printSociety in the Context of Neurotechnologies:
Aspects of Information Security
Zharova A.K.
Dr. Sci. (Law), Assoc. Prof., Leading Researcher, Institute of State and Law of RAS, Moscow, Russia anna_jarova@mail.ru
The article was prepared within the framework of the state assignment «Achieving the supremacy of international law in establishing world order and protecting human rights» (FMUZ‑2024-0046).
Zharova A.K. Society in the Context of Neurotechnologies: Aspects of Information Security. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. 2026. No 3. P. 15-27
Neurointerfaces (NF) have unique functionality that allows access to human cognitive activity, which is associated with a specific risk of unauthorized interception of cognitive control. This risk calls into question fundamental human rights to freedom of expression and legal capacity. It also raises the question of human subjectivity, in situation when a person’s personality can be replaced by a technological interface, and responsibility for actions which is taken under external control. The situation is exacerbated by the rapid growth of the neurotechnology market, which has outpaced the development of regulatory frameworks and technical standards. The author argues that this creates a «window of vulnerability» in human neurosecurity. An analysis of the scientific literature and reports from international organizations has allowed us to conclude that a new direction is being formed in the national security system, related to ensuring information security in case the use of NF. This trend is global, and most of the world’s developed IT countries. At present, this new area of human, societal, and state neurosecurity is at the stage of concept and regulation design. This requires integration with existing mechanisms to ensure information, scientific, technological, and defense security. Due to the fact that interaction between humans and NF is based on specific NF, ensuring neurosecurity must be based on requirements for appropriate neuroalgorithms and protocols. This conclusion is supported by global and national scientific research priorities, which focus on developing innovative neuroalgorithms that adhere to ethical principles, transparency, and explainability.
Adomaitis L., Grinbaum, A. (2024) Neurotechnologies, Ethics, and the Limits of Free Will. Integr. Psych. Behav. Vol. 58: 894–907. DOI: 10.1007/s12124-024-09830-2.
Astobiza M. A., De Miguel Beriain Í. (2024). From Neurorights to Neuroduties: The Case of Personal Identity. Bioethics Open Research. Vol. 2: 1. DOI: 10.12688/bioethopenres.17501.1.
Bazhanov V. (2017) The Idea of Neurosociology in Modern Social Thought (Neurosociology). Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. No. 4: 27–33. EDN YQRLER. (In Russ.)
Borbón D. (2025) What a NeuroRights Legislation should not Look Like: The Case of the Latin American Parliament. Frontiers in Neuroscience. Vol. 18. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2024.1514338.
Buniak L., Darragh M., Giordano J. (2014) A Four-part Working Bibliography of Neuroethics: Part 1: Overview and Reviews Defining and Describing the Field and its Practices. Philos. Ethics. Humanit. Med. Vol. 9: 9. DOI: 10.1186/1747-5341-9-9.
Castells M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Vol. I. Of The information age: Economy, society, and culture. Oxford; Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Cornejo Ya. (2024) Neuro-law, Neurotechnology and Personal Data: An Overview of the Problems of Psychological Autonomy. Journal of Digital Technologies and Law. Vol. 2(3): 711–728. DOI: 10.21202/jdtl.2024.36. EDN: SPERFJ. (In Russ.)
Díaz Soto J. M., Borbón D. (2022) Neurorights vs. Neuroprediction and Lie Detection: The Imperative Limits to Criminal Law. Frontiers in Psychology. Vol. 13. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1030439.
Erden Ya.J., Brey Ph. (2023) Neurotechnology and Ethics Guidelines for Human Enhancement: The Case of the Hippocampal Cognitive Prosthesis. Artificial Organs. Vol. 47. No. 8: 1235–1241. DOI: 10.1111/aor.14615.
Greely H. T., Grady C., et al. (2018) Neuroethics Guiding Principles for the NIH BRAIN Initiative. J. Neurosci. Dec 12. Vol. 38(50): 10586–10588. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2077-18.2018.
Haraway D. (2017) The Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology and Socialist Feminism of the 1980s. Transl. from English by A. V. Garadzha; preface by D. Zhayvoronok. Moscow: Ad Marginem. (In Russ.)Haselager P. (2013). Did I do that? Brain–computer Interfacing and the Sense of Agency. Minds and Machines, . Vol. 23(3): 405–418. DOI: 10.1007/s11023-012-9298-7.
Katerny I. V. (2019) Conceptualization of the Social Ontology of Posthumanism: Sociological Implications. Monitoring obshchestvennogo mneniya: ekonomicheskie i sotsialʹnye peremeny [Monitoring Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes]. No. 6(154): 13–34. DOI: 10.14515/monitoring.2019.6.02; EDN: XJZGAT. (In Russ.)
