interests (such as manipulative ad targeting, political manipulation, or addictive engagement maximization). Monetary penalties, algorithmic disgorgement, and potential personal liability for executives are envisioned as key enforcement tools.

This approach builds on proposals to treat digital service providers as “information fiduciaries” and aligns with strong biometric privacy regimes like BIPA, but extends the concept to mental integrity.

6.4 Technical Architecture: Edge‑Only, Gating, and Cryptographic Safeguards

To avoid “paper‑only” protections, the Protocol embeds privacy and safety in the technical architecture:

• Edge‑Only Processing: raw neural signals must be processed locally (on device or a personal hub); only high‑level commands or minimal derived features leave the device. This is both technically feasible given advances in on‑device AI and recommended by OECD neurotechnology guidelines.

• Temporal & Spectral Gating: devices only record within user‑initiated windows (avoiding constant background monitoring) and are hardware‑limited to needed frequency bands or channels. This helps prevent covert repurposing of devices into lie detectors or recognition profilers via P300‑like event‑related potentials.

• Data Lifecycle Controls: strict retention limits, rights to access and deletion, and mandatory use of open, interoperable formats support data sovereignty and portability.

• Encryption, Attestation, and Kill Switches: strong cryptography, secure enclaves, remote attestation of firmware/models, anomaly detection, and user‑controlled kill switches reduce hacking risks and ensure users can always disconnect.

• Federated Learning and Differential Privacy: for training AI models on neural data, federated learning keeps raw data local while model updates are aggregated, and differential privacy reduces risks of reconstructing individual data from updates.

• Advanced Cryptography Roadmap: as homomorphic encryption and zero‑knowledge proofs mature, the Protocol encourages their use for remote verification (e.g., proving attention or authentication without seeing raw waveforms), with a tiered approach to avoid over‑burdening real‑time BCIs before crypto performance is adequate.

  
  

6.5 Prohibited Practices: Neural Decoding, Closed‑Loop Manipulation, and Neuromarketing

The Protocol identifies certain practices as categorically prohibited, regardless of consent language:

• Non‑consensual decoding of inner thought and recognition (inner speech, imagery, P300 recognition of specific stimuli).

• Closed‑loop subliminal manipulation where systems detect vulnerability and adjust stimuli to steer choices toward third‑party goals (ads, political messaging, gambling, etc.).

• Neuromarketing that bypasses conscious deliberation, especially in contexts involving minors or sensitive decisions.

• Emotion or intention recognition in workplaces and educational settings, echoing bans in the EU Artificial Intelligence Act.

• Mass neuro‑surveillance and social scoring based on neural or affective profiles.

  
  

These bans reflect the view that certain invasions of mental autonomy are incompatible with human dignity and cannot be legitimized by “consent” in highly asymmetric relationships.

6.6 Application in Workplaces, Education, and Vulnerable Contexts

The Protocol draws a sharp distinction between safety‑oriented neuro‑monitoring and productivity or compliance surveillance.

In workplaces, only tightly bounded safety uses such as fatigue detection for heavy machinery operators are permitted, and even then under conditions: edg

e‑based processing, worker‑first alerts, minimal event‑level reporting to employers, and no continuous performance scoring. Workers have the right to refuse neuro‑monitoring except in narrowly defined, objectively safety‑critical roles, and introduction of such technologies is a mandatory subject of collective bargaining.

In education, routine neuro‑monitoring of attention or emotion is prohibited. Child‑facing neuro‑tools must operate in sandboxed fashion: no data exfiltration, kill switches, optional use, and no neuromarketing. These provisions operationalize the special protection UNESCO calls for in relation to children and neurotechnology.

Vulnerable contexts such as prisons, psychiatric hospitals, and immigration detention require heightened safeguards, recognizing the limited voluntariness of “consent” in such environments.

6.7 Anti‑Monopoly and Interoperability: Avoiding Neuro‑Feudalism

Given the tendency of digital markets toward concentration, the Protocol anticipates risks of “neuro‑feudalism”, where a small number of firms control:

• neuro‑hardware (implants, headsets, earbuds);

• operating systems and XR platforms;

• app stores and content ecosystems;

• ad and data monetization infrastructures.

  
  

To counter this, it mandates data portability (via open formats), promotes interoperability standards, and empowers competition authorities to impose structural or conduct remedies when a firm’s vertical integration threatens cognitive sovereignty. Patent offices are encouraged to treat certain neuro‑related patents (e.g., those primarily enabling covert neuromarketing or mass neuro‑surveillance) as suspect and to coordinate with regulators.

6.8 Enforcement: Impact Assessments, Certification, and Algorithmic Disgorgement

For enforcement, the Protocol envisions:

• Cognitive Liberty Impact Assessments (CLIAs) for high‑risk systems, analogous to data protection impact assessments under GDPR or fundamental rights assessments under the EU AI Act. These would map capabilities, data flows, risks to mental privacy and autonomy, and mitigation measures.

