**Neurotechnology and Cognitive Warfare: A New Era of Influence Operations**
The rapid advancements in neurotechnology have sparked both excitement and concern among experts and policymakers alike. As we stand at the cusp of a new era of influence operations, it is essential to examine the potential risks and consequences of the commercial proliferation of neurotech, particularly in the context of cognitive warfare.
**The Risks of Neurotechnology**
The application of neurotechnology raises significant ethical, legal, and societal issues related to human dignity and human rights. One of the most pressing concerns is the weaponization of neurotech to amplify disinformation and influence campaigns. In combination with the dynamics surrounding social media and the rise of AI as powerful processing tools for big data, authors have warned that the commercial proliferation of neurotech could further exacerbate the impact and scope of state-sponsored disinformation and influence campaigns.
**Brain Computer Interfaces (BCIs) and Cognitive Warfare**
We focus on contemporary developments in non-medical, read-only, BCIs – broadly conceived as neurotechnological devices that connect the brain to an external digital device. The commercial proliferation of BCIs, particularly in-ear EEG devices, raises concerns about their potential use in cognitive warfare operations. Even basic neural data and inferences drawn from these devices could increase the efficiency of disinformation and influence campaigns.
**The Potential for Commercial Proliferation**
Recent advancements in neurotechnology have led to groundbreaking medical achievements, such as Synchron's 'Stentrode' BCI implant that enabled a man with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis to control an iPad through thought alone. However, it is the more humble, existing technology of in-ear EEG devices that poses significant risks. Apple's patent for equipping Airpods with dynamic electrodes that would allow for electroencephalography (EEG) to read users' brain activity raises concerns about the potential for states to exploit these devices for cognitive warfare operations.
**The Value of Neural Data**
Neural data provides valuable personal insights that could boost efficiency by refining the psychological profiles generated by hostile actors seeking to benefit from micro-targeting. The cognitive operation development chain, which consists of three steps – measurement, analysis, and action – can be significantly enhanced by the use of EEG technology. Researchers have shown the viability of using large language models (LLMs) to extract textual information from EEG readings, making it possible for states to refine their cognitive warfare capabilities.
**Remote Hacking and Cyber-Enabled Influence Operations**
Even if in-ear EEG devices do not publicly disclose neural data, hostile state actors could remotely hack these devices to access the data. This is not a novel state practice, as evidenced by the European Parliament's findings on the use of Pegasus, a commercial spyware designed to infiltrate mobile phones and extract data. The potential for hostile actors to gain access to personal devices via classical phishing strategies further exacerbates the risk.
**Grey Zones in International Law**
The value that neural data could provide for hostile state actors' disinformation and influence campaigns may incentivize their exploitation of grey zones in international law, potentially contributing to international instability and escalating conflicts between states. The lack of consensus among states and scholars as to whether cyber operations aimed at influencing voters' attitudes during an election constitute a violation of the principle of non-intervention raises concerns about the adequacy of current international legal frameworks.
**Conclusion**
The commercial proliferation of neurotech, particularly in-ear EEG devices, poses significant risks for cognitive warfare operations. States should strongly consider the value neural data could provide for hostile actors seeking to further refine their cognitive warfare capabilities. Clarifying the grey zones states can currently exploit when developing their cognitive warfare strategies is essential to mitigating these risks and preventing international instability.