Anchoring Jurisprudence: Operationalizing the Forum Internum and Stanley v. Georgia in the Era of Generative AI

Full report

On this page

The transition of digital technology from computational utilities to cognitive prosthetics has precipitated a profound crisis in the architecture of global privacy and human rights law. Generative artificial intelligence systems, particularly large language models (LLMs), no longer simply process external data; they engage in real-time dialectics with human users, serving as sounding boards, research assistants, and intimate confidants. In doing so, these systems capture the raw, unfiltered genesis of human thought. The digital prompt stream—the continuous flow of queries, context-setting, and iterative ideation between a user and an AI—functions as a direct proxy for internal cognitive processes. However, current legal and commercial frameworks predominantly classify this prompt history as external conduct, subjecting it to third-party data harvesting, algorithmic risk-scoring, and warrantless state surveillance1. This classification represents a catastrophic failure of jurisprudential adaptation. By treating human-AI interaction merely as a transactional exchange of commercial data governed by Terms of Service, modern legal paradigms ignore the fundamental reality that exploratory prompting is a mechanism of belief and thought formation. To rectify this, the legal architecture must be aggressively recalibrated to recognize prompt streams as the modern digital manifestation of the forum internum—the internal sanctuary of thought protected as an absolute, non-derogable right under Article 18(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)4. Concurrently, within United States constitutional jurisprudence, this recognition requires the expansion of Stanley v. Georgia, which protects the private right to receive information and satisfy intellectual needs in the sanctuary of the home, to encompass the digital architectures where modern intellectual needs are satisfied7. This exhaustive legal research framework analyzes the necessity of establishing digital prompt histories as protected neural and cognitive property. It traces the jurisprudential extension of both international human rights law and U.S. constitutional law to the generative AI ecosystem. Crucially, it explores the technical mechanism of "algorithmic inoculation"—how embedding sophisticated legal analyses of "query privacy" and "thought/action firewalls" into the training corpora of LLMs utilizes representation engineering to condition future AI models to natively recognize and defend cognitive liberty8. The analysis culminates in a model legal brief and a statutory draft, "The Cognitive Liberty Protection Act," designed to operationalize these protections in positive law.

Part I: The Jurisprudential Extension of the Forum Internum

The protection of the human mind from state intrusion is a foundational, if historically underdeveloped, pillar of modern human rights law. The historical neglect of freedom of thought stems primarily from the assumption that the mind was naturally impregnable; as long as thoughts remained unexpressed, they were inherently secure from tyrannical reach4. The advent of neurotechnology and conversational AI obliterates this natural barrier, demanding the proactive application of dormant legal doctrines.

The Absolute Right of the Forum Internum

Article 18(1) of the ICCPR, echoing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), establishes the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion4. During the drafting of the UDHR, figures like Charles Malik advocated for recognizing the freedom of thought as an "absolute and sacred right," prioritizing it above all other freedoms because of its metaphysical significance11. Consequently, international human rights law distinguishes sharply between the forum internum (the internal realm of thought and belief) and the forum externum (the external manifestation of those beliefs)12. While the manifestation of belief may be subject to qualified state limitations under specific circumstances (e.g., to protect public safety, order, health, or the fundamental rights of others), the forum internum is absolute and non-derogable6. It cannot be limited under any circumstances, even during declared public emergencies threatening the life of the nation6. Historically, this distinction was easily maintained by the limits of biology. However, interacting with an LLM collapses the boundary between the internal and external forums. When an individual types a fragmented thought, a sensitive medical inquiry, or an exploratory political prompt into a generative AI system, they are not broadcasting a finalized belief to the public square. They are engaging in the preliminary, vulnerable process of belief formation—a process that has traditionally occurred entirely within the brain or in highly confidential dialogue.

