# **The Architecture of the Mind: Assessing Cognitive Liberty as the Defining Civil-Liberties Struggle of the AI Era**

## **Introduction: The New Frontier of Human Rights**

Throughout the history of modern jurisprudence, civil-liberties struggles have predominantly focused on the external manifestations of human agency and the physical integrity of the body. The fundamental rights to speak, to assemble, to practice religion, and to remain free from unwarranted physical search all operate on the premise that while the state or private actors may constrain physical actions, the internal realm of the human mind remains an impenetrable fortress. This biological sanctuary, legally recognized as the *forum internum*, has long been assumed to be beyond the reach of external observation and control1. However, the unprecedented convergence of ubiquitous computing, large-scale data brokerage, advanced neurotechnology, and artificial intelligence (AI) has fundamentally altered this paradigm.  
Legal theorists and ethicists have increasingly proposed "cognitive liberty" as the necessary evolutionary step in human rights to address this technological shift. Originally articulated by scholars such as Wrye Sententia and Richard Glen Boire, and further developed by Nita Farahany, cognitive liberty is defined as the fundamental right to mental self-determination4. This framework imposes both negative and positive obligations on states and corporate entities. Negatively, it demands freedom from non-consensual interference with an individual's cognitive processes, protecting mental states from being algorithmically altered or monitored without explicit knowledge4. Positively, it asserts the right of individuals to control their own mental functions and consciousness, including the right to utilize or refuse neuro-enhancements4.  
This report investigates the strongest version of the claim that preserving cognitive liberty will become the defining civil-liberties struggle of the twenty-first century. By eschewing dramatic rhetoric and testing this proposition directly against empirical technological trends, this analysis explores the systemic convergence of generative AI, predictive analytics, behavioral advertising, and neurotechnology. Furthermore, by evaluating emerging legal frameworks—particularly those relevant to users in jurisdictions like Cicero, Illinois—and comparing cognitive liberty with historical civil-rights battles, this report provides a reasoned assessment of whether the human mind necessitates recognition as an independent, legally protected category.

## **The Convergence of the Ubiquitous Technical Ecosystem**

To evaluate the threat to cognitive liberty, it is insufficient to examine any single technology in isolation. The true magnitude of the challenge emerges from the systemic convergence of multiple data-gathering and analytical systems. Modern society operates within an infrastructure characterized by ubiquitous computing, where personal devices, smart environments, and centralized identity systems continuously log human behavior.

### **The Synthesis of Identity, Inquiry, and Opportunity**

A profound shift in the balance of power occurs when the same technical ecosystem can simultaneously know the totality of an individual's existence. Consider the capabilities of a highly integrated digital platform or a consortium of data brokers. This ecosystem unequivocally knows who a person is through biometric identification and centralized digital identity protocols. It knows what they search for, revealing their immediate anxieties and curiosities. It tracks what they read and watch, mapping their intellectual and cultural consumption. Through conversational logs with AI assistants, it records their unfiltered questions, intimate confessions, and latent doubts. Through location tracking, it knows precisely where they went, and through communication metadata, it knows exactly with whom they associate. Finally, it records what they purchase, anchoring their digital footprint to economic reality.  
When this exhaustive data is processed by increasingly capable inference models, the ecosystem no longer merely records behavior; it infers the underlying political, psychological, and emotional traits that drive that behavior. The ultimate consequence of this convergence is the automated determination of what opportunities that individual subsequently receives. Predictive analytics and automated decision systems (ADS) utilize these inferred cognitive states to dictate creditworthiness, employment prospects, housing opportunities, and insurance premiums. When the infrastructure that predicts a user's mental state is the same infrastructure that governs their socioeconomic mobility, the individual is subjected to an invisible architecture of control that bypasses traditional legal safeguards against discrimination.

### **The Commodification of Psychological Vulnerability**

The scale and sophistication of this data extraction are already staggering. Research conducted by Justin Sherman at Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy reveals a multibillion-dollar data brokerage industry operating with minimal oversight, openly advertising highly sensitive information regarding U.S. individuals7. Data brokers routinely aggregate and sell lists of individuals categorized by specific mental health diagnoses, including depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and bipolar disorder7.  
Because many of these data collection points occur outside the narrow purview of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)—such as through wellness apps, consumer surveys, and digital exhaust—these brokers operate legally within a largely unregulated ecosystem7. The Duke study further demonstrated that data brokers willingly sell massive datasets detailing the demographic information, real-time GPS locations, political affiliations, and even specific health conditions of active-duty military personnel, often with negligible customer vetting8. This commodification of psychological and physiological vulnerability enables pharmaceutical companies, insurers, and political operatives to purchase the inferred mental states of millions of citizens, circumventing the need for direct consent and severely compromising mental privacy7.

## **Algorithmic Inference, Psychological Profiling, and Hypernudging**

While neurotechnology aims to measure the brain directly, the current technical ecosystem approximates the mind through the algorithmic inference of digital exhaust. The deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) as conversational agents has drastically accelerated this capability.

### **LLMs and the Extraction of Mental States**

Recent computational linguistics research demonstrates that LLM-based chatbots can infer a user's "Big Five" personality traits (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism) with remarkable accuracy simply by analyzing free-form conversational interactions12. Interactions with conversational agents—which users increasingly treat as private confidants—yield rich datasets of contextualized thoughts, doubts, and emotional states that are semantically distinct from traditional search queries13.  
The risk is compounded by the inherent architecture of generative AI. Studies indicate that as contextual material accumulates over extended dialogue, LLMs place increasing weight on a user's language, tone, and interpretive frameworks15. In clinical and psychological contexts, models have been developed to continuously accumulate and index evidence from unstructured conversational speech, allowing the system to track self-harm risk, self-cognition, and emotional distress in real-time16. While highly beneficial for intended therapeutic applications, this same capability deployed by commercial or state actors allows for the silent extraction of a user's deepest psychological profile without ever attaching physical electrodes to their scalp.

