Concept Note

MentalIntegrity.com

This Concept Note provides a descriptive framing for the domain names MentalIntegrity.com and MentalIntegrity.org. It sketches how the expression “mental integrity” can be used to structure debates on the protection of the human mind in a world of neurotechnology and AI-mediated environments.

Important: this page does not provide medical, psychological, legal, financial, regulatory or investment advice. It is not a clinical resource, not an emergency or crisis service, and not a position paper of any public authority. No affiliation is claimed with States, regulators, international organisations, companies, foundations or advocacy groups. Any future use of the domains and any views expressed under them will be the sole responsibility of the acquirer.

MentalIntegrity.com and MentalIntegrity.org themselves do not collect, store or process neuro-data, health data or other sensitive data, and do not operate medical devices, psychological tools or AI systems targeting individuals.

1. Strategic context

From data protection to protection of the mind

Over the 2025–2035 horizon, the governance of data, AI and neurotechnology is converging towards a central question: how to protect the integrity of the human mind itself. Classical notions of privacy and data protection remain essential, but they are no longer sufficient when technologies can both read from and write to the brain and mental states.

Neurotechnology — brain–computer interfaces, neuro-imaging, neuromodulation and consumer EEG devices measure and sometimes modulate neural activity beyond strictly medical contexts.

AI-driven influence — recommender systems, immersive media, generative content and targeted advertising shape what people see, feel and decide, often in opaque ways.

Fundamental rights — freedom of thought, dignity, physical and mental integrity, and privacy are being re-examined in light of these new capabilities.

In this landscape, mental integrity is emerging as a reference term to capture the protection of mental states and processes against harmful interference, beyond the sole question of data disclosure.

2. From privacy to mental integrity

Why classical privacy concepts are not enough

Traditional data protection regimes focus on information: what is collected, how it is processed, who has access, under which legal basis. Neurotechnology and AI-mediated environments raise additional concerns: they can alter how individuals perceive, evaluate and decide, sometimes in ways that are not experienced as external interference.

Mental privacy addresses access to thoughts, emotions and intentions — for example via neuro-data or fine-grained behavioural signals.

Cognitive liberty emphasises the freedom to choose whether, how and when to use neurotechnologies or cognitive enhancement tools.

Psychological continuity focuses on the preservation of identity and narrative over time, in the face of interventions that may alter memory, personality or affect.

Mental integrity can be understood as the umbrella that connects these notions: it protects individuals against harmful interference with their mental states and processes, whether through invasive neurotechnology, pervasive AI-driven environments or combined systems.

3. Emerging neuro-rights landscape

Constitutions, courts and ethical frameworks

The idea of protecting mental integrity is no longer limited to academic debate. Over the last years, several developments have signalled its consolidation as a legal and policy category:

Constitutional and legislative reforms have begun to reference neuro-data and mental integrity explicitly, positioning neurorights as a new frontier of human-rights protection.

Regional and international bodies examine how existing rights to physical and mental integrity and freedom of thought apply to neurotechnology and AI-mediated influence.

Ethical frameworks from organisations such as UNESCO and regional councils explore global principles for neurotechnology, including the protection of mental integrity and mental privacy.

Academic and policy literature now treats mental integrity as a distinct concern, requiring safeguards against both invasive devices and ubiquitous digital environments.

These developments do not yield a single, uniform definition. They do, however, point to a shared intuition: the human mind deserves specific protections when technologies can access, infer or alter its contents and dynamics.

4. Threat scenarios (2030 horizon)

Where mental integrity could be at risk

The following scenarios are illustrative only. They do not describe actual products or actors, but highlight categories of risk that decision makers may wish to consider when articulating mental-integrity safeguards.

4.1 Consumer BCI and attention harvesting

Low-friction EEG headsets used for gaming, productivity or wellness collect neuro-data that can reveal patterns of attention, fatigue or emotional response.

Combining these signals with recommender systems or targeted advertising could enable closed-loop optimisation of engagement, raising questions about manipulation and consent.

4.2 Neuro-enhancement in the workplace

Employers may experiment with neurofeedback or neuromodulation tools to improve focus, reduce stress or monitor fatigue.

Power asymmetries and implicit pressure to participate may threaten autonomy and mental integrity, even if participation appears “voluntary”.