• Neuro‑focused regulators or units (e.g., within data protection authorities) empowered to audit systems, demand technical documentation, order suspensions, impose fines, and mandate data deletion or model destruction.

• Algorithmic Disgorgement: if a company trains an AI model using illegally obtained neural data or for prohibited manipulative purposes, regulators can order deletion not only of the raw data but of the models and derivatives trained on it—treating them as “fruits of the poisonous tree.”

• Cognitive Safe certification: an independent label indicating that devices and services meet high standards of edge‑processing, fiduciary commitment, kill switches, and non‑manipulative design, which can be used in public procurement and insurance incentives.

• Private rights of action: individuals can sue for statutory and actual damages, injunctions, and attorney’s fees, following the successful model of BIPA in incentivizing compliance.

• Cross‑border neural data sanctuaries: jurisdictions may declare themselves sanctuaries with stringent protections and restrict transfers of Category Zero Data to countries with equivalent regimes, aligning with GDPR‑style adequacy concepts.

  
  

7. Addressing Objections and Implementation Challenges

Any ambitious regulatory framework must address concerns about feasibility and unintended consequences.

7.1 Innovation and Clinical Progress

A common objection is that strict neuro‑privacy rules will undermine innovation and deny patients access to advanced BCIs and neuro‑therapies. The Protocol mitigates this by:

• explicitly allowing broader data use in medical sandbox contexts under health privacy and ethics oversight;

• focusing prohibitions on consumer neuromarketing and surveillance, not clinically justified treatments;

• promoting federated and privacy‑preserving learning rather than banning data‑driven innovation outright.

In many cases, privacy‑by‑design architectures (edge processing, minimal sharing) improve robustness and user trust, which may actually accelerate adoption.

7.2 Start‑ups and Compliance Costs

Another concern is that only large firms can afford the complex architecture (secure enclaves, FL, ZKPs), entrenching incumbents. The Protocol responds with tiered compliance: early‑stage research and start‑ups may rely on more flexible cloud processing under strict consent and retention limits, while large‑scale platforms face the full edge/FL/DP obligations once they reach defined thresholds. Public investment in open‑source privacy tooling is encouraged to lower technical barriers.

7.3 Cultural and Legal Diversity

Some argue that “neurorights” reflect Western individualism and may conflict with collectivist or communitarian traditions. Framing the Protocol as an implementation of existing human dignity and harm‑prevention norms, rather than introducing entirely new concepts, helps address this. No culture endorses unconsented mind reading or corporate manipulation of citizens’ thoughts; the Protocol focuses on such broadly shared harms while leaving room for local variation in implementing positive rights (e.g., the extent of fair access to augmentation).

8. Conclusion: Neurotechnology, Human Dignity, and the Future of Cognitive Liberty

Neurotechnology and AI together represent a profound shift in our relationship to our own minds. The same tools that can restore communication for locked‑in patients or alleviate treatment‑resistant depression can, if misused, enable unprecedented surveillance and control over thought, emotion, and behavior.

This paper has argued that:

• neuroscience and cognitive science show the mind to be plastic, biased, and susceptible to technologically mediated influence;

• existing human rights and data protection frameworks, while necessary, are insufficiently specific for neural and cognitive data;

• emerging neurorights and soft‑law standards point toward, but do not fully implement, a coherent regulatory architecture.

  
  

In response, we proposed Category Zero Data as a distinct legal category and elaborated a Sovereign Protocol for cognitive sovereignty, combining rights, structures, technical mandates, and enforcement mechanisms. The Protocol seeks to move beyond data protection toward human protection, treating mental integrity and freedom of thought as non‑negotiable constraints on neuro‑capitalism.

The central normative claim is simple: the right to think one’s own thoughts, free from opaque technological manipulation, is the prerequisite for all other liberties. If neural signals become just another data stream to be mined, profiled, and optimized for third‑party goals, democracy, autonomy, and dignity are at risk.

Designing and implementing such a framework is challenging but feasible. Many of its components, edge AI, federated learning, differential privacy, and secure enclaves, are already being deployed in other domains. International bodies such as UNESCO and the OECD have laid ethical foundations. National and sub‑national experiments (Chile’s constitutional neurorights, Colorado’s neural data statute, California’s sensitivity classification, and Illinois’s BIPA) provide building blocks.

The task now is to integrate these pieces into a coherent global standard and adapt it into enforceable domestic law. Without such a standard, neuro‑capitalism will likely evolve according to the default logic of surveillance capitalism: extract as much data as possible, infer as much as possible, and manipulate as cheaply as possible. With a robust Sovereign Protocol in place, neurotechnology can instead be steered toward a future in which machines serve the mind, rather than the mind serving machines.