Implications of US MIND Act for Neural Data Privacy and Neurotechnology Ethics in New Zealand
SPENCER JONES made this Official Information request to Ministry of Health
Response to this request is delayed. By law, Ministry of Health should normally have responded promptly and by (details and exceptions)
From: SPENCER JONES
Dear Ministry of Health,
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, Health and Disability Ethics Committees (HDECs) oversight, the National Ethical Standards for Health and Disability Research (including sections on health data and new technologies), digital health strategies, and radiofrequency (RFR)/electromagnetic field (EMF) exposures under standards like NZS 2772.1:1999, particularly as neurotech may intersect with 5G/smart meter ecosystems and AI in healthcare.
Please provide:
Any internal briefings, Cabinet papers, or policy advice generated by the Ministry of Health (or interagency correspondence with the Health Research Council (HRC), National Ethics Advisory Committee (NEAC), Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment, Privacy Commissioner, Ministry of Justice, or Electricity Authority) since 1 January 2024 regarding the MIND Act, including:
Assessments of its implications for NZ health privacy laws, neurotechnology regulation, or ethical oversight (e.g., under the National Ethical Standards or HDECs guidelines).
Discussions on adopting similar safeguards for neural data in NZ (e.g., consent requirements for BCI data collection in clinical trials, ethical reviews for AI/neurotech health applications).
Records of any public-sector-funded research grants, funding calls, or reports commissioned or overseen by the Ministry of Health, HRC, or NEAC aimed at investigating privacy risks, health effects, or ethical standards for neural data collection via neurotech, including recipients, abstracts, and final reports (2015–2025). This includes any AI in Healthcare funding rounds or evaluations of neurotech in health services.
Any advice papers or risk evaluations on the integration of neural data technologies with existing NZ health infrastructure (e.g., smart meters, 5G networks in telehealth), including cost-benefit analyses or comparative risks to consumer privacy and health under frameworks like the Generative AI and Large Language Models policy.
Copies of correspondence between the Ministry of Health and US counterparts (e.g., FTC, Senate Commerce Committee) or international bodies (e.g., OECD, UNESCO on Ethics of Neurotechnology, 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 and ethical challenges in health, especially given the MIND Act’s focus on protecting brain data from exploitation and ongoing NZ reforms like the Medical Products Bill and health workforce regulation updates.
Kind regards,
Spencer Jones
From: OIA Requests
Kia ora Spencer
Thank you for your request under the Official Information Act 1982 (the
Act), received by the Ministry of Health on 11 October 2025. You
requested:
Any internal briefings, Cabinet papers, or policy advice generated by the
Ministry of Health (or interagency correspondence with the Health Research
Council (HRC), National Ethics Advisory Committee (NEAC), Ministry of
Business, Innovation & Employment, Privacy Commissioner, Ministry of
Justice, or Electricity Authority) since 1 January 2024 regarding the MIND
Act, including:
Assessments of its implications for NZ health privacy laws,
neurotechnology regulation, or ethical oversight (e.g., under the National
Ethical Standards or HDECs guidelines).
Discussions on adopting similar safeguards for neural data in NZ (e.g.,
consent requirements for BCI data collection in clinical trials, ethical
reviews for AI/neurotech health applications).
Records of any public-sector-funded research grants, funding calls, or
reports commissioned or overseen by the Ministry of Health, HRC, or NEAC
aimed at investigating privacy risks, health effects, or ethical standards
for neural data collection via neurotech, including recipients, abstracts,
and final reports (2015–2025). This includes any AI in Healthcare funding
rounds or evaluations of neurotech in health services.
Any advice papers or risk evaluations on the integration of neural data
technologies with existing NZ health infrastructure (e.g., smart meters,
5G networks in telehealth), including cost-benefit analyses or comparative
risks to consumer privacy and health under frameworks like the Generative
AI and Large Language Models policy.
Copies of correspondence between the Ministry of Health and US
counterparts (e.g., FTC, Senate Commerce Committee) or international
bodies (e.g., OECD, UNESCO on Ethics of Neurotechnology, Five Eyes
partners) relating to the MIND Act or global neural data governance.
The reference number for your request is H2025074004. As required under
the Act, the Ministry will endeavour to respond to your request no later
than 20 working days after the day your request was
received: [1]http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/
If you have any queries related to this request, please do not hesitate to
get in touch ([2][email address]).
Ngâ mihi
OIA Services Team
[3]Ministry of Health information releases
show quoted sections
References
Visible links
1. http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/
2. mailto:[email address]
3. https://www.health.govt.nz/about-ministr...
From: OIA Requests
Kia ora,
Thank you for your request for official information received on 11 October
2025 requesting:
Any internal briefings, Cabinet papers, or policy advice generated by the
Ministry of Health (or interagency correspondence with the Health Research
Council (HRC), National Ethics Advisory Committee (NEAC), Ministry of
Business, Innovation & Employment, Privacy Commissioner, Ministry of
Justice, or Electricity Authority) since 1 January 2024 regarding the MIND
Act, including:
Assessments of its implications for NZ health privacy laws,
neurotechnology regulation, or ethical oversight (e.g., under the National
Ethical Standards or HDECs guidelines).
Discussions on adopting similar safeguards for neural data in NZ (e.g.,
consent requirements for BCI data collection in clinical trials, ethical
reviews for AI/neurotech health applications).
Records of any public-sector-funded research grants, funding calls, or
reports commissioned or overseen by the Ministry of Health, HRC, or NEAC
aimed at investigating privacy risks, health effects, or ethical standards
for neural data collection via neurotech, including recipients, abstracts,
and final reports (2015–2025). This includes any AI in Healthcare funding
rounds or evaluations of neurotech in health services.
