Canadian Neurotech Policy Advocacy

Brain-computer interfaces and other neural implant technologies present new and unprecedented challenges for privacy rights.
Unlike most forms of personal information, neural data is generated directly from the activity of the brain and nervous system. As neural technologies become increasingly capable of recording, interpreting, and responding to brain signals, concerns arise regarding what information may be collected, how it is used, who can access it, and whether it could reveal sensitive information about an individual’s thoughts, intentions, emotions, or mental states.
Neural data deserves enhanced protection because it originates from the most personal aspects of human life. Throughout history, individuals have enjoyed the freedom to think, reflect, and form beliefs without external observation. As brain-computer interfaces become more sophisticated, this freedom should remain protected. Neither governments, corporations, healthcare providers, nor other organizations should have unrestricted access to information derived from a person’s neural activity.
The collection, use, and disclosure of neural data should be limited to what is strictly necessary for the safe and effective operation of a medical device. Information unrelated to the therapeutic function of the device should not be collected, retained, or shared without the informed consent of the patient.
Current federal and provincial privacy legislation was developed before the advent of technologies capable of recording, interpreting, and responding to neural activity. The federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), and provincial personal information protection acts are not adequate to deal with these challenges. 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. In 2026, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) of Canada 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.
Neural data presents unique challenges. Unlike traditional personal information, recordings of neural activity may consist of complex electrical signals, mathematical measurements, or machine-generated interpretations of brain activity. Some forms of neural data may be directly associated with an identifiable individual, while other forms may be difficult to classify using existing legal definitions.
More importantly, the significance of neural data extends beyond questions of identification. Information derived from neural activity may reveal highly sensitive insights about an individual’s cognitive processes, intentions, emotional states, behavioural patterns, or neurological condition. The potential sensitivity of this information warrants special consideration, regardless of whether it falls neatly within existing categories of personal information.
For these reasons, Canada should adopt legislation specifically addressing neural data and neurotechnology. Dedicated legal protections would provide greater certainty for patients, healthcare providers, manufacturers, regulators, and the public, while ensuring that fundamental rights to privacy, autonomy, and mental integrity are protected as these technologies continue to evolve.