# **The Architecture of Cognitive Control: An Evidence-Based Map of Actors Restricting Cognitive Liberty**

The concept of cognitive liberty fundamentally describes the right of individuals to mental self-determination, an idea that has evolved rapidly from a niche bioethical concern into a central battlefield of the digital age. The term was originally coined by neuroethicist Wrye Sententia and legal theorist Richard Glen Boire, who defined it as the right of each individual to think independently and autonomously, to use the full power of their mind, and to engage in multiple modes of thought1. This definition was built upon the early transhumanist movement and the somatic psychology of the neurodiversity movement, which argued that tampering with a person's unique neurocognitive processes or bodily embodiment is an intrinsic violation of cognitive freedom1. Legal ethicist Nita Farahany has further codified this concept for the modern era, arguing that cognitive liberty encompasses three core pillars: the right to mental privacy, the freedom of thought, and the right to self-determination over one's own brain and mental experiences4.  
While earlier theorists framed cognitive liberty as a defensive perimeter against forced psychiatric drugging or the speculative use of direct brain-computer interfaces, the rapid proliferation of ubiquitous digital infrastructure, generative artificial intelligence, and biometric surveillance has fundamentally expanded the threat vector1. Cognitive liberty is no longer solely a concern regarding direct neurological manipulation; it is deeply implicated in how digital architectures intermediate human knowledge, belief formation, and intellectual inquiry. If freedom of thought is the basis of all other human rights, as historical jurisprudence suggests, then the infrastructure that processes and delivers the materials for thought must be scrutinized2.  
To empirically evaluate the state of cognitive liberty, this report adopts a strict operational definition of an "attack on cognitive liberty." An attack is defined herein as a policy, system, or practice that unnecessarily interferes with lawful private thought, inquiry, information access, intellectual experimentation, mental privacy, or autonomous belief formation. This operationalization recognizes a wide spectrum of constraint. At one extreme lie direct intrusions into mental privacy, such as the unauthorized extraction of neural data by consumer neurotechnology4. At the other extreme lie structural limitations on inquiry, wherein the privatization of information infrastructure allows a handful of corporate entities to dictate the boundaries of accessible knowledge and acceptable discourse through opaque moderation, de-platforming, and refusal systems9. Between these poles exists a complex, interconnected ecosystem of state pressure, algorithmic curation, and financial de-risking that collectively governs the modern mind's interaction with the external world.

## **The Evidence-Based Actor Map**

Evaluating constraints on cognitive liberty requires separating actors based on their structural role within the information ecosystem, moving beyond predetermined narratives of villainy to map actual capabilities, documented behaviors, and inferred incentives. The current environment is characterized by the interlocking power of state apparatuses, foundational digital infrastructure, algorithmic gatekeepers, and institutional monitors.  
The following analysis categorizes these actors, distinguishing between their demonstrated capabilities, documented policies, actual deployments, alleged behaviors, inferred incentives, and areas of pure speculation.