Any advice papers or risk evaluations on the integration of neural data
technologies with existing NZ health infrastructure (e.g., smart meters,
5G networks in telehealth), including cost-benefit analyses or comparative
risks to consumer privacy and health under frameworks like the Generative
AI and Large Language Models policy.
Copies of correspondence between the Ministry of Health and US
counterparts (e.g., FTC, Senate Commerce Committee) or international
bodies (e.g., OECD, UNESCO on Ethics of Neurotechnology, Five Eyes
partners) relating to the MIND Act or global neural data governance.
The Ministry of Health has decided to extend the period of time available
to respond to your request under section 15A of the Official Information
Act 1982 (the Act) as the consultations necessary to make
a decision on the request are such that a proper response to the request cannot reasonably be made within the original time limit.
You can now expect a response to your request on, or before, 24 November
2025.
You have the right, under section 28 of the Act, to ask the Ombudsman to
review my decision to extend the time available to respond to your
request.
Ngâ mihi
OIA Services Team
Ministry of Health | Manatû Hauora
M[1]inistry of Health information releases
show quoted sections
References
Visible links
1. https://www.health.govt.nz/about-ministr...
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence (note: this contains the same information already available above).
Offensive? Unsuitable?
Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid requests for Official Information (read more).
If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators
Report this requestAct on what you've learnt
Similar requests
"NZ Government Acknowledgment of US Management of Individuals’ Neural Data Act 2025 (MIND Act) and Neural Data Privacy Policy"
To Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment by SPENCER JONES
Use of Artificial Intelligence with ACC Contracted Assessors
To Accident Compensation Corporation by Concussion Awareness New Zealand
Draft Versions of "New Zealand’s Strategy for Artificial Intelligence: Investing with confidence"
To Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment by Andrew Lensen
SPENCER JONES left an annotation ()
🧠 Public Annotation: Implications of the US MIND Act for Neural Data Privacy and Neurotechnology Ethics in New Zealand
**Annotation Author:** Spencer Jones (Requester)
**OIA Reference:** H2025074004 | **Agency:** Ministry of Health / Manatū Hauora
**Date Updated:** 10 November 2025
---
1️⃣ Status Update
The Ministry of Health has **extended its response deadline to 24 November 2025** under **section 15A OIA**, citing the need for inter-agency consultations. This is a routine step for broad, multi-disciplinary requests but highlights the novelty of the topic, which spans **health privacy, ethics, biomedical research funding, AI governance, and international data-protection alignment**.
No substantive material has yet been released. The extension means the Ministry is likely consulting entities such as **HRC, NEAC, MBIE, the Privacy Commissioner, and the Electricity Authority** before finalising its position.
---
2️⃣ Purpose of the Request
Filed on 11 October 2025, this OIA seeks to clarify whether Aotearoa New Zealand has examined or acted on the implications of the **US “Management of Individuals’ Neural Data (MIND) Act of 2025”**—a US Senate bill directing the **Federal Trade Commission (FTC)** to develop privacy and ethics standards for **neural data** obtained through neurotechnology such as EEG wearables, brain-computer interfaces, and AI-driven bio-sensing devices.
Requested categories include:
1. **Internal and inter-agency briefings** (since Jan 2024) evaluating the MIND Act’s relevance to NZ law, including Privacy Act 2020 obligations, HDEC/NEAC oversight, and ethical-standards updates.
2. **Discussion papers** on possible NZ safeguards – e.g., explicit consent for BCI data, ethical review thresholds for AI/neurotech trials.
3. **Publicly funded research records** (2015–2025) concerning neural-data privacy, AI in healthcare, or neurotech ethics.
4. **Advice on infrastructure integration** – how neural data could intersect with 5G telehealth, smart-meter networks, or Generative-AI systems.
5. **International correspondence** – exchanges with US agencies (FTC, Senate Commerce Committee), OECD, UNESCO, or Five Eyes partners.
---
3️⃣ Why It Matters for NZ
* **Neural data ≠ ordinary biometric data.** It can reveal emotions, intentions, and cognitive states. NZ’s **Privacy Act 2020** and the **Biometric Processing Privacy Code 2025** currently **do not explicitly cover neural signals**, leaving a regulatory gap.
* **Ethical Oversight.** HDECs and NEAC may need updated consent protocols for BCI research and clinical AI applications.
* **Digital Health Integration.** Neural interfaces are appearing alongside AI-enabled telehealth, wearables, and smart-infrastructure. Without clarity on data governance, patient trust and safety could be compromised.
* **International Alignment.** The MIND Act echoes UNESCO’s new (2025) standards for “mental privacy” and the right to freedom of thought. Transparency through the OIA helps ensure New Zealand keeps pace with these global developments.
---
4️⃣ Next Steps & Public Interest
* Await the Ministry’s full response by 24 November 2025.
* If information is refused or claimed not to exist, I intend to seek clarification and consider Ombudsman review under **s 28 OIA**.
* Further annotations will summarise released documents and identify gaps for policy discussion or academic follow-up.
--
5️⃣ Reference Links
* **US MIND Act (S. 2925, 2025):** [congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/2925/text](https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-cong...)
* **US Senate Press Release:** [commerce.senate.gov/2025/9/sens-cantwell-schumer-markey-introduce-legislation-to-shield-americans-brain-data-from-exploitation](https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2025/9/s...)
* **NZ Privacy Commissioner – Biometric Processing Privacy Code 2025 Overview:** [privacy.org.nz/privacy-principles/codes-of-practice/biometric-processing-privacy-code](https://www.privacy.org.nz/privacy-princ...)
---
**Keywords:** Neural data | MIND Act | Neurotechnology ethics | Privacy Act 2020 | BCI consent | AI in health | 5G | Smart meters | HDECs | NEAC
Link to this