Krasikov V. I. (2023) Features of New Human Rights in the Context of the Development of Modern Neurotechnologies. Vestnik Rossijskoj pravovoj akademii [Bulletin of the Russian Law Academy]. No. 1: 65–83. DOI: 10.33874/2072-9936-2023-0-1-65-83; EDN: QEHURO. (In Russ.)
Ligthart S. (2022) Coercive Brain-reading in Criminal Justice: An Analysis of European Human Rights Law. Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/9781009252447.
Medushevsky A. N. (2024) Posthumanism: Scientific Theory, Social Utopia or a New Ideology of Domination? (Part I). Voprosy teoreticheskoj ekonomiki [Questions of Theoretical Economics]. No. 3(24): 171–185. DOI: 10.52342/2587-7666VTE_2024_3_171_185, EDN: MXYOQX. (In Russ.)
Müller O., Rotter S. (2017) Neurotechnology: Current Developments and Ethical Issues. Front. Syst. Neurosci. Dec. 13. Vol. 11: 93. DOI: 10.3389/fnsys.2017.00093.
Posadkova M. V., Brezhneva E. A. (2025) Legal regulation of neurotechnologies: a game without rules or strict control? Lex Genetica. Vol. 4(2): 47–62. DOI: 10.17803/lexgen‑2025-4-2-47-62; EDN: QXJBIW. (In Russ.)
Reznikov M. Y. (2024) Neurosociology. Theory of the Cognitive Field. Sotsiologiya [Sociology]. No. 9: 164– 167. DOI: 10.61726/3409.2024.23.52.001; EDN: ARKFFL. (In Russ.)
Saikia A. P., Kalita A., Movsumova P. (2025) Exploring the impact of AI on privacy and ethical considerations: analysing the legal and regulatory frameworks. Reliability: Theory & Applications. Vol. 20. No. S7(83):134–147. DOI: 10.24412/1932-2321-2025-783-134-147.
di Salvo M. (2025) Protection of Neural Rights in the Era of Neurotechnology and Artificial Intelligence. Ethical Problems of Law and Neurobiology. Russian Journal of Economics and Law. Vol. 19. No. 1: 202–233. DOI: 10.21202/2782-2923.2025.1.202-233; EDN: ZOAPLW. (In Russ.)
Schroder T., Sirbu R., Park S. et al. (2025). Cyber Risks to Next-Gen Brain-Computer Interfaces: Analysis and Recommendations. Neuroethics. Vol. 18: 34. DOI: 10.1007/s12152-025-09607-3.
Shkurko Yu. (2018) Sociology of Epistemology and Neuroscience. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. No. 12: 49–55. DOI: 10.31857/S013216250003165-4; EDN: YSBRUL. (In Russ.)
Sidorova T. A. (2020) Methodological Aspects of Regulation of Neuroresearch and Neurotechnology in Neuroethics. Filosofiya i kul’tura [Philosophy and Culture]. No. 8: 29–45. DOI: 10.7256/2454-0757.2020.8.33712; EDN: VQJZFV. (In Russ.)
Ustinova O. E. (2021) The Use of Neurotechnologies in Communication with Consumers. Voprosy innovacionnoj ekonomiki [Issues of Innovative Economics]. Vol. 11. No. 2: 785–800. DOI: 10.18334/vinec.11.2.112222; EDN: FLUUPZ. (In Russ.)
Voronov Yu.P. (2024) Practical Tasks of Posthumanism. Blurring the Outer Boundaries of Humanity. Idei i idealy [Ideas and Ideals]. Vol. 16. No. 2–1: 81–101. DOI: 10.17212/2075-0862-2024-16.2.1-81-101, EDN IWPCXH. (In Russ.)
Zharova A. K. (2024) Deepfake technology: Issues of Protecting the Privacy of a Person and Protecting Personal Data. Informacionnoe obshchestvo [Information Society]. No. 5: 114–122. EDN: BYQCUC. (In Russ.)
Zharova A. K., Elin V. M., Atlasov I. V. (2025). Analysis of Open Data Posted on the Web in Order to Obtain Information about the Criminal Situation. Voprosy kiberbezopasnosti [Cybersecurity Issues]. No. 4(68): 152–159. DOI: 10.21681/2311-3456-2025-4-152-159; EDN: WLPPIR. (In Russ.)
Zharova A. K. (2024) The System of Organizational and Legal Identification of Persons Who Posted Information on the Internet about Their Intention to Commit a Crime. Probely v rossijskom zakonodatel’stve [Gaps in Russian Legislation]. Vol. 17. No. 1: 122–130. DOI: 10.33693/2072-3164-2024-17-1-122-130; EDN: OHAZYD. (In Russ.)
Zuk P., Lázaro-Muñoz G. (2021) DBS and Autonomy: Clarifying the Role of Theoretical Neuroethics. Neuroethics. Vol. 14: 83–93. DOI: 10.1007/s12152-019-09417-4.