### **The Mechanics of Hypernudging**

The extraction of these psychological profiles enables a highly sophisticated form of behavioral manipulation termed "hypernudging" by legal scholar Karen Yeung17. Traditional behavioral "nudging" involves altering the choice architecture—the environment in which people make decisions—to predictably change behavior without forbidding options, relying on universal human cognitive biases such as default rules or framing effects18.  
Hypernudging, however, utilizes big data and machine learning to create dynamic, highly personalized, and continuously updated choice environments18. By highlighting correlations that would otherwise remain unobservable, algorithms dynamically configure a user's informational context to channel their attention and decision-making toward outcomes preferred by the choice architect18. Hypernudging is uniquely potent because it operates below the threshold of conscious awareness, exploiting the specific, inferred psychological vulnerabilities of the individual to circumvent their rational, reflective decision-making processes (the Reflective System) and target their instinctive cognitive machinery (the Automatic System)19. Because these systems are networked, pervasive, and adapt in real-time to user feedback, they constitute a soft but deeply coercive form of design-based control that directly threatens moral autonomy and freedom of thought17.

### **Political Microtargeting and the Algorithmic Manipulation of Democracy**

The most visible manifestation of this threat to cognitive liberty occurs within the political sphere. The integration of psychographic profiling with big data analytics allows political campaigns to deploy tailored messaging designed to exploit the specific personality traits and fears of individual voters21. Historically associated with the practices of firms like Cambridge Analytica, these techniques have evolved significantly with the advent of generative AI21.  
Current research demonstrates that generative AI models can be used to automatically craft, validate, and scale highly personalized political advertisements that resonate with individuals based solely on their inferred personality traits23. In experimental settings, personalized political ads tailored to individuals' personalities were found to be significantly more persuasive than non-personalized baseline advertisements23. By combining synthetic user profiles with LLM-generated arguments, political operatives can execute massive model-driven misinformation campaigns that microtarget individuals with arguments scientifically optimized to bypass their specific critical faculties24. When an individual's exposure to information is modulated in ways that constrain their choices and manipulate their beliefs without their awareness, it transitions from persuasion to a form of psychological operations, representing a profound violation of cognitive liberty21.

## **The Neurotechnology Frontier: Breaching the Biological Barrier**

While algorithmic inference models construct a highly accurate proxy of the mind, rapid advancements in neurotechnology aim to measure and decode human thought directly from the biological source.

### **The Feasibility of Semantic Decoding**

The scientific capability to decode complex, continuous thought from non-invasive sensors has crossed critical thresholds. A landmark 2023 study published in *Nature Neuroscience* by researchers at the University of Texas at Austin introduced a semantic decoder capable of reconstructing continuous natural language from cortical semantic representations25. Utilizing functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) paired with an LLM-based encoding model, the system successfully translated perceived speech, imagined speech, and even silent videos viewed by the subject into intelligible text sequences25.  
The decoder operates by generating candidate word sequences, scoring the likelihood that each candidate evoked the recorded brain responses, and selecting the most accurate representation of the subject's "gist" or semantic intent28. While this specific technique currently requires the subject's active cooperation and extensive individualized training data—offering a temporary safeguard for mental privacy—it decisively proves the fundamental viability of non-invasive brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) for continuous language decoding25. As researchers adapt these models to more portable technologies like functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS), the logistical barriers to widespread neural decoding will rapidly diminish27.

### **Consumer Neurotechnology and the "Extended Mind"**

Simultaneously, non-invasive consumer neurotechnologies, such as electroencephalogram (EEG) headsets, have transitioned from highly regulated medical and research environments into the unregulated commercial market31. Devices marketed for wellness, focus tracking, and gaming capture intimate electrical brain activity, containing signatures of subconscious reactions, emotional states, and latent neurological conditions33.  
The proliferation of these devices intersects with the philosophical and legal concept of the "extended mind." The extended mind thesis posits that cognitive processes are not strictly confined within the human skull but actively incorporate external technological artifacts—such as AI assistants and BCIs—as integral components of human cognition35. If a digital device serves as a functional extension of an individual's working memory or cognitive processing, the data residing on or flowing through that device arguably deserves the same absolute legal protection as the biological brain38. Conversely, if corporate entities retain ownership and surveillance capabilities over the algorithms that constitute an individual's extended mind, the core tenets of cognitive liberty and personal autonomy are fundamentally compromised40.

## **The Commercial and Employment Panopticon: Evaluating the Cicero Context**

Nowhere is the collision of ubiquitous computing, inference, and cognitive liberty more acute than in the workplace. The deployment of algorithmic management systems, colloquially known as "bossware," has ushered in an era of unprecedented, continuous surveillance that directly monitors worker behavior, emotion, and productivity42.

### **Bossware and Emotion Recognition**

Modern bossware continuously tracks keystrokes, application usage, physical location, and screen activity, feeding this data into automated decision systems (ADS) that determine task allocation, performance ratings, and disciplinary actions44. Increasingly, these systems attempt to integrate biometric and emotion recognition technologies—analyzing facial expressions, voice cadence, and physiological sensors to gauge a worker's stress, engagement, or attitude44. This continuous monitoring creates a severe chilling effect on employee behavior, discouraging legally protected activities such as union organizing under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), while imposing significant psychological strain and increasing the risk of physical injuries due to rigid, automated productivity quotas42.