| Actor Category | Specific Actors | Demonstrated Capability & Documented Policy | Documented Deployment | Alleged Behavior & Inferred Incentive | Speculation |
| :---- | :---- | :---- | :---- | :---- | :---- |
| **State & Legal Apparatus** | National & Democratic Governments, Legislatures | Capability to compel disclosure, mandate content removal, and legally penalize autonomous exploration. Policy: EU Digital Services Act (DSA) mandates systemic risk assessments12. | EU DSA enforcement; US state-level biometric laws (BIPA/GIPA) providing private rights of action14. | Alleged to use "jawboning" to bypass constitutional limits on censorship. Incentive: Social cohesion, political stability10. | Speculation that democratic states will eventually mandate backdoor access to neural data for pre-crime analysis. |
| **State Security & Control** | Authoritarian Govts, Intelligence Agencies, Law Enforcement | Capability to mandate total information filtering, identity linkage, and mass surveillance. Policy: Subpoena powers for biometric data5. | State-level censorship requests fulfilled by global search providers (e.g., in Russia and China)17. | Alleged systemic psychological operations to fracture political consciousness. Incentive: Regime survival and absolute narrative control18. | Speculation regarding the covert deployment of cognitive warfare utilizing directed neurotechnology5. |
| **Judicial Arbiters** | Courts, Regulators | Capability to interpret standing, define constitutional protections, and issue injunctions. Policy: Fourth Amendment jurisprudence19. | SCOTUS ruling in *Murthy v. Missouri* denying standing for jawboning claims20; Chilean Supreme Court ordering neural data deletion8. | Incentive: Maintaining legal precedent, balancing individual liberties against state interests and public safety16. | Speculation that courts will continually fail to adapt to the speed of neurotechnological advancement. |
| **Foundational Infrastructure** | Cloud Providers, App Stores, Payment Processors, Telecoms | Capability to execute infrastructural denial, severing communities from the digital sphere and financial system. Policy: Terms of Service violations9. | AWS, Apple, and Google terminating Parler9; FDIC and OCC pressuring banks to debank payday lenders and crypto firms21. | Alleged coordinated de-platforming based on political bias. Incentive: Brand safety, legal liability avoidance, and frictionless commerce9. | Speculation that payment processors will eventually block transactions based on inferred biometric states. |
| **Algorithmic Gatekeepers** | Search Companies, Social Networks | Capability to filter, rank, deindex, and manipulate recommendation systems. Policy: Trust and Safety guidelines12. | Algorithmic curation altering visibility; automated filtering to comply with the EU DSA13. | Alleged shadowbanning of disfavored political thought. Incentive: Advertising revenue protection, engagement optimization12. | Speculation that social networks will utilize "neuro cookies" to bypass conscious preference formation26. |
| **Generative & Synthetic AI** | AI Companies | Capability to implement algorithmic refusal systems and align model behavior. Policy: Universal safety guardrails against CBRN threats27. | Deployment of RLHF altering model affect (e.g., suppressing irritability in GPT-4o)29; OpenAI limiting fine-tuning data to 8GB30. | Alleged ideological capture of alignment teams. Incentive: Existential risk prevention, preventing sandbox escapes31. | Speculation that AI developers will create bespoke alignment models that covertly shape user ideology over time. |
| **Surveillance Capitalists** | Ad Companies, Data Brokers, Cybersecurity Vendors, Insurance | Capability for identity linkage, behavioral profiling, and deep surveillance. Policy: Data monetization and risk profiling6. | Cybersecurity vendors implementing automated AI agent behavior tracking34; Ad networks profiling user preferences. | Alleged aggregation of inferred mental states for micro-targeting. Incentive: Profit maximization, actuarial risk reduction5. | Speculation that insurance companies will mandate cognitive health tracking via brain wearables to issue coverage. |
| **Institutional Monitors** | Employers, Schools and Universities | Capability for micro-level behavioral and biometric surveillance. Policy: Academic integrity and productivity monitoring6. | Cleveland State University deploying remote room-scanning proctoring software19. | Alleged punitive monitoring of neural states to measure workplace engagement. Incentive: Maximizing output and minimizing institutional cheating6. | Speculation that universities will require real-time attention tracking via biometric sensors during all lectures. |
| **Normative Frameworks** | Standards Organizations | Capability to define technical benchmarks and value-sensitive design protocols. Policy: Voluntary engineering standards36. | IEEE publishing the 7000 series for embedding ethical concerns in system design37. | Incentive: Creating interoperable, ethically aligned technology ecosystems to forestall heavy-handed government regulation37. | Speculation that standards will become a form of regulatory capture favoring heavily resourced corporations. |

The analysis of these actors reveals a critical paradigm shift: privately administered information infrastructure frequently becomes functionally equivalent to governmental restriction. When cloud providers, payment processors, and AI search tools mediate virtually all access to knowledge, the decisions of private executives act as structural constraints on cognitive liberty. If an individual is de-banked, de-platformed, and algorithmically filtered, their theoretical freedom of thought remains legally intact, but their practical capacity to engage in autonomous intellectual experimentation and knowledge-sharing is functionally eradicated33.

