Machines in human brains is a terrifying thought

There has been a lot of excitement and buzz recently about the Elon Musk funded and founded project - Neuralink. The project aims to merge the mind and machines. To Musk the project is of utmost importance if humans are to keep pace with artificial intelligence and avoid being reduced to "house cats." 
Away from the public eye scientists have been labouring away for years to make communication between machines and the brain possible. Technologies are being tested, some being used to reduce epileptic seizures, make people with paralysis gain movement; help people with speech disorders to communicate through their brain; help the blind see; for people to grasp texture through sensation when they have none, and more. 
Reading and writing on the brain   
Technology to be able to read the brain or write onto has and is being worked on in laboratories in various parts of the world. Interface technologies as they are referred to help in 'reading' the brain - to record brain activity and decode its meaning as well as 'writing' on the brain to manipulate activity in a specific region of the organ and effect its functioning.
Implanting electrodes into or onto the brain, reading and affecting its activity, for instance, to warn of an oncoming seizure and to control it, and for paralytic patients to be able to control robotic arms, are some experiments which have been tried in the last decade that have given encouraging results.
The incentive in all these cases has always been to provide those affected with a 'better' and a 'normal' life. To help people cope with their under- or over-performing bodies.  
But what happens when this quest goes commercial? What happens when from ameliorating debilitating medical conditions these technologies move to using it for augmenting the existing capabilities of our body and mind? What happens when it moves from the realm of treatment to commerce?
Elon Musk's Neuralink is not the only show in town. Other companies like Emotiv, Neurosky, Kernel are some of the others in the business of brain interface technology. Apparently Mark Zuckerberg's company is also funding research on a brain-computer interface that can pick up thoughts directly from your neurons and translate them into words. 
For now, almost all of these companies claim that their aim is to help people suffering from medical conditions. But the long-term goal for them is getting access to a wider 'audience' or a larger consumer base for these technologies. All of which will require reading and maybe eventually manipulating our minds.
Ethical questions  
The first obvious question that arises is, of course, privacy. We are already worried with companies like Facebook and Google peering into our minds without the use of electrodes, through our use of the internet and social media in general, so one wonders what this next step may do. So much of our lives - what we do and who we are - is in the public domain with data mining and use of machines like surveillance cameras. Do we now want to give up our final privacy frontier, the brain?
Many may argue that the tech is in its infancy and it may be too early to look at regulation before we know what the possible downsides can be. But do we want to reach where we are with social media today? It was once considered a harmless and fun communication tool and now we are grappling to regulate it after we have figured that it manipulates our minds, stresses us out, can distort our public discourse, and even impact the election process. Do we want to again try and lock the stable after the horse has bolted? 
Neuro ethicists are already looking at these difficult questions arising out of this brain-computer interface research. But it is imperative that we encourage these discussions among the wider public so as to make them aware of the possibilities. To enable them to contribute towards the discussions and not find themselves dormant partners in a technology which can read their thoughts. 
As the technology materialises into a larger consumer market, the next question to arise will be about a level playing field. If some people "the haves" are able to enhance their brains and their bodies using these advancements and gain more than a fair edge over the others, should it just be considered the next level of the digital divide? Just one of those money and access issues where some got dealt a bad hand? Or should these devices be treated the way performance enhancing drugs are in sports and be banned, or at least have their use regulated. 
There has been much discussion around genetic modification in human babies despite its potential to treat a variety of genetic disorders. Ethical questions have been raised regarding human embryo destruction, creation of life in a lab and 'designer babies', setting off public debates and hardening attitudes after a Chinese doctor claimed to have created the first genetically edited babies in 2018. Comparatively, there have hardly been any ethical murmurs following the Neuralink Pigs display by Musk late last month. Clearly the possibilities of enhancing ourselves before we are born has more of us worried than a technology that has the possibility to take our agency from us. 
Time to act 
Data protection and privacy laws are a big battle ground between governments, tech corporations and the individual. Today, it is our personal, medical, financial data which is under threat. Tomorrow, it could be the 'data' in our brains that may need protection and may require a new field of brain jurisprudence to protect it. 
Today, annoying advertisements on various internet sites nudge us into looking at certain sites and urge us to buy specific products. Will the next level be interface technologies implanted directly onto our brains directing us rather than just urging and nudging ?
Will we check the reach of these chips, implants, gadgets or whatever we choose to call them, before they become ubiquitous or will we be prepared for the invasion when it happens? Or will this tech be as innocuous as a "Fitbit for the brain", as  Musk referred to it?
Fiction to fact ? 
I am not a big sci-fi fan, but this technology has me somewhat worried. I recently watched a few episodes of the Netflix series Black Mirror and emerged from the experience a bit disturbed, to say the least.
What got me from this disturbed state to the questioning state was a statement by Musk: "Yes, I think in the future you will be able to save and replay memories." It made me rewind my memory back to a Black Mirror episode - where people were able to save and replay their memories for themselves and for others. No one came out looking good or happy from the use of it. I would never want to scrutinise my memory frame by frame. I wonder what Musk feels about that.
Aradhana Sharma is a resident of Abu Dhabi. She writes a blog on her globetrotting experiences.