### **The Regulatory Response: Illinois and Cicero**

To understand the legal trajectory of this issue, one must examine localized frameworks. For workers and residents in Cicero, Illinois, the state serves as a critical bellwether for digital civil liberties, offering some of the most robust protections in the United States.  
Illinois has long been a pioneer in biometric privacy through the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). While recent 2024 amendments (SB 2979\) limited statutory damages to a per-person rather than per-scan basis and formalized electronic consent, BIPA remains a powerful deterrent against the unconsented collection of physical biometrics48. However, as surveillance shifts from physical biometrics to inferred cognitive states, Illinois is actively expanding its regulatory scope.  
Effective January 1, 2026, Illinois HB 3773 amends the Illinois Human Rights Act to strictly regulate the use of AI and predictive data analytics in employment decisions, including recruitment, hiring, promotion, and discipline51. Crucially, the law prohibits the use of AI that results in discriminatory effects against protected classes and explicitly bans the use of zip codes as proxies for protected characteristics51. Furthermore, it mandates that employers provide formal, plain-language notification to employees whenever AI is used to influence or facilitate employment decisions51.  
For a user in Cicero, IL, this signifies that the deployment of algorithmic management systems assessing their cognitive fit, productivity via machine learning, or predictive risk profile must be fully disclosed and cannot systematically disadvantage them based on hidden algorithmic proxies51. However, while HB 3773 provides critical anti-discrimination and transparency guardrails for AI, it does not currently categorize neural or inferred psychological data as a protected asset class in the explicit manner of other pioneering states.

### **A Comparative Table of Emerging Legislative Frameworks**

| Jurisdiction | Legislative / Judicial Framework | Core Mechanism | Impact on Cognitive Liberty |
| :---- | :---- | :---- | :---- |
| **Colorado** | HB 24-1058 (Effective Aug 2024\)33 | Expands the Colorado Privacy Act to classify "neural data" and "biological data" as highly sensitive personal data. | Requires strict opt-in consent for the collection and processing of neural data by consumer technologies, setting a national precedent31. |
| **California** | SB 1223 (Effective Jan 2025\)57 | Amends the CCPA to include neural data under "sensitive personal information." | Provides residents the right to limit the use and disclosure of their neural data, extending protections to both consumers and employees57. |
| **Illinois** | HB 3773 (Effective Jan 2026\)51 | Amends Human Rights Act to ban AI employment discrimination and mandate AI usage disclosure. | Curbs the use of predictive analytics and "bossware" that infer employee traits to execute adverse employment actions54. |
| **European Union** | EU AI Act (Article 5\)45 | Categorical prohibition of AI systems used to infer emotions in workplaces and educational institutions. | Establishes an absolute negative right against cognitive and emotional surveillance in power-imbalanced environments45. |
| **Chile** | Constitutional Amendment & *Girardi v. Emotiv* (2023)60 | Enshrines neuro-rights in the constitution. Supreme Court ordered deletion of brain data collected by an EEG device. | Created the world's first enforceable constitutional protection for mental privacy and cognitive integrity, overriding standard corporate terms of service61. |

## **Cognitive Liberty in the Civil-Liberties Continuum**

To assess whether cognitive liberty warrants recognition as an independent rights category, it must be contextualized alongside historical battles for human rights. A comparative analysis reveals that cognitive liberty is not an entirely novel concept, but rather the foundational prerequisite for several established civil liberties that are currently failing to withstand the pressures of the digital age.

### **Freedom of Religion and the *Forum Internum***

In international human rights law, Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) protects freedom of thought, conscience, and religion1. Jurisprudence historically divides this right into two spheres: the *forum externum* (the outward manifestation of belief, which can be restricted by the state for public order) and the *forum internum* (the internal holding of a belief or thought)2.  
The *forum internum* enjoys absolute protection; the state cannot lawfully compel a person to reveal their thoughts, nor forcibly alter them63. Historically, this absolute protection was relatively easy to maintain because it was biologically guaranteed—the state lacked the technology to peer into the mind. Today, as neurotechnology and LLM inference bypass this biological barrier, the absolute sanctity of the *forum internum* is actively threatened2. Cognitive liberty can thus be viewed as the technological modernization of the ancient right to freedom of thought, extending protections from religious conviction to all cognitive processes.

### **Privacy, Surveillance, and the Third-Party Doctrine**

In United States jurisprudence, the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches has continually struggled to adapt to technological shifts. The "third-party doctrine" traditionally held that individuals have no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily shared with third parties, such as bank records or telephone numbers65. However, in the landmark case *Carpenter v. United States* (2018), the Supreme Court carved out a critical exception for Cell-Site Location Information (CSLI), recognizing that the exhaustive, inescapable, and deeply revealing nature of continuous location data creates a legitimate expectation of privacy65.  
The battle for cognitive liberty mirrors the *Carpenter* trajectory. The digital exhaust a user leaves across search engines, conversational AI, and wearables is technically shared with third parties. Yet, because this data can be algorithmically synthesized to map the user's psyche and infer their innermost thoughts, applying the traditional third-party doctrine to AI logs or neuro-data would effectively terminate mental privacy65. The civil-liberties struggle lies in extending the *Carpenter* logic to "algorithmic learning data," recognizing that the aggregate sum of a person's digital exhaust constitutes a map of their mind that requires constitutional shielding.

### **The Fifth Amendment and Testimonial Evidence**

A similar conflict is emerging regarding the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination. As fMRI and EEG technologies improve, courts must determine whether neural data constitutes "real/physical evidence" (like a blood draw or fingerprint) or "testimonial evidence" (like a verbal confession)69. Because neural data inherently reflects the content of a person's thoughts, memories, and subjective experiences, forcing a defendant to undergo neuro-interrogation would violate the core spirit of the Fifth Amendment71. Establishing cognitive liberty as an independent right would unequivocally classify brain data as an extension of the self, immune from state compulsion.

### **Free Expression, Civil Rights, and Encryption**

The implications extend to free expression and civil rights. The right to free expression relies on the assumption that an individual has a private space to formulate unorthodox or unpopular ideas before speaking them aloud. When surveillance extends to the monitoring of draft texts, search queries, and emotional states, a profound chilling effect occurs, stifling intellectual development and free expression at its inception. Furthermore, the defense of encryption must evolve to protect the "extended mind." If individuals rely on encrypted digital spaces as cognitive scaffolds for memory and processing, breaking encryption is tantamount to searching the physical brain35.  
In the realm of civil rights, automated decision systems threaten to automate discrimination by substituting explicit racial or gender markers with inferred psychological traits or geographic proxies (as addressed by Illinois HB 3773\)23. Finally, reproductive autonomy is increasingly threatened by systems that infer pregnancy or healthcare decisions from location data, search history, and subtle shifts in behavioral patterns, weaponizing the mind's intent against the body's autonomy.