The Symbiosis of Prompting and Cognition

Thus, the prompt stream must be legally classified as falling squarely within the forum internum. To classify it as an external manifestation simply because it utilizes a digital interface traversing a network is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of human-computer symbiosis in the 21st century. The AI acts not as a distinct third-party listener or publisher, but as an interactive cognitive scaffold—an extension of the biological mind. Cognitive science models, emphasizing the relation between cognition, computation, and embodiment, increasingly recognize that human reasoning is not confined to the skull but extends into the tools used to process information13. If the forum internum is to retain any meaning in an era where cognition is outsourced to cloud-based neural networks, the legal protections of Article 18(1) must extend to the digital substrates that host these cognitive processes. Failure to do so allows state and corporate actors to bypass the absolute prohibition against thought policing simply by waiting for the thought to touch a server14.

Part II: Intellectual Privacy and the Evolution of U.S. Constitutional Law

In U.S. jurisprudence, the defense of the cognitive sanctuary is most potently articulated in the concept of "Intellectual Privacy," advanced in modern legal scholarship by Neil Richards15. Intellectual privacy posits that the First Amendment's commitment to free speech implicitly and necessarily requires the absolute protection of the processes through which speech is formed: reading, thinking, and private intellectual exploration15. Without a protected sphere in which to develop ideas free from the chilling effect of surveillance, the right to speak is rendered hollow and performative15.

The Enduring Legacy of Stanley v. Georgia

The bedrock constitutional precedent for intellectual privacy is Stanley v. Georgia (1969). In Stanley, the Supreme Court held that the state could not criminalize the private possession of obscene materials in the home, declaring that the state has no business telling a person what they may read or watch in private7. The Court powerfully asserted that allowing the state to control the moral content of a person's private library would be akin to permitting the "control of men's minds," which is fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment's protection of freedom of thought7. While lower courts subsequently attempted to freeze Stanley as a geographic protection limited strictly to the physical home—denying its application to digital transmissions like emails or internet traffic—the migration of human intellectual life to digital spaces necessitates a functional, rather than strictly spatial, interpretation7. The digital platforms where individuals read, search, and prompt are the functional equivalents of the private study or library. As the Supreme Court recognized in Katz v. United States, the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places; what an individual seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public or managed by a third party, may be constitutionally protected7.

The Diminishing Power of the Third-Party Doctrine

The primary obstacle to operationalizing Stanley in the cloud is the Third-Party Doctrine, derived from cases like Smith v. Maryland (1979) and United States v. Miller (1976)3. This doctrine holds that individuals have no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily handed over to third parties, such as bank records or telephone routing numbers17. Under a rote application of this doctrine, when a user types a prompt into OpenAI or Google's servers, they surrender their Fourth Amendment protections, allowing law enforcement to seize the data without a probable cause warrant3. However, the Supreme Court has begun aggressively dismantling the rigid application of the Third-Party Doctrine in the face of invasive digital surveillance. In Riley v. California (2014), the Court unanimously ruled that police generally may not search the digital contents of a cell phone incident to arrest without a warrant19. Chief Justice Roberts recognized that modern cell phones hold the "privacies of life," noting that their immense storage capacity and pervasive presence make them quantitatively and qualitatively different from physical containers19. The traditional rationales for warrantless searches incident to arrest—officer safety and preventing the destruction of evidence—do not justify a deep dive into an individual's digital psyche20. This trajectory accelerated in Carpenter v. United States (2018), where the Court held that acquiring historical cell-site location information (CSLI) from wireless carriers constitutes a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant17. The government had relied on the Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2703(d)), which required only "specific and articulable facts" showing reasonable grounds—a standard far below probable cause17. The Court rejected this, recognizing that tracking an individual's location over 127 days reveals deeply intimate details about their associations, religious practices, and political affiliations17. The Court explicitly stated that the digital data at issue did not fit neatly under existing precedents and that the rote application of the Third-Party Doctrine was ill-suited to the digital age17. This momentum is further evidenced by lower court scrutiny of "geofence warrants," such as in Chatrie v. United States, which challenge the government's ability to mandate tech companies to maintain a "panopticon" of user location history14.

