A report published by the journal Science in November 2026 uncovered a systemic practice of covert collection and use of biometric data within the wearable brain activity tracking market. Several companies producing consumer electroencephalography (EEG) headsets transmit anonymized user metrics to train artificial intelligence models without notifying device owners. According to the publication, this practice is widespread and not limited to isolated incidents: an audit of privacy policies from dozens of manufacturers revealed that about 33% of them do not explain where exactly recorded brain signals are directed. In 11 cases, the documents applied only to interactions with the company's website, and four developers lacked data protection policies entirely.
The Muse Case: From $475 to Data Transfer Without Consent
The most vivid example cited in the report was the Muse device by Canadian company InteraXon, priced at 475 dollars. The headset is marketed as a tool for improving sleep quality and concentration. The manufacturer confirmed the transfer of user data for AI model training only after a direct inquiry from the Science editorial team. Prior to this, information about the fate of the recorded signals was absent from both the terms of service and the device documentation. The Muse case illustrates a broader problem: the neurointerface industry has existed since the early 2010s, but the influx of investment into artificial intelligence in recent years has radically changed the approach to using collected information, turning consumer data into raw material for training algorithms.
Manufacturer Justifications and Technical Limitations
Manufacturing companies justify data collection by the necessity of training algorithms on masses of real user signals. They claim this increases product accuracy and allows for the detection of patterns unavailable in laboratory settings. As an argument, they cite a pilot study by startup Piramidal conducted in 2025: after training a model on thousands of hours of recordings, the developers successfully identified 9 out of 10 epileptic seizures in trial participants. However, experts quoted in the Science report emphasize that consumer headsets are significantly inferior to medical devices in signal quality. Devices like Muse are equipped with only a few sensors for the sake of everyday comfort, whereas laboratory EEG caps contain up to 24 electrodes. Furthermore, the research underlying most commercial products often fails to meet high scientific standards of reproducibility and validation.
Long-Term Digital Security Risks
Despite the technical limitations of current sensors, digital security specialists warn of long-term risks associated with the accumulation of brain data. If modern algorithms are already capable of analyzing behavioral patterns from internet clicks and app metadata, processing direct brain signals could become the next frontier of personal information protection. The lack of transparent rules for transferring biometric data creates a vacuum that, according to experts, advertising networks or AI corporations could exploit to build hyper-accurate user profiles. The Science report emphasizes that even "anonymized" data, given sufficient volume and combination with other information sources, can be re-identified.
Regulatory Vacuum and Legislative Prospects
The publication of the Science report highlighted a significant gap in the regulation of next-generation wearable devices. At the time of publication, legislation in most jurisdictions is failing to keep pace with the development of neurointerfaces, and users are forced to rely on the voluntary transparency of manufacturers. Experts involved in the report's preparation point to the necessity of developing standards for processing biometric information, which in the future may require a separate legal status on par with genetic data. The discussion triggered by the publication has already attracted the attention of regulators and human rights organizations, though specific regulatory initiatives as of November 2026 remain in the discussion stage.