## **Jurisprudential Debates: Rights Inflation vs. Unprecedented Threat**

Despite the apparent urgency, the push to recognize cognitive liberty as a new, independent human right faces substantial academic and legal pushback, centering primarily on two arguments: scientific skepticism and rights inflation.

### **"Brain Overclaim Syndrome"**

Legal scholar Stephen Morse has famously diagnosed the tendency of legal and ethical theorists to overstate the capabilities and legal implications of neuroscience as "Brain Overclaim Syndrome" (BOS)73. Morse argues that the law evaluates behavior and agency based on "folk psychology"—conscious intentions and actions—and that merely identifying a neural correlate for behavior does not negate human agency or fundamentally alter legal responsibility75. From this perspective, the existential fears surrounding mind-reading technologies are premature, as fMRI and EEG data are currently too coarse-grained to interpret complex semantic thoughts without the subject's active, prolonged cooperation in a highly controlled environment77.

### **The Threat of Rights Inflation**

Furthermore, international law scholars warn against "rights inflation"—the tendency to label every desirable moral outcome or technological safeguard as a new, fundamental human right79. Critics argue that the unjustified proliferation of new "neurorights" dilutes the authority and core meaning of existing international human rights law80. They posit that the threats posed by neurotechnology and AI can be adequately managed by dynamically reinterpreting existing rights, such as the right to privacy, the right to physical integrity, and the enforcement of existing data protection frameworks like the GDPR or CCPA79.

### **The Justification for an Independent Right**

However, the counter-argument for an independent framework of cognitive liberty is compelling, particularly when evaluating real-world legal test cases. The Chilean Supreme Court's landmark 2023 ruling in *Girardi v. Emotiv* demonstrated that standard data protection laws are fundamentally insufficient to protect the mind62. In that case, the consumer neurotech company Emotiv argued its EEG data was anonymized, utilized for research, and subject to standard terms-of-service agreements that the user had accepted84. By applying newly enshrined constitutional neurorights, the Chilean court recognized that brain data is intrinsically tied to human identity and mental integrity, ordering its deletion regardless of the corporate privacy policy and establishing that standard contractual consent is an inadequate mechanism for alienating one's neural data61.  
Furthermore, while Morse's caution regarding the current limitations of fMRI is scientifically valid, it overlooks the convergence of ubiquitous computing and inferential AI75. The contemporary threat to cognitive liberty does not rely solely on forcing an uncooperative citizen into an fMRI machine; it relies on the continuous, ambient extraction of psychological profiles via LLMs, biometric wearables, and behavioral tracking—a process that happens silently, seamlessly, and at an unprecedented scale13. Because existing privacy laws primarily protect discrete *data points* rather than the synthetic *inferences* drawn from that data, a novel legal framework protecting the sanctity of the mind itself is necessary to bridge the regulatory gap34.

## **Plausible Future Scenarios**

Depending on the technical, ethical, and legal decisions made in the current decade, society will likely diverge into one of three plausible trajectories regarding cognitive liberty.

### **Scenario A: The Panoptic Neural State (Highly Controlling)**

In this scenario, courts and legislatures fail to recognize cognitive liberty, broadly applying the third-party doctrine to AI conversational logs, inference data, and consumer neurotechnology. Data brokers successfully lobby against comprehensive federal privacy legislation, maintaining a fragmented, easily bypassed regulatory environment7. Workplaces uniformly deploy advanced bossware equipped with emotion recognition and continuous cognitive assessment. Algorithms routinely terminate employees whose inferred mental states indicate fatigue, union sympathies, or impending health crises42. Political campaigns rely exclusively on LLM-driven hypernudging, generating millions of customized psychological operations daily that continuously manipulate voter behavior based on real-time neural and psychological feedback23. Freedom of thought becomes an illusion, as the algorithmic environment perfectly anticipates and neutralizes dissent before it translates into action.

### **Scenario B: The Fragmented Market and the Cognitive Divide (Middling)**

In this scenario, a patchwork of state-level laws emerges, similar to the current trajectory. Jurisdictions like Colorado and California strictly regulate raw neural data56, and states like Illinois heavily restrict AI discrimination in the workplace51. However, residents in unregulated states remain entirely exposed. A vast "cognitive divide" emerges based on socioeconomic status and geography. Premium, paid digital services offer strict "cognitive privacy" guarantees, while free, ad-supported services aggressively harvest psychological profiles to fund their operations. Users must constantly navigate complex consent dialogs, attempting to opt-out of secondary inferences—a task made practically impossible by the opaque nature of machine learning models. The *forum internum* is legally protected for the privileged elite but relentlessly mined for the working class.

### **Scenario C: Cognitive Autonomy Regimes (Strongly Rights-Preserving)**

Driven by public backlash and emerging international consensus, cognitive liberty is recognized as an absolute, fundamental human right, formally updating frameworks like Article 18 of the ICCPR for the digital age3. Domestically, federal law mirrors the EU AI Act, strictly prohibiting the use of emotion recognition in the workplace and educational settings to protect workers from algorithmic coercion45. Legal frameworks treat algorithmic learning data and neural data with the highest level of scrutiny, requiring specific, limited, and revocable consent that outlaws the generation of secondary psychological inferences by data brokers34. Hypernudging and behavioral microtargeting are heavily restricted, ensuring that digital choice architectures support human agency rather than exploiting cognitive vulnerabilities17. In this future, technologies are explicitly designed to function as "extended minds"—cognitive scaffolds that serve the user's explicit goals without reporting their internal states back to corporate or state actors35.

