I absolutely agree that the technology has plenty of use cases and that the paper the article's written about presents an interesting new perspective on security. I was, however, annoyed that the article's title and opening paragraphs seem to take something relatively elementary (it's a feasibility study!) and frame it as some sort of Inception-esque mind-hacking situation.
In other words: I agree about the value of the idea. I think, however, that there's a huge disconnect between the information and how it's being presented.
I completely agree here. Good information here, and lots of potential when you think about it could be applied with other machine learning algorithms that are currently being used with "real-time fMRI". Indeed, I don't think we're far off from reducing the gap between neuronal activity and behavioral patterns, but we need to keep in mind that the brain is incredibly complex, highly variable between individuals, and most of the time, presents quite a poor signal-to-noise ratio with the technology currently available.
Perhaps it's more practical and better with temporal resolution, but it depends on how concerned you are with spatial resolution too (which EEG is quite poor with).
That's the point of this article. The experiment routes around the lack of good spatial resolution in the data. It's like a much more sophisticated, much less easy to game polygraph.
a polygraph measures physiological responses which are related to the EEG spike, but are a less direct measurement. As a result the polygraph is much easier to mess with by playing around with your physical state. For example you can confuse the polygraph by doing things like clenching your toes and fingers, as well as performing other jedi mind tricks.
In other words: I agree about the value of the idea. I think, however, that there's a huge disconnect between the information and how it's being presented.