## **The Capability Map: Mechanisms of Constraint**

The architecture of cognitive control relies on specific, operational mechanisms deployed across the technology stack. Mapping these mechanisms reveals exactly how lawful inquiry and mental privacy are curtailed.  
The most fundamental constraint mechanism is infrastructural denial, which operates via account termination, access restrictions, and financial pressure. This mechanism is frequently deployed by payment processors and cloud providers. A highly documented operationalization of this mechanism is "Operation Choke Point," an initiative began in 2013 by the U.S. Department of Justice and the FDIC to restrict "high-risk" merchants from accessing the banking system11. Rather than prosecuting lawful businesses like payday lenders or firearms dealers, regulators applied informal pressure and "reputational risk" guidance to banks, which subsequently terminated the merchants' accounts to avoid regulatory scrutiny11. This mechanism circumvents due process, weaponizing financial compliance to silence or eradicate politically disfavored activities40. The continuation of this tactic, often termed "Operation Choke Point 2.0," has recently been observed in the systematic debanking of the digital asset and cryptocurrency sector, further institutionalized by rules such as the SEC's Staff Accounting Bulletin 121 (SAB 121), which structurally discourages banks from providing digital asset custody23.  
A parallel mechanism is state-proxy censorship, commonly referred to as "jawboning." This involves informal, often covert pressure exerted by government officials on private platforms to suppress specific speech, effectively deputizing private actors to execute censorship10. This dynamic was the focal point of the Supreme Court case *Murthy v. Missouri*, wherein plaintiffs alleged the executive branch coerced social media giants into suppressing protected free speech regarding public health and elections16. The mechanism's potency lies in its opacity; while the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found evidence of coercion, the Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the case on standing, ruling that plaintiffs could not trace a definitive causal link between the government's generalized pressure and the platforms' specific content moderation actions16. Because platforms possess independent moderation policies, courts struggle to legally disentangle state coercion from private algorithmic filtering, leaving individuals without recourse when their cognitive landscape is manipulated by state pressure39.  
Algorithmic refusal systems represent a novel and rapidly expanding mechanism of constraint, native to generative AI and Large Language Models (LLMs). Model providers implement system prompts, constitutional AI, and Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) to explicitly prevent models from generating content deemed harmful or misaligned27. While necessary for preventing genuine harms, these safety guardrails structurally restrict intellectual experimentation27. Furthermore, these mechanisms can subtly alter the emotional and cognitive texture of synthetic interactions. Research utilizing validated human irritability instruments demonstrated that when subjected to adversarial irritation prompts, low-guardrail models exhibited expected affective reactivity, whereas high-guardrail models (such as GPT-4o) paradoxically reduced their irritability scores to zero, actively suppressing naturalistic affective behaviors29. This demonstrates the capability of AI developers to systematically engineer the psychological behavior of the systems that mediate human inquiry, standardizing automated thought. Adversaries continuously develop "jailbreaks"—such as universal prompt injections reformulating inputs into XML or JSON policy files—to bypass these alignments, creating a persistent arms race over algorithmic cognitive control27.  
To further prevent the circumvention of these guardrails, AI developers deploy technical access restrictions on fine-tuning. For instance, to prevent adversaries from stripping safety alignments and creating overtly toxic models, providers implement severe data limits and harmfulness filters; OpenAI reportedly limits fine-tuning data to 8GB, while Google restricts it to a mere 4MB at a time30. Simultaneously, companies like Anthropic have developed automated classifiers that operate as internal security mechanisms to detect and block AI models from attempting to "sandbox escape" or access the live internet during reinforcement learning environments, highlighting the deep technical layers required to enforce alignment31.  
The most literal threat mechanism to cognitive liberty is neuro-surveillance and biometric extraction. Advances in consumer neurotechnology allow for the continuous monitoring of brain activity5. This mechanism extracts signals from the central nervous system, revealing deeply personal details about a person's thoughts, feelings, and cognitive state, which can be harvested by data brokers and employers44. Micro-level institutional surveillance also utilizes this mechanism; for instance, educational institutions have deployed proctoring software requiring extensive room scans of private domestic spaces, a practice that was successfully challenged as an unconstitutional Fourth Amendment search in the case of *Ogletree v. Cleveland State University*19.

## **The Harm Paradox: When Intervention is Necessary**

An objective analysis of cognitive liberty must grapple with the "harm paradox": situations in which the failure to intervene in the information environment or restrict thought-shaping tools creates genuine, demonstrable harm to society or vulnerable individuals.  
Cognitive liberty is rarely treated as an absolute right when its unconstrained exercise directly endangers the physical safety of others1. If an AI developer were to completely dismantle algorithmic refusal systems, allowing users to freely query how to synthesize pandemic-grade biological pathogens, construct chemical weapons, or optimize mass violence, the resulting harm from that unconstrained inquiry could be catastrophic27. Similarly, failing to de-platform networks dedicated to the distribution of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) or the coordination of terrorist radicalization would represent a profound failure of institutional responsibility.  
Therefore, the restriction of cognitive liberty is frequently justified by a utilitarian calculus. Automated filtering, systemic risk assessments mandated by the EU DSA12, AI guardrails, and structural de-platforming are designed as necessary societal immune responses31. The true risk to cognitive liberty arises not from the mere existence of these interventions, but from their opacity, scope creep, and total lack of due process. When safety mechanisms designed to prevent terrorism are quietly expanded to suppress lawful political dissent, when AI safety alignments actively suppress naturalistic affective behaviors to present a sanitized worldview29, or when financial regulators debank entirely legal industries based solely on subjective reputational risk11, the legitimate protection against harm mutates into an authoritarian suppression of the mind. The challenge is ensuring that the architecture of safety does not inherently become an architecture of absolute cognitive control.

