Should machines be allowed to ‘read our minds’? Uses and regulation of biometric techniques that attempt to infer mental states

Constanza M. Vidal Bustamante*, Karolina Alama-Maruta, Carmen Ng, and Daniel D.L. Coppersmith

Edited by Christopher Miller and Grant A. Knappe

Article | Aug. 29 2022

*Email: cvidal@g.harvard.edu

DOI: 10.38105/spr.qy2iibrk72

Highlights

Biometric data are increasingly used to attempt to infer individuals’ momentary emotional and cognitive states, like stress and fatigue, as well as intentions, preferences, and health status

Use cases range from personal wellness tracking and clinical monitoring in research settings to the surveillance of students and workers

Many commercialized uses of biometrics for mental inference have limited scientific support and pose important ethical concerns related to individuals’ privacy and self-determination

Rigorous scientific research, more precise and proactive legal protections, and sustained global cooperation will be important to access the benefits of biometric techniques in fields like healthcare while mitigating individual and societal harms

Article Summary

Biometric data, such as facial expressions, voice, and heart rate, are increasingly used to make inferences about individuals’ momentary emotional and cognitive states, like stress and fatigue, and for the categorization of more stable mental features, like intentions, preferences, and health status. This review provides an overview and discussion of common biometric techniques that attempt to infer such mental states, their technical and ethical challenges, and the current regulatory landscape. Drawing from use cases in personal fitness and wellness tracking, clinical research, and the monitoring of students and workers, we show that although these techniques promise greater objectivity, efficiency, and accuracy in the assessment of mental states and related decision-making, scientific evidence for these claims remains limited. The widespread use of these techniques, especially outside of regulated research settings, poses important technical and ethical challenges – from the exposure of highly sensitive biometric data to breaches and exploitation, to privacy violations and the use of faulty inferences to make consequential judgments about individuals’ qualities. We review the strengths and limitations of current legislation in Europe and the United States related to biometric techniques, and present general considerations for regulation moving forward. We conclude that accessing the benefits of biometric techniques (e.g., for consensual clinical monitoring and care) while guarding against their harms may require rigorous scientific research, more precise and proactive legal protections, and sustained global cooperation.

Open Access

This MIT Science Policy Review article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/.

Constanza M. Vidal Bustamante

Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

Karolina Alama-Maruta

University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland

Carmen Ng

Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany

Daniel D.L. Coppersmith

Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

MIT Science Policy Review