## **Conclusion: The Ultimate Civil-Liberties Frontier**

The assertion that cognitive liberty will become the defining civil-liberties struggle of the AI era is not merely rhetorical or speculative; it is an empirical reality driven by the rapid, systemic convergence of AI inference, pervasive surveillance, and commercial neurotechnology. Previous civil-liberties battles were fought over the right to express oneself in the public square, the right to move freely without being tracked, and the right to make independent decisions regarding one's own body. All of these rights rested on the foundational assumption that an individual possessed a private, unassailable inner life from which to formulate their beliefs, intentions, and moral judgments.  
That biological assumption is no longer technologically valid. The technical ecosystem currently possesses the capacity to synthesize an individual's location, consumption habits, communication patterns, and semantic queries, feeding that data into generative models capable of extracting highly accurate psychological profiles8. When deployed in the form of hypernudging, workplace algorithmic management, and political microtargeting, these systems bypass rational deliberation and exploit the subconscious, actively eroding the freedom of thought19. Concurrently, the rapid commercialization of non-invasive neurotechnology promises to add raw biological telemetry to these predictive models, stripping away the final biological barrier of the skull26.  
While critics validly warn against "rights inflation"80, the unique and existential nature of this threat justifies the formal recognition of cognitive liberty as an independent human right. Traditional data privacy laws, built upon the framework of notice and consent, are fundamentally ill-equipped to govern a world where intimate mental states can be accurately inferred from seemingly benign metadata, or where the simple act of wearing an augmented reality headset broadcasts one's neurological responses to a corporate server18.  
Protecting the *forum internum* in the twenty-first century requires more than patching existing consumer protection laws. It requires a bold, constitutional-level commitment—similar to the pioneering legislative and judicial efforts currently unfolding in Chile, Colorado, and Illinois—to legally establish that the human mind is not a natural resource to be extracted, decoded, and monetized31. As artificial intelligence continues to rapidly evolve, the preservation of cognitive liberty will ultimately dictate whether humanity retains the capacity for genuine self-determination or succumbs to a ubiquitous architecture of algorithmic determinism. Recognizing, defining, and fiercely defending the right to mental privacy, freedom of thought, and cognitive self-determination is therefore the essential prerequisite for the survival of all other civil liberties in the digital age.