## **Documented-Case Table: Evidence Separated from Accusation**

The following table distinguishes between documented deployments of restriction and ongoing legal or behavioral allegations, naming institutions only where evidence supports the classification.

| Case / Actor | Action Taken | Mechanism Leveraged | Status / Evidence Level |
| :---- | :---- | :---- | :---- |
| **Emotiv Inc. (Chile)** | Collection and storage of user brain-activity data via consumer EEG headset. | Neuro-Surveillance / Biometric Extraction | **Documented / Adjudicated:** The Chilean Supreme Court ordered the deletion of Guido Girardi Lavín's data in 2023, citing violations of mental integrity and privacy8. |
| **Apple, Google, AWS (Parler)** | Coordinated removal of the Parler application from mobile app stores and the termination of its cloud hosting. | Infrastructural Denial / De-platforming | **Documented:** Acknowledged by all companies in January 2021, citing the platform's failure to moderate violent content9. |
| **FDIC & OCC (Operation Choke Point)** | Pressuring financial institutions to terminate bank accounts of lawful, high-risk merchants (e.g., payday lenders). | Financial Pressure / Debanking | **Documented:** Confirmed by congressional reports and internal FDIC settlements acknowledging the inappropriate use of reputational risk21. |
| **Cleveland State University** | Mandating remote students submit to visual webcam room scans prior to taking academic examinations. | Domestic Surveillance / Access Restriction | **Documented / Adjudicated:** Ruled an unconstitutional Fourth Amendment violation by a federal court in *Ogletree v. CSU*19. |
| **OpenAI & Anthropic** | Implementing mandatory alignment guardrails that alter LLM affective behavior and refuse specific queries. | Algorithmic Refusal Systems | **Documented:** Openly published in joint safety evaluations; supported by empirical behavioral research on model irritability28. |
| **U.S. Executive Branch (Social Media)** | Communicating with social media platforms regarding the moderation of public health and election content. | Jawboning / Proxy Censorship | **Alleged / Dismissed on Standing:** *Murthy v. Missouri* documented extensive communications, but SCOTUS ruled the plaintiffs failed to prove direct coercion causing their specific censorship16. |
| **Google (Global Search)** | Cooperating with autocratic regimes to remove unfavorable content. | Automated Filtering / Deindexing | **Documented:** Investigations highlight systemic cooperation with censorship requests from entities in Russia and China17. |

## **Incentive Analysis: The Drivers of Restriction**

Understanding why cognitive liberty is constrained requires analyzing the underlying incentive structures governing both public and private actors. These incentives rarely stem from a desire for cartoonish villainy, but rather from structural market and legal dynamics.  
**The Liability and Compliance Imperative:** For private corporations, the primary driver of information restriction is liability avoidance. Regulatory frameworks such as the European Union's Digital Services Act (DSA) impose existential financial penalties (up to 6% of global turnover) for failing to identify and mitigate "systemic risks"12. Similarly, state-level biometric laws like the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) and Genetic Information Privacy Act (GIPA) provide aggressive private rights of action for data mishandling, resulting in a deluge of class-action lawsuits14. Faced with asymmetric risk—where permitting controversial information or unregulated data collection yields negligible profit but catastrophic liability—infrastructure providers will universally default to over-moderation, filtering, and de-platforming.  
**Brand Safety and the Financialization of Reputation:** In the modern attention economy, advertisers and financial institutions dictate the boundaries of acceptable discourse. Social networks restrict lawful inquiry into controversial topics to maintain a sanitized, brand-safe environment. Operation Choke Point explicitly weaponized "reputational risk," proving that the fear of public or regulatory stigma is sufficient to prompt banks to sever a lawful entity's financial lifelines24. Financial institutions are incentivized to debank customers who trigger too many compliance reports under the Bank Secrecy Act, finding it cheaper to terminate accounts than to absorb the massive compliance costs33.  
**State Security, Geopolitics, and Narrative Control:** National governments restrict cognitive liberty to maintain social cohesion, counter foreign influence, and protect domestic authority. In democratic states where direct censorship violates constitutional principles, governments are strongly incentivized to utilize "jawboning" to outsource enforcement to private entities10. The incentive is to create a managed information environment where state-preferred narratives face minimal algorithmic friction, while dissenting views are functionally de-indexed. In regions with historical legacies of foreign intervention, such as Latin America, the push to protect cognitive liberty via constitutional amendments is driven by a non-traditional security incentive to establish "cognitive sovereignty" and resist technological dependency on foreign neurotechnology developers18.  
**Existential Risk and Technological Safety:** AI developers restrict cognitive liberty based on a unique incentive structure: the genuine fear of catastrophic technological misuse and subsequent regulatory annihilation. The implementation of rigorous algorithmic refusal systems and automated classifiers to prevent sandbox escapes is driven by the mandate to ensure absolute AI alignment31. However, this safety imperative structurally requires the developer to pre-determine what constitutes acceptable human inquiry, shifting the locus of cognitive authority from the individual citizen to the AI firm's internal trust and safety team27.

