Regulating Brain Computer Interfaces

explain how to write the * rd issue innovation and commerce

make a summary of argument for the petitioner

It is submitted before the Supreme Court that a fair balance has been established between individual privacy rights and the need for government oversight. The infringement of privacy has never happened; the BCI in question, which the petitioner's NeuroUnity members use, are "interconnected BCI", the Same technology which investigators suggest has collected neural data from its members without proper consent. From the facts of the case, it could be rightly established that the interconnected aspect of BCI is associated with a public domain, which could be accessed by other members using BCI to share thoughts, experiences, and skills and to create a highly efficient and collaborative network as said in paragraph * of the prop. From this understanding and a perusal of what has been established in para * "Statutory provisions that deal with aspects of privacy would be tested on the ground that they would violate the fundamental right to privacy and would not be struck down if it is found on a balancing test that the social or public interest and the reasonableness of the restrictions would outweigh the particular aspect of privacy claimed. If this is so, then statutes which would enable the State to contractually obtain information about persons would pass muster in given circumstances, provided they safeguard the individual right to privacy as well. A simple example would suffice. If a person was to paste on Facebook vital information about himself/herself, such information, being in the public domain, could not possibly be claimed as a privacy right after such disclosure.” Whatever privacy the petitioner claims to be violated has not been safeguarded by the petitioner themselves it is as If a person were to post on Facebook vital information about themselves, such information, being in the public domain, could not possibly be claimed as a privacy right after such disclosure. The government-established regulatory body, Upon national interest, collects the same data which has already been disclosed with a view of balancing individual privacy and public/national interest as established in para * of puttu and para * of Media Professionals v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir (*) "The fundamental rights of citizens need to be balanced with national security concerns, when the situation so demands. This Court is cognizant of the importance of these matters for the national security concerns, and takes the same with utmost seriousness to ensure that citizens enjoy life and liberty to the greatest possible extent. National security concerns and human rights must be reasonably and defensibly adjusted with one another, in line with the constitutional principles." It is also pertinent to note that the act of neuro unity is punishable according to section 66F(A)(ii) attempting to penetrate or access a computer resource without authorisation or exceeding authorised access and section 66F(A)(iii) introducing or causing to introduce any computer contaminant, of The information act,* which defines the said act to be an act of cyber terrorism essentially telling that the collection of neural data is for the interest of larger public good and national security. Even if the least intrusive test is to be applied, the collection of neural data already disclosed doesn't intrude on the privacy of an individual, and there isn't any other less intrusive alternative which could have been adopted consistent with the object of the law, which is an essential principle in the test of proportionality. create a issue title for this

make it assertive

from the side of teh respondent

It is submitted before the Supreme Court that a fair balance has been established between individual privacy rights and the need for government oversight. The infringement of privacy has never happened; the BCI in question, which the petitioner's NeuroUnity members use, are "interconnected BCI", the Same technology which investigators suggest has collected neural data from its members without proper consent. From the facts of the case, it could be rightly established that the interconnected aspect of BCI is associated with a public domain, which could be accessed by other members using BCI to share thoughts, experiences, and skills and to create a highly efficient and collaborative network as said in paragraph * of the prop. From this understanding and a perusal of what has been established in para * "Statutory provisions that deal with aspects of privacy would be tested on the ground that they would violate the fundamental right to privacy and would not be struck down if it is found on a balancing test that the social or public interest and the reasonableness of the restrictions would outweigh the particular aspect of privacy claimed. If this is so, then statutes which would enable the State to contractually obtain information about persons would pass muster in given circumstances, provided they safeguard the individual right to privacy as well. A simple example would suffice. If a person was to paste on Facebook vital information about himself/herself, such information, being in the public domain, could not possibly be claimed as a privacy right after such disclosure.” Whatever privacy the petitioner claims to be violated has not been safeguarded by the petitioner themselves it is as If a person were to post on Facebook vital information about themselves, such information, being in the public domain, could not possibly be claimed as a privacy right after such disclosure. The government-established regulatory body, Upon national interest, collects the same data which has already been disclosed with a view of balancing individual privacy and public/national interest as established in para * of puttu and para * of Media Professionals v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir (*) "The fundamental rights of citizens need to be balanced with national security concerns, when the situation so demands. This Court is cognizant of the importance of these matters for the national security concerns, and takes the same with utmost seriousness to ensure that citizens enjoy life and liberty to the greatest possible extent. National security concerns and human rights must be reasonably and defensibly adjusted with one another, in line with the constitutional principles." It is also pertinent to note that the act of neuro unity is punishable according to section 66F(A)(ii) attempting to penetrate or access a computer resource without authorisation or exceeding authorised access and section 66F(A)(iii) introducing or causing to introduce any computer contaminant, of The information act,* which defines the said act to be an act of cyber terrorism essentially telling that the collection of neural data is for the interest of larger public good and national security. Even if the least intrusive test is to be applied, the collection of neural data already disclosed doesn't intrude on the privacy of an individual, and there isn't any other less intrusive alternative which could have been adopted consistent with the object of the law, which is an essential principle in the test of proportionality. from the side of the respondent give it a title a make it look asertive

give a different one