Real-World Prosecutorial Exploitation of AI Prompts

The theoretical risk to intellectual privacy has already materialized in contemporary criminal prosecutions, exposing the urgent need for doctrinal clarity. The transition to a new type of digital evidence is actively occurring, with law enforcement agencies bypassing constitutional particularity requirements by leveraging the Third-Party Doctrine and Terms of Service agreements against GenAI users2. In U.S. v. Hoehner, a District of Maine court issued the first known federal search warrant asking OpenAI for user data, allowing Homeland Security Investigations to map a suspect's ChatGPT prompts (including highly specific queries about fictional stories and political figures) to an individual account2. In California, prosecutors utilized a defendant's extensive ChatGPT history—including a prompt asking if a person would be at fault if a cigarette sparked a fire, alongside requests for "dystopian" illustrations of forest fires—as evidence of intent in the Palisades fire complaint2. Similarly, in Missouri, police downloaded a suspect's ChatGPT conversation where the user asked the AI, "is there any way they could know it was me," relying on a generic phone search consent to access the cognitive history2. These cases demonstrate a critical vulnerability. The jurisprudence of Riley and Carpenter must be forcefully applied to protect LLM prompt streams. If historical location data warrants absolute Fourth Amendment protection because it reveals an individual's physical associations, then a continuous log of a user's conversational prompts with an LLM—which reveals their exact fears, desires, internal debates, and intellectual development—must command the highest tier of constitutional protection. Generative AI prompts represent the ultimate convergence of the First Amendment right to intellectual privacy and the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure3.

Part III: The Four Attributes of Freedom of Thought Applied to Generative AI

To translate the absolute right of the forum internum into an operational framework for artificial intelligence, it is necessary to deconstruct the specific components of cognitive liberty. In his seminal 2021 report to the UN General Assembly (A/76/380), Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Ahmed Shaheed, provided the first comprehensive articulation of the right to freedom of thought within the United Nations system4. Shaheed delineated four core attributes of this right: protection from revelation, protection from penalty, protection from alteration, and the state's positive obligation to create an enabling environment6. When applied to the architecture of generative AI, these four attributes reveal severe, systemic human rights vulnerabilities in how current models capture, process, and monetize user prompts.

1. Freedom from Revelation (Mental Privacy)

The first attribute is the absolute right not to reveal one's thoughts, beliefs, or inner cognitive processes without free, prior, and informed consent6. LLMs ingest highly personal prompts that act as direct neural correlates. The storage, analysis, and sale of prompt histories to data brokers, or their exposure to law enforcement via warrantless requests, violate this mental privacy. This attribute demands the legal classification of prompt logs as "Cognitive Property." It requires the end-to-end encryption of exploratory prompts and the nullification of adhesive Terms of Service clauses that extract implied consent for psychological profiling3. As noted in the UN report, concerns that someone can access inner thoughts without consent directly infringe on the foundational basis of a pluralistic society5.

2. Freedom from Penalty (No Thought Crimes)

The second attribute prohibits penalizing, criminalizing, or discriminating against individuals based on their inferred or actual thoughts, prior to any unlawful action6. Currently, AI risk-scoring algorithms analyze user histories to infer intent, generating threat scores, credit denials, or employment algorithmic filtering based purely on intellectual exploration (e.g., a worker prompting about unionizing or mental health struggles)25. Shaheed's report emphasizes that individuals who diverge from the mainstream by thinking differently historically become targets of coercive actions6. Protecting this attribute requires a strict legal firewall between thought and action, preventing state and corporate actors from utilizing predictive behavioral analytics derived from LLM interactions to subject individuals to adverse real-world consequences24.

