Do you think that this data is so vague that it is 100% unlikely to provide utility? 99.9%?
"Muscle movements on the head (like moving your eyes, smiling, gurning, etc) produce electrical noise that is far stronger than the brain signals EEG tries to measure. You cannot put a helmet over an EEG kit and then bang your head around in a jet or race car and get anything but pure noise."
That's a crude example, but it's the kind of over-interpretation that's really common with these things.
And that's using a proper EEG skullcap, not these ridiculously simple things that you slip over your head without any conduction gel etc. In my non-expert opinion a large dataset of this kind of vague data would just lead to mostly mush because the signals that come from these things are so rubbish. But it won't stop people who want to make money from it that there are clear signals there, like the use of Myers-Briggs, astrology etc.
The only current technology that actively concerns me is direct neural implantation. You can get really clean, clear signals from that depending on where you hook into. Anything else feels like it's a long way away from anything which would actively harm privacy, although clearly people have a vested interest in making that work and we shouldn't be complacent.
As is I can imagine this being used to interrogate people. Of course it doesn’t matter if the EEG produces any real data.
Billy only needs to think LEOs can read his mind.
Yes, absolutely.
> As is I can imagine this being used to interrogate people. Of course it doesn’t matter if the EEG produces any real data.
Indeed - "lie detectors" are a good analogy.
Not full mind control, but maybe the amplification of existing traits. For some reason you can't place your always get a bit more paranoid around John.
No, not in the sense I think you mean it. But if someone you thought was very attractive did nothing but stood next to you that would affect your brain waves, yes. It's one of the things about brains - they respond to the environment, so pretty much anything can affect brain waves, that's what so difficult about understanding the data.
But strictly in a hypothetical, a state actor could develop a sadness ray ?
I could imagine a B52 or something flying over a major city and beaming out sadness (or whatever emotion you want).
On the other side, once this science is understood better you could have recreational brain wave modification. A happy beam if you will.
Any books you can suggest on the topic?
> The team of three experts concluded that incident was a widescale use of electronics to carry out a so-called neuro-weapon attack
https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2018/9/6/ex...
I blame engineers here. I have a neuroscience background myself and know what you're talking about. Engineers, in my experience, can't really grasp the nature of neural signals and do seem to over-interpret them quite alot or just misuse them.
Revealed preference.