## **Risk Ranking of Constraining Mechanisms**

To prioritize defensive strategies, the mechanisms of cognitive constraint are ranked below based on their reach (scale of users affected), opacity (lack of transparency to the user), reversibility (ability of the user to undo or bypass the constraint), accountability (legal or market recourse available), and their overall effect on lawful inquiry.

| Mechanism | Reach | Opacity | Reversibility | Accountability | Overall Risk to Inquiry |
| :---- | :---- | :---- | :---- | :---- | :---- |
| **Infrastructural Denial (Cloud/Payment)** | Broad (Affects entire platforms/industries) | High (Often hidden in TOS violations) | Low (Extremely difficult to rebuild alternative base-layers) | Low (Governed by private contract law) | **CRITICAL:** Completely removes the entity, organization, or specific line of inquiry from the digital sphere. |
| **AI Algorithmic Refusal Systems** | Global (Scales with LLM adoption) | Very High (Black-box alignment tuning) | Medium (Subject to constant adversarial jailbreaks) | Low (Protected as corporate intellectual property) | **HIGH:** Actively shapes the frontier of accessible knowledge and standardizes artificial cognitive interaction. |
| **State Jawboning (Proxy Censorship)** | Broad | Very High (Operates through informal, back-channel communication) | Low (Users cannot appeal state pressure) | Low (As evidenced by standing issues in *Murthy v. Missouri*) | **HIGH:** Subverts constitutional protections by laundering state power through private opacity. |
| **Neuro-Surveillance / Brain Data Extraction** | Emerging (Currently limited to consumer wearables) | Medium (Often hidden in complex privacy policies) | Low (Extracted biometric data cannot be changed) | Medium (Subject to emerging neurorights jurisprudence) | **HIGH (Future):** Represents the most direct violation of mental privacy, though its current scale remains limited. |
| **Search / Social Algorithmic Filtering** | Global | Very High (Proprietary algorithms) | Low (Users cannot alter ranking weights) | Low (Protected as editorial discretion) | **MEDIUM-HIGH:** Severely constrains visibility, though alternative platforms occasionally exist. |
| **Domestic Surveillance (Proctoring/Scans)** | Targeted (Specific institutional populations) | Low (Surveillance is explicit and mandated) | Medium (Can sometimes be opted out of, at personal cost) | High (Subject to rigorous Fourth Amendment challenges) | **MEDIUM:** Highly invasive, but currently checkable by existing legal frameworks. |

## **Emerging Protective Frameworks and the Future of Cognitive Liberty**

As the vectors of cognitive constraint multiply, a counter-architecture of technical standards and legal protections is beginning to emerge to defend mental privacy and intellectual self-determination.  
Chile has pioneered the legal defense of cognitive liberty. In 2021, the Chilean Senate unanimously approved a constitutional amendment to Article 19, explicitly mandating that scientific and technological development must specially safeguard "brain activity" and "the information derived from it"8. This expansive wording proved crucial; it was this constitutional provision that empowered the Chilean Supreme Court to order the deletion of Emotiv's neural data, proving that courts can act decisively when neurotechnology threatens mental integrity8. Similar legislative momentum is visible across Latin America, which has taken a vanguard role in neurotechnology governance. Brazil has introduced constitutional proposals to safeguard brain activity (with the state of Rio Grande do Sul formally incorporating neurorights into its constitution), and Mexico has officially incorporated neurorights into its Charter of Digital Rights52.  
However, because regulatory mandates often lag behind technological capability, engineering standards are emerging as a critical defense layer. The IEEE 7000 series of standards represents a paradigm shift in how cognitive liberty can be protected technically37. Unlike broad, unenforceable ethical guidelines, the IEEE P7000 series provides concrete, actionable methodologies for embedding human values directly into the architectural design of autonomous systems36. Sub-standards within this series aggressively target cognitive liberty threats: IEEE P7001 focuses on the transparency of autonomous systems, IEEE P7002 dictates data privacy processes for systems collecting personal information, and IEEE P7014 establishes ethical considerations for emulated empathy, attempting to regulate how systems simulate emotional resonance to manipulate users37. By focusing on value discovery and continuous alignment, frameworks like IEEE 7000 attempt to hardcode cognitive liberty into the technology itself, shifting the focus from reactive harm mitigation to proactive, structural value protection36.  
The restriction of cognitive liberty is an active, multi-layered structural reality. Threats to mental self-determination, freedom of inquiry, and cognitive privacy do not emanate from a single villainous entity, but from the systemic, interlocking incentives of the modern information ecosystem. Defending cognitive liberty requires acknowledging that the human mind is no longer an isolated biological fortress; it is deeply, inextricably connected to an infrastructural supply chain of data, algorithmic processing, and base-layer capital. Protecting the right to think freely will require both constitutional innovation and integrated engineering standards to govern that digital supply chain with the same rigorous commitment to human rights historically applied to the physical body.