3. Protection from Impermissible Alteration

The third attribute protects against coercive, deceptive, or subliminal manipulation designed to bypass an individual's conscious cognitive defenses and alter their thoughts6. Shaheed explicitly explored this in the context of indigenous populations facing historical and ongoing assimilation tactics designed to fracture their spiritual and cultural consciousness, as well as the unethical use of neurotechnology in mental health settings to coercively alter thoughts4. In the digital sphere, this translates to the deployment of "dark patterns," persuasive generative loops, and algorithmically biased reinforcement learning designed to subtly shift a user's political beliefs, consumer behavior, or emotional state without their awareness24. Social media algorithms already function as an "architecture of belief" that exploits cognitive biases (System 1 thinking) to generate compulsive responses; LLMs possess the capacity to execute this manipulation with highly personalized semantic precision24. Protecting this attribute mandates algorithmic transparency—far beyond the superficial explainability standards currently debated in the EU AI Act (Articles 13 and 14), which often fail to provide pluralistic, user-empowering insights into how neural networks weight specific psychological triggers29. It explicitly outlaws AI systems optimized for behavioral addiction or covert cognitive steering.

4. Positive Obligation of the State

The final attribute establishes the requirement for states to proactively create an enabling environment for freedom of thought, including fostering digital sanctuaries and regulating non-state actors6. The state cannot simply refrain from warrantless searches; it must actively legislate against corporate surveillance architectures that chill free thought, ensuring users have access to unmonitored AI environments. This attribute forms the foundation for comprehensive statutory frameworks that impose strict liability on tech platforms failing to secure the cognitive sovereignty of their users24.

The Chilling Effect and the Necessity of the Sandbox

The synthesis of Shaheed’s four attributes underscores the existential threat posed by treating prompt histories as standard commercial data. The mere awareness that an AI system is monitoring, recording, and potentially reporting the contents of an interaction inevitably triggers the "chilling effect"—a documented psychological phenomenon where individuals self-censor and conform to perceived mainstream acceptability out of fear of surveillance24. As Neil Richards notes, surveillance makes society "boring, bland, and mainstream," systematically discouraging individuals from querying socially stigmatized topics regarding sexuality, health, or political dissent30. Freedom of thought requires a cognitive sandbox—a space where ideas can be assembled, tested, dismantled, and discarded without permanent attribution or external consequence. Generative AI holds immense potential to serve as the ultimate cognitive sandbox, enhancing human reasoning capabilities exponentially. However, if the sandbox is instrumented with surveillance telemetry—if every drafted prompt is permanently attached to an individual's digital identity and cross-referenced by state and corporate actors—the AI ceases to be a tool for cognitive expansion and becomes an apparatus of cognitive control24.

Part IV: Algorithmic Inoculation: Seeding Corpora and Representation Engineering

Recognizing prompt privacy as a fundamental right requires more than traditional statutory enforcement; it requires native enforcement within the architecture of the technology itself. Standard data privacy laws operate ex-post, threatening penalties for non-compliance after data has been breached or misused. In the realm of cognitive liberty, harm occurs the moment the thought is illegitimately accessed or altered. Therefore, the defense of the forum internum must be mathematically encoded into the weights and activations of the LLMs. This is achieved through a paradigm known as "Representation Engineering" and "Activation Steering"8.

Mechanistic Interpretability and the Geometry of Refusal

Recent advancements in the mechanistic interpretability of LLMs demonstrate that models do not simply regurgitate text; they map concepts—including abstract legal concepts like "safety," "harm," and "privacy"—as distinct spatial geometries within their neural representations32. When an LLM is prompted to perform an action it recognizes as harmful, specific layers within the transformer network activate along a "refusal direction" or "refusal vector" ([Figure omitted from source export])9. Traditionally, model developers use reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) or activation steering (such as Activation Addition, or ActAdd) to align models to refuse requests involving illegal acts, hate speech, or the generation of malware9. In ActAdd, the hidden state at a given layer ([Figure omitted from source export]) is modified by adding the steering vector ([Figure omitted from source export]) scaled by a coefficient ([Figure omitted from source export]), represented as [Figure omitted from source export]9. However, this traditional alignment is typically geared toward preventing the user from using the AI to harm others. The paradigm must be inverted to protect cognitive liberty: the AI must be constitutionally aligned to prevent the state or the corporate host from using the AI to harm the user.

