Dear Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment,

Pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982, I request the following information relating to the US "Management of Individuals’ Neural Data Act of 2025" (MIND Act), introduced in the US Senate on or around 24 September 2025 by Senators Maria Cantwell, Chuck Schumer, and Edward Markey. This bill directs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to establish privacy standards for neural data collected via neurotechnology (e.g., brain-computer interfaces), emphasizing consent, transparency, security, and prohibitions on unauthorized government collection of brain activity data.

The MIND Act arises amid growing concerns over the privacy risks of emerging technologies that interface with the human brain, potentially including wireless-enabled devices. In a New Zealand context, this raises questions about alignment with our Privacy Act 2020, digital innovation strategies, and oversight of radiofrequency (RFR)/electromagnetic field (EMF) exposures under standards like NZS 2772.1:1999, particularly as neurotech may intersect with 5G/smart meter ecosystems.

Please provide:

Any internal briefings, Cabinet papers, or policy advice generated by MBIE (or interagency correspondence with the Privacy Commissioner, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Health, or Electricity Authority) since 1 January 2024 regarding the MIND Act, including:

Assessments of its implications for NZ privacy laws or neurotechnology regulation.
Discussions on adopting similar safeguards for neural data in NZ (e.g., consent requirements for BCI data collection).

Records of any public-sector-funded research grants, funding calls, or reports commissioned by MBIE aimed at investigating privacy risks, health effects, or ethical standards for neural data collection via neurotech, including recipients, abstracts, and final reports (2015–2025).

Any advice papers or risk evaluations on the integration of neural data technologies with existing NZ infrastructure (e.g., smart meters, 5G networks), including cost-benefit analyses or comparative risks to consumer privacy and health.

Copies of correspondence between MBIE and US counterparts (e.g., FTC, Senate Commerce Committee) or international bodies (e.g., OECD, Five Eyes partners) relating to the MIND Act or global neural data governance.

If any part of this information is withheld, please state the exact grounds under the OIA (specifying the subsection) and explain the public interest test applied under section 9(1). Please respond electronically within the statutory timeframe.

This request is made in the public interest to promote transparency on how NZ is preparing for neurotechnology's privacy challenges, especially given the MIND Act's focus on protecting brain data from exploitation.

Kind regards.
Spencer Jones