#### **Works cited**

> 1. VIII. Freedom of Religion and Human Rights Law, [https://www.hrw.org/reports/2007/egypt1107/8.htm](https://www.hrw.org/reports/2007/egypt1107/8.htm)  
> 2. What Is “Thought”? Interpreting and Constructing Article 18 ICCPR, [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/399350137\_What\_Is\_Thought\_Interpreting\_and\_Constructing\_Article\_18\_ICCPR\_in\_Light\_of\_the\_Vienna\_Convention](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/399350137_What_Is_Thought_Interpreting_and_Constructing_Article_18_ICCPR_in_Light_of_the_Vienna_Convention)  
> 3. Freedom of religion or belief \- CSW, [https://www.csw.org.uk/forb.htm](https://www.csw.org.uk/forb.htm)  
> 4. Cognitive liberty \- Wikipedia, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive\_liberty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_liberty)  
> 5. Cognitive Liberty \- AI Ethics Lab – Rutgers University, [https://aiethicslab.rutgers.edu/glossary/cognitive-liberty/](https://aiethicslab.rutgers.edu/glossary/cognitive-liberty/)  
> 6. The Battle for Your Brain: A Legal Scholar's Argument for Protecting, [https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/the-battle-for-your-brain-a-legal-scholars-argument-for-protecting-brain-data-and-cognitive-liberty/](https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/the-battle-for-your-brain-a-legal-scholars-argument-for-protecting-brain-data-and-cognitive-liberty/)  
> 7. Personal user data from mental health apps being sold, report finds, [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/personal-user-data-from-mental-health-apps-being-sold-report-finds](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/personal-user-data-from-mental-health-apps-being-sold-report-finds)  
> 8. Report: Data Brokers and Sensitive Data on U.S. Individuals, [https://techpolicy.sanford.duke.edu/report-data-brokers-and-sensitive-data-on-u-s-individuals/](https://techpolicy.sanford.duke.edu/report-data-brokers-and-sensitive-data-on-u-s-individuals/)  
> 9. Justin Sherman: Security Implications of Data Brokerage, [https://cdainstitute.ca/justin-sherman-security-implications-of-data-brokerage/](https://cdainstitute.ca/justin-sherman-security-implications-of-data-brokerage/)  
> 10. American's mental health data is on the market \- Marketplace, [https://www.marketplace.org/episode/americans-mental-health-data-is-on-the-market](https://www.marketplace.org/episode/americans-mental-health-data-is-on-the-market)  
> 11. Data Brokers, Military Personnel, and National Security Risks, [https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/data-brokers-military-personnel-and-national-security-risks](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/data-brokers-military-personnel-and-national-security-risks)  
> 12. Large Language Models Can Infer Personality from Free-Form User, [https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.13052](https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.13052)  
> 13. Can LLMs Infer Conversational Agent Users' Personality Traits from, [https://arxiv.org/pdf/2604.19785](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2604.19785)  
> 14. ThoughtTrace: Understanding User Thoughts in Real-World LLM, [https://arxiv.org/html/2605.20087v1](https://arxiv.org/html/2605.20087v1)  
> 15. "AI Psychosis" in Context: How Conversation History Shapes LLM, [https://arxiv.org/pdf/2604.13860](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2604.13860)  
> 16. A Protocol-Driven LLM Agent for Psychological Profile Generation, [https://arxiv.org/html/2604.10161v1](https://arxiv.org/html/2604.10161v1)  
> 17. 'Hypernudging': a threat to moral autonomy? \- Apollo, [https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/items/1db85d7d-12da-477f-8b4b-ea07edc7e31e](https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/items/1db85d7d-12da-477f-8b4b-ea07edc7e31e)  
> 18. (PDF) 'Hypernudge': Big Data as a mode of regulation by design, [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303479231\_'Hypernudge'\_Big\_Data\_as\_a\_mode\_of\_regulation\_by\_design](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303479231_'Hypernudge'_Big_Data_as_a_mode_of_regulation_by_design)  
> 19. From Nudge to Hypernudge: Big Data And Human Autonomy, [https://medium.com/science-and-philosophy/from-nudge-to-hypernudge-big-data-and-human-autonomy-561d54128a84](https://medium.com/science-and-philosophy/from-nudge-to-hypernudge-big-data-and-human-autonomy-561d54128a84)  
> 20. 'Hypernudge': Big Data as a mode of regulation by design, [https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/hypernudge-big-data-as-a-mode-of-regulation-by-design/?utm\_source=chatgpt.com](https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/hypernudge-big-data-as-a-mode-of-regulation-by-design/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)  
> 21. Psychological Operations in Digital Political Campaigns \- Frontiers, [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/communication/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2020.00067/full](https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/communication/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2020.00067/full)  
> 22. (PDF) Using a Personality-Profiling Algorithm to Investigate Political, [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344863499\_Using\_a\_Personality-Profiling\_Algorithm\_to\_Investigate\_Political\_Microtargeting\_Assessing\_the\_Persuasion\_Effects\_of\_Personality-Tailored\_Ads\_on\_Social\_Media](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344863499_Using_a_Personality-Profiling_Algorithm_to_Investigate_Political_Microtargeting_Assessing_the_Persuasion_Effects_of_Personality-Tailored_Ads_on_Social_Media)  
> 23. The persuasive effects of political microtargeting in the age of ... \- PMC, [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10849795/](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10849795/)  
> 24. Political Manipulation with Massive AI Model-driven Misinformation, [https://www.sophos.com/en-us/blog/political-manipulation-with-massive-ai-model-driven-misinformation-and-microtargeting](https://www.sophos.com/en-us/blog/political-manipulation-with-massive-ai-model-driven-misinformation-and-microtargeting)  
> 25. Semantic reconstruction of continuous language from non-invasive, [https://note.com/nn1112/n/n314ce96ecca9?hl=en](https://note.com/nn1112/n/n314ce96ecca9?hl=en)  
> 26. Semantic reconstruction of continuous language from non-invasive, [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.09.29.509744v1](https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.09.29.509744v1)  
> 27. Brain activity decoder can reveal stories in people's minds, [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/05/230501114006.htm](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/05/230501114006.htm)  
> 28. Semantic reconstruction of continuous language from non-invasive, [https://dokumen.pub/semantic-reconstruction-of-continuous-language-from-non-invasive-brain-recordings.html](https://dokumen.pub/semantic-reconstruction-of-continuous-language-from-non-invasive-brain-recordings.html)  
> 29. SEMANTIC RECONSTRUCTION OF CONTINUOUS LANGUAGE, [https://arxiv.org/pdf/2309.07701](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2309.07701)  