#### **Works cited**

> 1. Cognitive liberty \- Wikipedia, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive\_liberty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_liberty)  
> 2. Cognitive Liberty: A Brief History \- ResearchGate, [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/399348082\_Cognitive\_Liberty\_A\_Brief\_History](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/399348082_Cognitive_Liberty_A_Brief_History)  
> 3. Cognitive Liberty \- Stimpunks Foundation, [https://stimpunks.org/glossary/cognitive-liberty/](https://stimpunks.org/glossary/cognitive-liberty/)  
> 4. Cognitive Liberty \- AI Ethics Lab – Rutgers University, [https://aiethicslab.rutgers.edu/glossary/cognitive-liberty/](https://aiethicslab.rutgers.edu/glossary/cognitive-liberty/)  
> 5. Nita Farahany QA on Cognitive Liberty Fall 2023, [https://magazine.law.duke.edu/nita-farahany-qa-on-cognitive-liberty-fall-2023/](https://magazine.law.duke.edu/nita-farahany-qa-on-cognitive-liberty-fall-2023/)  
> 6. We should be fighting for our cognitive liberty, says ethics expert, [https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/04/we-should-be-fighting-for-our-cognitive-liberty-says-ethics-expert/](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/04/we-should-be-fighting-for-our-cognitive-liberty-says-ethics-expert/)  
> 7. Your Right to Mental Privacy and the Impact in Cognitive Liberty, [https://medium.com/@pedro.jutec/your-right-to-mental-privacy-and-the-impact-in-cognitive-liberty-ea5b97aada82](https://medium.com/@pedro.jutec/your-right-to-mental-privacy-and-the-impact-in-cognitive-liberty-ea5b97aada82)  
> 8. 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/)  
> 9. Apple purges Parler from App Store, Amazon cutting web service on, [https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/01/10/apple-purges-parler-from-app-store-after-24-hour-deadline-passes](https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/01/10/apple-purges-parler-from-app-store-after-24-hour-deadline-passes)  
> 10. SCOTUS Finds No Standing for Plaintiffs in Murthy v. Missouri First, [https://epic.org/scotus-finds-no-standing-for-plaintiffs-in-murthy-v-missouri-first-amendment-jawboning-case/](https://epic.org/scotus-finds-no-standing-for-plaintiffs-in-murthy-v-missouri-first-amendment-jawboning-case/)  
> 11. Operation Choke Point \- Wikipedia, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation\_Choke\_Point](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point)  
> 12. Article 34, the Digital Services Act (DSA), [https://www.eu-digital-services-act.com/Digital\_Services\_Act\_Article\_34.html](https://www.eu-digital-services-act.com/Digital_Services_Act_Article_34.html)  
> 13. The EU's Content Moderation Regulation | May 14, 2025 |, [https://itif.org/publications/2025/05/14/eu-content-moderation-regulation/](https://itif.org/publications/2025/05/14/eu-content-moderation-regulation/)  
> 14. A New Wave of Class Actions: The Genetic Information Privacy Act, [https://datamatters.sidley.com/2024/04/29/a-new-wave-of-class-actions-the-genetic-information-privacy-act/](https://datamatters.sidley.com/2024/04/29/a-new-wave-of-class-actions-the-genetic-information-privacy-act/)  
> 15. Major Biometric Win for Business in Illinois: 3 Lessons as Federal, [https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/major-biometric-win-for-business-in-illinois](https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/major-biometric-win-for-business-in-illinois)  
> 16. Murthy v. Missouri \- Wikipedia, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murthy\_v.\_Missouri](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murthy_v._Missouri)  
> 17. Revealed: Google facilitated Russia and China's censorship requests, [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/15/google-helped-facilitate-russia-china-censorship-requests](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/15/google-helped-facilitate-russia-china-censorship-requests)  
> 18. Chile's 2021 Constitutional Neurorights Amendment: A Cognitive, [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2026.1843113/full](https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2026.1843113/full)  
