文献类型：期刊文献

中文题名：脑机接口技术应用中神经数据的法律属性与共享边界

英文题名：Legal Attributes and Sharing Boundaries of Neural Data in the Application of Brain-Computer Interface Technology

作者：徐娟[1]

机构：[1]广东海洋大学法政学院,广东湛江524088

年份：2026

卷号：44

期号：7

起止页码：127

中文期刊名：河北法学

外文期刊名：Hebei Law Science

收录：北大核心2023、、北大核心

基金：2024年度广东省哲学社会科学规划项目“脑机接口技术法律规制研究”(GD24XFX07);2024年度广东省教育厅高校科研项目(社会科学)“治疗型脑机接口技术法律问题研究”(2024WTSCX150);2026年度四川医事卫生法治研究中心中国卫生法学会联合项目“脑机接口健康医疗数据治理的法理基础与制度构建研究”(YF26-Y03)的阶段性成果。

语种：中文

中文关键词：脑机接口;神经数据;法律属性;共享边界;人格利益保护

外文关键词：brain-computer interface;neural data;legal attributes;sharing boundaries;protection of personality interests

中文摘要：随着脑机接口技术逐步进入医疗、科研与商业应用领域,神经数据的采集、处理与共享日益成为数字法治中的前沿问题。不同于一般个人信息,神经数据不仅具有较强的个体可识别性和高度敏感性,还可能反映个体的认知状态、情绪变化与行为倾向,因而更深程度关联人格尊严、精神自主与思想自由。现有研究多从神经权利、技术伦理或宏观治理等维度展开,对我国法语境下神经数据法律属性及其共享边界的规范分析仍显不足。基于其个体唯一性、高度敏感性与动态可塑性,神经数据难以完全纳入一般个人信息处理逻辑,而应作为具有高度人格关联性的特殊信息类型加以理解。与此同时,神经数据共享虽具有现实必要性,但也可能引发人格利益侵害、隐私泄露、用途扩张与算法推断等风险。由此,神经数据共享边界的划定,应在《民法典》人格权编与《个人信息保护法》的现行框架下,以人格利益优先保护为基础,围绕分层告知、动态同意、用途限定和责任控制等方面,形成更具针对性的规范回应。

外文摘要：As brain-computer interface(BCI)technology gradually expands into medical,scientific research,and commercial applications,the collection,processing,and sharing of neural data are increasingly becoming frontier issues within the realm of digital rule of law.Unlike general personal information,neural data not only possesses strong individual identifiability and high sensitivity but may also reflect an individual′s cognitive state,emotional fluctuations,and behavioral tendencies,consequently,it is more deeply intertwined with human dignity,mental autonomy,and freedom of thought.Existing research predominantly approaches this subject from the perspectives of neuro-rights,technological ethics,or macro-governance,yet normative analysis regarding the legal attributes of neural data—and the boundaries of its sharing—within the specific context of Chinese law remains insufficient.Given its individual uniqueness,high sensitivity,and dynamic plasticity,neural data cannot be fully subsumed under the general logic governing the processing of ordinary personal information;rather,it should be conceptualized as a distinct category of information bearing a profound nexus to personality interests.Concurrently,while the sharing of neural data possesses practical necessity,it also entails potential risks such as infringements upon personality interests,privacy breaches,scope creep in data usage,and algorithmic inference.Accordingly,the delineation of boundaries for neural data sharing should be undertaken within the existing legal framework established by the"Personality Rights"section of the Civil Code and the Personal Information Protection Law.Grounded in the principle of prioritizing the protection of personality interests,this delineation requires the formulation of more targeted normative responses centered on aspects such as layered notification,dynamic consent,purpose limitation,and liability control.