> 30. Semantic reconstruction of continuous language from non-invasive, [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37127759/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37127759/)  
> 31. “Key Issues Raised by Colorado's Brain Data Privacy Bill,” Law360, [https://www.alston.com/en/insights/publications/2024/04/key-issues-raised-by-colorado](https://www.alston.com/en/insights/publications/2024/04/key-issues-raised-by-colorado)  
> 32. First-in-the-World Neural Data Protections Law Goes Into Effect, [https://www.cohousedems.com/news/first-in-the-world-neural-data-protections-law-goes-into-effect](https://www.cohousedems.com/news/first-in-the-world-neural-data-protections-law-goes-into-effect)  
> 33. HOUSE BILL 24-1058 BY REPRESENTATIVE(S) Kipp and Soper, [https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2024a\_1058\_signed.pdf](https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2024a_1058_signed.pdf)  
> 34. Neurorights and Mental Privacy – UAB Institute for Human Rights Blog, [https://sites.uab.edu/humanrights/2025/11/11/neurorights-and-mental-privacy/](https://sites.uab.edu/humanrights/2025/11/11/neurorights-and-mental-privacy/)  
> 35. The Epistemic Politics of AI Anthropomorphism \- arXiv, [https://arxiv.org/html/2608.00961v3](https://arxiv.org/html/2608.00961v3)  
> 36. What are the main oppositions to the extended mind thesis? and, [https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/61033/what-are-the-main-oppositions-to-the-extended-mind-thesis-and-who-presents-them](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/61033/what-are-the-main-oppositions-to-the-extended-mind-thesis-and-who-presents-them)  
> 37. The Right to Mental Integrity in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361781578\_The\_Right\_to\_Mental\_Integrity\_in\_the\_Age\_of\_Artificial\_Intelligence\_Cognitive\_Human\_Enhancement\_Technologies](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361781578_The_Right_to_Mental_Integrity_in_the_Age_of_Artificial_Intelligence_Cognitive_Human_Enhancement_Technologies)  
> 38. The Autonomous Mind: The Right to Freedom of Thought ... \- Frontiers, [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/artificial-intelligence/articles/10.3389/frai.2019.00019/full](https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/artificial-intelligence/articles/10.3389/frai.2019.00019/full)  
> 39. Mind, machine, and the law: reimagining neurotechnology, [https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/13/1/lsag011/8678058](https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/13/1/lsag011/8678058)  
> 40. Mind-Technology Problems for Know-How Anti-Intellectualism, [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02691728.2025.2463059](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02691728.2025.2463059)  
> 41. The Marriage of Neurotechnologies and Artificial Intelligence \- PMC, [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12965113/](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12965113/)  
> 42. Workplace Surveillance Laws: Strategic Privacy Compliance, [https://www.daeryunlaw.com/us/practices/detail/workplace-surveillance-laws](https://www.daeryunlaw.com/us/practices/detail/workplace-surveillance-laws)  
> 43. New Research Investigation Shows 'Bossware' Is Spying on, [https://consumerlaw.berkeley.edu/news/new-research-investigation-shows-%E2%80%98bossware%E2%80%99-spying-workers-and-sharing-their-data](https://consumerlaw.berkeley.edu/news/new-research-investigation-shows-%E2%80%98bossware%E2%80%99-spying-workers-and-sharing-their-data)  
> 44. Bossware Is Watching You Work — And It May Be Breaking the Law, [https://www.masonllp.com/blog/bossware-is-watching-you-work-and-it-may-be-breaking-the-law/](https://www.masonllp.com/blog/bossware-is-watching-you-work-and-it-may-be-breaking-the-law/)  
> 45. Bossware Laws 2026: Employee Monitoring Legal Rights, [https://www.nwchem-sw.org/bossware-laws-employee-rights-2026](https://www.nwchem-sw.org/bossware-laws-employee-rights-2026)  
> 46. Every Move You Make: When Monitoring Employees Gives Rise to, [https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2022/09/quarterly-insights/every-move-you-make](https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2022/09/quarterly-insights/every-move-you-make)  
> 47. Here's How We Can Fight Back Against Bossware — Impact Fund, [https://www.impactfund.org/legal-practitioner-blog/bossware-cdt](https://www.impactfund.org/legal-practitioner-blog/bossware-cdt)  
> 48. How Will the Recent Amendments to Illinois's BIPA Affect the Use of, [https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business\_law/resources/business-law-today/2024-june/how-will-proposed-amendments-to-illinois-bipa-affect-the-use-of-biometric-data/](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2024-june/how-will-proposed-amendments-to-illinois-bipa-affect-the-use-of-biometric-data/)  
> 49. Bill Text: IL SB2979 | 2023-2024 | 103rd General Assembly \- LegiScan, [https://legiscan.com/IL/text/SB2979/id/2908858](https://legiscan.com/IL/text/SB2979/id/2908858)  
> 50. BIPA Update: Illinois Limits Liability and Clarifies Electronic Consent, [https://www.gtlaw.com/en/insights/2024/8/bipa-update-illinois-limits-liability-and-clarifies-electronic-consent-for-biometric-data-collection](https://www.gtlaw.com/en/insights/2024/8/bipa-update-illinois-limits-liability-and-clarifies-electronic-consent-for-biometric-data-collection)  
> 51. Illinois Human Rights Act Amendment (HB 3773\) Guide \- Warden AI, [https://www.warden-ai.com/illinois-human-rights-act-amendment-hb-3773-guide](https://www.warden-ai.com/illinois-human-rights-act-amendment-hb-3773-guide)  
> 52. Bill Text: IL HB3773 | 2023-2024 | 103rd General Assembly \- LegiScan, [https://legiscan.com/IL/text/HB3773/id/3016806](https://legiscan.com/IL/text/HB3773/id/3016806)  
> 53. Illinois Passes AI Law Impacting Employment Practices (1/1/26), [https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/tools/express-requests/illinois-passes-ai-law-impacting-employment-practices-](https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/tools/express-requests/illinois-passes-ai-law-impacting-employment-practices-)  
> 54. Illinois Addresses Use of AI in the Workplace \- M3 Insurance, [https://m3ins.com/illinois-addresses-use-of-ai-in-the-workplace/](https://m3ins.com/illinois-addresses-use-of-ai-in-the-workplace/)  
> 55. Illinois' Proposed Notice Rules for Complying with Workplace AI Anti, [https://www.ebglaw.com/workforce-bulletin/illinois-proposed-notice-rules-for-complying-with-workplace-ai-anti-discrimination-law](https://www.ebglaw.com/workforce-bulletin/illinois-proposed-notice-rules-for-complying-with-workplace-ai-anti-discrimination-law)  
> 56. HB24-1058 Protect Privacy of Biological Data | Colorado General, [https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1058](https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1058)  
> 57. Advocacy | United States \- Neurorights Foundation, [https://www.neurorightsfoundation.org/advocacy/united-states](https://www.neurorightsfoundation.org/advocacy/united-states)  
> 58. “You Read My Mind”: Neural Data and the New Wave of Biometric, [https://bassberry.com/news/you-read-my-mind-neural-data-and-the-new-wave-of-biometric-privacy-protections/](https://bassberry.com/news/you-read-my-mind-neural-data-and-the-new-wave-of-biometric-privacy-protections/)  
