Why Canada is Unprepared
Brain-computer interfaces, and similar technologies have recently reached the sophistication threshold to medically treat issues of paralysis and motor control. However, in the face of this rapidly developing tech comes the emergence of privacy and transparency issues arising from the collection of neural data. Canada is currently ill-prepared and unequipped to deal with potential issues of of privacy and autonomy that would rise out of the commercialization and medical use of neural technologies.
Canada has yet to make any substantive changes or pass new legislation that adequately addresses the collection and use of personal information derived from neural implants, by government or private companies. The federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), and provincial personal information protection acts do not adequately deal with the unique challenges presented by neural implants.
Recently, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) of Canada has added “neural data” to the list of personal information that will generally be considered sensitive and require a higher degree of protection, however whether this change is sufficient to protect Canadians privacy and autonomy rights remains to be seen. Though this is a general positive step forward by the government, it is a passive and remedial approach that is insufficient to properly protect Canadian’s neural data. Considering the potentially disastrous consequences of abusing neural data collection and storage, Canada needs more active and preventive measures in place. The OPC itself notes that these interpretations are intended to assist with compliance and are not binding legal rules.
While existing laws protect many forms of personal information, including biometric and health information, it remains unclear whether all forms of neural data would receive adequate protection under current legal frameworks.
International Legal Efforts
Many other nations have already taken action to protect neural data rights. Chile, which amended their constitution to explicitly protect neural data, and in which the nation’s Supreme Court consequently found that a company was required to delete the personal information it had obtained from a patient. In the U.S.A several states have also introduced or amended legislation to address the shortfalls in their current privacy legislation to better protect individual’s neural data.
In 2025, the United Nations(UN) Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy urged all states to enact specific regulatory regimes for neural implants and brain-computer interfaces, given their profound implications for privacy, autonomy and individual freedoms. The UN Human Rights Council Advisory Committee has been working on developing international rules for freedom of thought and mental integrity to address the concerns rising out of the brain implants.
Another option is to target AI use to indirectly accentuate personal privacy or autonomy rights. The European Union (EU) has achieved this through the European Commission’s Guidelines on Prohibited AI Practices, which prohibits the use of AI for subliminal messaging that purposefully distorts or deceives a person to effect their behaviors.
Conclusion
Even with UN reports urging states to adopt a proposed conceptual legal framework to protect privacy, and other nations and sates making changes to legislation, the Canadian government has been slow to act. Neuralink has already begun clinical trials in Canada. Given the potentially disastrous consequences when neural data is left with no protection, it is imperative that legislation needs to be introduced that is tailored directly to the protection of neural data. The Canadian Charter which protects freedom of conscience and liberty, only applies to governmental entities and provides no protection against abusive or deceptive practices from private companies. The Sales and Goods act,
Leave a Reply