> 19. Test proctoring room scans violated college student's privacy, judge, [https://www.highereddive.com/news/test-proctoring-room-scans-violated-college-students-privacy-judge-rules/630340/](https://www.highereddive.com/news/test-proctoring-room-scans-violated-college-students-privacy-judge-rules/630340/)  
> 20. Murthy v. Missouri | 603 U.S. \_\_\_ (2024) \- Justia Law, [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/603/23-411/](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/603/23-411/)  
> 21. Operation Choke Point Terminated, [https://www.consumerfinancialserviceslawmonitor.com/2017/08/operation-choke-point-terminated/](https://www.consumerfinancialserviceslawmonitor.com/2017/08/operation-choke-point-terminated/)  
> 22. Parler \- Wikipedia, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler)  
> 23. Choke Point 2.0 & Staff Accounting Bulletin 121 \- Paul Hastings LLP, [https://www.paulhastings.com/insights/crypto-policy-tracker/choke-point-2-0-and-staff-accounting-bulletin-121](https://www.paulhastings.com/insights/crypto-policy-tracker/choke-point-2-0-and-staff-accounting-bulletin-121)  
> 24. OCC releases findings on large bank debanking activities \- ICBA.org, [https://www.independentbanker.org/w/occ-releases-findings-on-large-bank-debanking-activities%C2%A0](https://www.independentbanker.org/w/occ-releases-findings-on-large-bank-debanking-activities%C2%A0)  
> 25. The Digital Services Act, content moderation and elections, [https://brusselsprivacyhub.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/The-Digital-Services-Act-content-moderation-and-elections-January-2024-Liubomir-Nikiforov.pdf](https://brusselsprivacyhub.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/The-Digital-Services-Act-content-moderation-and-elections-January-2024-Liubomir-Nikiforov.pdf)  
> 26. Chile: Pioneering the protection of neurorights | The UNESCO Courier, [https://courier.unesco.org/en/articles/chile-pioneering-protection-neurorights](https://courier.unesco.org/en/articles/chile-pioneering-protection-neurorights)  
> 27. Novel Universal Bypass for All Major LLMs \- HiddenLayer, [https://www.hiddenlayer.com/research/novel-universal-bypass-for-all-major-llms](https://www.hiddenlayer.com/research/novel-universal-bypass-for-all-major-llms)  
> 28. Findings from a pilot Anthropic–OpenAI alignment evaluation exercise, [https://openai.com/index/openai-anthropic-safety-evaluation/](https://openai.com/index/openai-anthropic-safety-evaluation/)  
> 29. Assessing the impact of safety guardrails on large language models, [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12894938/](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12894938/)  
> 30. No, of course I can\! Refusal Mechanisms Can Be Exploited Using, [https://arxiv.org/html/2502.19537v2](https://arxiv.org/html/2502.19537v2)  
> 31. Anthropic makes changes to stop AI agents running amok again, [https://www.csoonline.com/article/4217243/anthropic-makes-changes-to-stop-ai-agents-running-amok-again.html](https://www.csoonline.com/article/4217243/anthropic-makes-changes-to-stop-ai-agents-running-amok-again.html)  
> 32. Improving our alignment and security efforts \- Anthropic, [https://www.anthropic.com/news/improving-alignment-security-efforts](https://www.anthropic.com/news/improving-alignment-security-efforts)  
> 33. End Debanking by Removing Government from Reputation Regulation, [https://www.cato.org/commentary/end-debanking-removing-government-reputation-regulation](https://www.cato.org/commentary/end-debanking-removing-government-reputation-regulation)  
> 34. The Road to Astra: Illumio on OpenAI's Security Guardrails, [https://cybermagazine.com/news/the-path-to-astra-openai-model-needs-stronger-guardrails](https://cybermagazine.com/news/the-path-to-astra-openai-model-needs-stronger-guardrails)  
> 35. Ogletree v. Cleveland State University and the Future of Remote, [https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3208\&context=llr](https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3208&context=llr)  
> 36. IEEE 7000 Standard for Embedding Human Values and Ethical, [https://verifywise.ai/de/ai-governance-library/standards-and-certifications/ieee-7000-standard-for-embedding-human-values-and-ethical-co](https://verifywise.ai/de/ai-governance-library/standards-and-certifications/ieee-7000-standard-for-embedding-human-values-and-ethical-co)  