> 59. Emotion Recognition \- Blue Arrow, [https://bluearrow.ai/emotion-recognition/](https://bluearrow.ai/emotion-recognition/)  
> 60. Habeas Cogitationem: A Writ to Enforce the Right to Freedom of, [https://www.techpolicy.press/habeas-cogitationem-a-writ-to-enforce-the-right-to-freedom-of-thought-in-the-neurotechnological-era/](https://www.techpolicy.press/habeas-cogitationem-a-writ-to-enforce-the-right-to-freedom-of-thought-in-the-neurotechnological-era/)  
> 61. Privacy and the Rise of “Neurorights” in Latin America, [https://fpf.org/blog/privacy-and-the-rise-of-neurorights-in-latin-america/](https://fpf.org/blog/privacy-and-the-rise-of-neurorights-in-latin-america/)  
> 62. Historic data protection ruling \- OlarteMoure, [https://olartemoure.com/en/historic-data-protection-ruling/](https://olartemoure.com/en/historic-data-protection-ruling/)  
> 63. \#1 What is freedom of religion or belief? – IPPFoRB, [https://ippforb.com/what-we-do/toolkit/what-is-freedom-of-religion-or-belief/](https://ippforb.com/what-we-do/toolkit/what-is-freedom-of-religion-or-belief/)  
> 64. Reconsidering the absolute nature of the right to freedom of thought, [https://academic.oup.com/hrlr/article/25/3/ngaf018/8155294](https://academic.oup.com/hrlr/article/25/3/ngaf018/8155294)  
> 65. "Evolving Privacy Protections for Emerging Machine Learning Data, [https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/lawreview/vol17/iss2/12/](https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/lawreview/vol17/iss2/12/)  
> 66. Future-Proofing the Fourth Amendment \- Harvard Law Review, [https://harvardlawreview.org/blog/2018/06/future-proofing-the-fourth-amendment/](https://harvardlawreview.org/blog/2018/06/future-proofing-the-fourth-amendment/)  
> 67. Carpenter v. United States: Big Data is Different \-, [https://www.gwlr.org/carpenter-v-united-states-big-data-is-different/](https://www.gwlr.org/carpenter-v-united-states-big-data-is-different/)  
> 68. Carpenter v. United States and the Emerging Expectation of Privacy, [https://aulawreview.org/blog/carpenter-v-united-states-and-the-emerging-expectation-of-privacy-in-data-comprehensiveness-applied-to-browsing-history/](https://aulawreview.org/blog/carpenter-v-united-states-and-the-emerging-expectation-of-privacy-in-data-comprehensiveness-applied-to-browsing-history/)  
> 69. The Government Can Read Your Mind: Can the Constitution Stop It?, [https://dev.hastingslawjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Boundy-63.6.pdf](https://dev.hastingslawjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Boundy-63.6.pdf)  
> 70. Brain-Reading Technologies and the Right Against Self-Incrimination, [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/german-law-journal/article/brainreading-technologies-and-the-right-against-selfincrimination-a-challenge-for-the-distinction-between-testimonial-and-real-evidence/BF7BA842C3B97850545487F14B89E191](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/german-law-journal/article/brainreading-technologies-and-the-right-against-selfincrimination-a-challenge-for-the-distinction-between-testimonial-and-real-evidence/BF7BA842C3B97850545487F14B89E191)  
> 71. Functional Neuroimaging as Evidence of a Criminal Defendant's, [https://dc.law.utah.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1448\&context=scholarship](https://dc.law.utah.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1448&context=scholarship)  
> 72. REACHING PAST FINGERTIPS WITH FORENSIC NEUROIMAGING, [https://law.loyno.edu/sites/law.loyno.edu/files/Hurd-FINAL-AJH3.pdf](https://law.loyno.edu/sites/law.loyno.edu/files/Hurd-FINAL-AJH3.pdf)  
> 73. The Neuroscience of Responsibility \- Jurisprudence \- Jotwell, [https://juris.jotwell.com/the-neuroscience-of-responsibility/](https://juris.jotwell.com/the-neuroscience-of-responsibility/)  
> 74. Brain Overclaim Syndrome and Criminal Responsibility, [https://repository.law.upenn.edu/Documents/Detail/brain-overclaim-syndrome-and-criminal-responsibility-a-diagnostic-note/392308](https://repository.law.upenn.edu/Documents/Detail/brain-overclaim-syndrome-and-criminal-responsibility-a-diagnostic-note/392308)  
> 75. The Status of NeuroLaw \- UNL Digital Commons, [https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1460\&context=ajacourtreview](https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1460&context=ajacourtreview)  
> 76. \[PDF\] Brain Overclaim Syndrome and Criminal Responsibility, [https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Brain-Overclaim-Syndrome-and-Criminal-A-Diagnostic-Morse/b4ff7b93b1d5762a039e16b93a95801559f0f704](https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Brain-Overclaim-Syndrome-and-Criminal-A-Diagnostic-Morse/b4ff7b93b1d5762a039e16b93a95801559f0f704)  
> 77. Brain Overclaim Redux, [https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1178\&context=lawineq](https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1178&context=lawineq)  
> 78. Brain Imaging in the Courtroom: The Quest for Legal Relevance, [https://www.defendyouthrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Brain-Imaging-in-the-Courtroom-The-Quest-for-Legal-Relevance.pdf](https://www.defendyouthrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Brain-Imaging-in-the-Courtroom-The-Quest-for-Legal-Relevance.pdf)  
> 79. Neurorights: Is the creation of new human rights effective in, [https://www.ibanet.org/neurorights-human-dignity](https://www.ibanet.org/neurorights-human-dignity)  
> 80. Neurorights as reconceptualized human rights \- Frontiers, [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/political-science/articles/10.3389/fpos.2023.1322922/full](https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/political-science/articles/10.3389/fpos.2023.1322922/full)  
> 81. Neurorights vs. neuroprediction and lie detection \- PMC \- NIH, [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9801636/](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9801636/)  
> 82. Neurorights: Between ethics and law | OpenGlobalRights, [https://www.openglobalrights.org/neurorights-between-ethics-and-law/](https://www.openglobalrights.org/neurorights-between-ethics-and-law/)  
> 83. Even Chile's Neurorights Leave Inferred Mental Data in a Gray Zone, [https://law.stanford.edu/2026/04/27/even-chiles-neurorights-leave-inferred-mental-data-in-a-gray-zone/](https://law.stanford.edu/2026/04/27/even-chiles-neurorights-leave-inferred-mental-data-in-a-gray-zone/)  
> 84. Neural Rights: Landmark Ruling | ArentFox Schiff, [https://www.afslaw.com/perspectives/news/neural-rights-landmark-ruling](https://www.afslaw.com/perspectives/news/neural-rights-landmark-ruling)  
> 85. Boston Globe article, "Tech is coming for your brain data" makes, [https://kavlicenter.berkeley.edu/news/boston-globe-article-tech-coming-your-brain-data-makes-second-piece-published-23-24-journalism](https://kavlicenter.berkeley.edu/news/boston-globe-article-tech-coming-your-brain-data-makes-second-piece-published-23-24-journalism)  
> 86. Neurorights in the Constitution: from neurotechnology to ethics and, [https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rstb/article/379/1915/20230098/109591/Neurorights-in-the-Constitution-from](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rstb/article/379/1915/20230098/109591/Neurorights-in-the-Constitution-from)