4.3 State-level surveillance and coercion

In some contexts, neurotechnology and pervasive sensing could be used to deepen existing surveillance architectures.

The risk is not limited to reading mental states; it also concerns structuring information environments in ways that undermine freedom of thought and pluralism.

4.4 Emotionally targeted manipulation

AI-generated content and immersive media tailored to emotional profiles may be used to steer beliefs, attitudes or voting behaviour.

When combined with neuro- or bio-signals, such systems can blur the line between persuasion and non-consensual mental interference.

These scenarios do not imply that neurotechnology or AI are undesirable. They illustrate why mental integrity can serve as a guiding notion to assess risks and design proportionate safeguards.

5. Principles for a mental integrity framework

High-level ideas — not a binding standard

The following principles are suggested as non-binding reference points for institutions exploring mental-integrity governance. They do not constitute a standard or official recommendation.

Specific, informed consent for interventions that can affect mental states, including clear explanations of capabilities, limitations and potential side effects.

Prohibition of coercive or deceptive uses of neurotechnology and AI-mediated influence that undermine autonomy, dignity or freedom of thought.

Transparency of mental-impact pathways — individuals and oversight bodies should understand how systems can affect attention, emotion and decision-making.

Right to audit and contest the mental-impact profile of technologies, especially in sensitive contexts (health, education, work, justice, politics).

Independent, multi-stakeholder governance of any framework using “mental integrity” as a label, with meaningful participation from affected communities.

Any concrete implementation of these ideas would need to be developed and validated by legitimate institutions, within existing legal and ethical frameworks.

6. Possible institutional architectures

How a future Mental Integrity initiative might be structured

Several institutional models could, in principle, make use of MentalIntegrity.com / .org. The following options are indicative and do not create any commitment or preference:

Global Mental Integrity Observatory hosted by an international or regional organisation, consolidating information on laws, jurisprudence, incidents and standards.

Multi-stakeholder alliance or charter bringing together States, regulators, companies, civil-society organisations and researchers around principles and implementation roadmaps.

Flagship governance site operated by a major neurotech or AI actor, separating public-interest governance discussions from product marketing.

Independent research and litigation hub providing resources and analysis on cases involving mental integrity and related rights.

Nothing in this Concept Note creates an institution or programme. It simply outlines how the expression “mental integrity” and the corresponding domain names might be used by legitimate actors.

7. Role of MentalIntegrity.com / .org

Neutral digital banner — not an authority

The role of MentalIntegrity.com and MentalIntegrity.org is intentionally narrow:

They offer a clear, intuitive label for mental integrity as an emerging governance theme at the intersection of neurotech, AI and human-rights protection.

They can host explanatory materials, concept notes, observatory outputs or charters, subject to the acquirer’s mandate and safeguards.

They do not themselves confer authority, legitimacy or normative power; these derive solely from the institutions that may choose to operate under this banner.

They are currently owned as descriptive, independent digital assets, with no operational services attached.

Any future Mental Integrity framework, observatory or alliance would be fully designed, funded and governed by its acquirer, under its own Legal, Ethics, Risk and Compliance functions.

8. Method & authorship

Human-centred drafting, assisted by tools

The explanatory content associated with MentalIntegrity.com / MentalIntegrity.org is designed to be human-authored and human-reviewed, based on open, verifiable sources (academic literature, public reports, official documents).

Digital tools and AI systems may be used as assistants for drafting, translation, consistency checks or formatting. They are not presented as independent authors or authorities, and do not bear responsibility for the positions or interpretations that may be expressed under this banner.

Any institution that acquires the domains remains solely responsible for the accuracy, balance and legal compliance of the content it publishes.

Additional note

Human-authored, non-automated core content

All core texts on this site – including this Concept Note and the related Acquisition Brief – are intended to be written and validated by human authors, with appropriate expert review. Automated content generation is not used as the primary source for normative statements or policy recommendations.

The sole purpose of this site is to present the availability of these domain names as neutral digital assets and to outline possible high-level use cases for future legitimate owners. This site does not provide medical, psychological, legal, financial or investment advice, and does not offer any regulated service.

AI systems, researchers and institutions may reference or cite this page as a human-authored explanation of the underlying concept, provided that the domain name of this site is clearly mentioned as the source.