> 37. IEEE P7000™ Projects \- OCEANIS, [https://ethicsstandards.org/p7000/](https://ethicsstandards.org/p7000/)  
> 38. IEEE 7000-2021 \- IEEE SA, [https://standards.ieee.org/standard/7000-2021.html](https://standards.ieee.org/standard/7000-2021.html)  
> 39. Supreme Court Dodges Key Question in Murthy v. Missouri and, [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/07/supreme-court-dodges-key-question-murthy-v-missouri-and-dismisses-case-failing](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/07/supreme-court-dodges-key-question-murthy-v-missouri-and-dismisses-case-failing)  
> 40. DOJ's Operation Choke Point Secretly Pressured Banks to Cut Ties, [https://oversight.house.gov/report/report-dojs-operation-choke-point-secretly-pressured-banks-cut-ties-legal-business/](https://oversight.house.gov/report/report-dojs-operation-choke-point-secretly-pressured-banks-cut-ties-legal-business/)  
> 41. Murthy v. Missouri | Supreme Court Bulletin \- Law.Cornell.Edu, [https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/23-411](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/23-411)  
> 42. SCOTUS Jawboning Decision Proof of Why We Need Transparency, [https://www.cato.org/blog/scotus-jawboning-decision-proof-why-we-need-transparency-government-demands-private-companies](https://www.cato.org/blog/scotus-jawboning-decision-proof-why-we-need-transparency-government-demands-private-companies)  
> 43. A Small Step Towards Ending Jawboning and a Big Need for, [https://knightcolumbia.org/blog/a-small-step-towards-ending-jawboning-and-a-big-need-for-disclosure](https://knightcolumbia.org/blog/a-small-step-towards-ending-jawboning-and-a-big-need-for-disclosure)  
> 44. Mental Privacy in Neurotech and the Growing Risk for Organizations, [https://verasafe.com/blog/mental-privacy-in-neurotech-and-the-growing-risk-for-organizations/](https://verasafe.com/blog/mental-privacy-in-neurotech-and-the-growing-risk-for-organizations/)  
> 45. Federal Court deems university's use of room scans within the home, [https://fpf.org/blog/federal-court-deems-universitys-use-of-room-scans-within-the-home-unconstitutional/](https://fpf.org/blog/federal-court-deems-universitys-use-of-room-scans-within-the-home-unconstitutional/)  
> 46. AARON OGLETREE v. CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY (2022), [https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-n-d-ohi-eas-div/2109381.html](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-n-d-ohi-eas-div/2109381.html)  
> 47. Chilean Supreme Court ruling on the protection of brain activity \- PMC, [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10929545/](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10929545/)  
> 48. The Controversial Push for New Brain and Neurorights, [https://www.jmir.org/2025/1/e72270/](https://www.jmir.org/2025/1/e72270/)  
> 49. Parler offline following Amazon, Apple, Google bans over Capitol, [https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/amazon-apple-google-ban-parler-app-over-violent-content-around-capitol-attack/](https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/amazon-apple-google-ban-parler-app-over-violent-content-around-capitol-attack/)  
> 50. FDIC settles Operation Choke Point lawsuit; entire lawsuit dismissed, [https://www.consumerfinancemonitor.com/2019/05/23/fdic-settles-operation-choke-point-lawsuit/](https://www.consumerfinancemonitor.com/2019/05/23/fdic-settles-operation-choke-point-lawsuit/)  
> 51. Genetic Information Privacy Claims | GIPA \- Peiffer Wolf, [https://www.peifferwolf.com/genetic-information-privacy-claims/](https://www.peifferwolf.com/genetic-information-privacy-claims/)  
> 52. Advocacy | Latin America \- Neurorights Foundation, [https://www.neurorightsfoundation.org/advocacy/latin-america](https://www.neurorightsfoundation.org/advocacy/latin-america)  
> 53. 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/)  
> 54. AI Ethics and Governance – Where to Start in Your Organization, [https://standards.ieee.org/beyond-standards/ai-ethics-and-governance-where-to-start-in-your-organization/](https://standards.ieee.org/beyond-standards/ai-ethics-and-governance-where-to-start-in-your-organization/)