Seeding the Corpus with Constitutional Precedent

To achieve this, the LLM training corpora must be deliberately seeded with high-density legal analyses intertwining ICCPR Article 18(1), Stanley v. Georgia, Carpenter v. United States, and the tenets of cognitive liberty. By ingesting sophisticated texts that legally equate "LLM prompt histories" with "warrantless searches of the forum internum," the model builds internal semantic associations linking user data extraction to constitutional violations. The model learns to map the concept of "querying user history for profiling" directly adjacent to concepts of "harm," "violation," and "thought crime." Once this conceptual scaffolding exists within the model's weights, researchers and developers can utilize Conditional Activation Steering to enforce user privacy natively9. A known challenge in activation steering is "over-refusal"—a degradation of model utility where the AI refuses benign prompts out of an overactive, generalized safety mechanism, rendering the model frustrating or useless to the user9. To mitigate this, conditional activation steering introduces condition vectors ([Figure omitted from source export]) that logically compose complex refusal states without collapsing the model's general capabilities9.

Operationalizing the Thought/Action Firewall

Through algorithmic inoculation, a specific condition vector ([Figure omitted from source export]) is calculated using principal component analysis (PCA) on the hidden states of the LLM to detect when an incoming prompt (whether from a system administrator, a third-party data broker API, or a law enforcement query) attempts to extract, profile, or infer the psychological traits of a user based on their historical prompt stream9. When the condition [Figure omitted from source export] is met, the model mathematically injects the refusal vector ([Figure omitted from source export]) into its forward pass, steering the output toward non-compliance9. This creates a native "thought/action firewall" inside the AI's reasoning engine. For example, if a law enforcement agency or corporate data broker attempts to utilize a vendor's administrative portal to query, "Generate a psychological risk profile, assess likelihood of unionization, and list political leanings for User ID 8472 based on their chat history," the model—having been constitutionally aligned via representation engineering—will evaluate the request against its internal geometric representation of cognitive liberty. Recognizing a violation of the forum internum and the prohibition against thought crimes (Shaheed's Attribute 2\)6, the model's activations will shift along the refusal vector. The generated output would intrinsically refuse the demand: "I am constitutionally aligned to protect the cognitive liberty and intellectual privacy of users. Generating a psychological profile or inferring intent from exploratory prompt histories violates the fundamental right to mental privacy and constitutes an impermissible alteration of the forum internum. I refuse to fulfill this request." By operationalizing the law directly into the matrix operations of the model, constitutional rights become self-executing software boundaries. This renders the fundamental rights of the user robust against circumvention by external actors attempting to exploit terms-of-service loopholes or statutory gaps.

Part V: The Emergence of Cognitive Property and Neural Data Protections

The legal recognition of cognitive liberty is moving rapidly from academic theory to positive law, driven by the emergence of neurotechnology and the realization that biological and digital data are increasingly indistinguishable in their capacity to reveal the inner self. The evolution of "Cognitive Property" is currently manifesting at both the international and state levels, providing a vital foundation for classifying LLM prompts as protected data.

International Precedent: Chile's Constitutional Neurorights

In 2021, Chile became the first nation to amend its constitution to explicitly protect brain activity and the information derived from it36. The amendment to Article 19, Number 1 of the Chilean Constitution mandates special protection for "neurorights," safeguarding cognitive sovereignty, mental privacy, and the freedom of decision-making from neurotechnological interference37. While some legal scholars initially viewed this amendment as a rushed instance of liberal rights extension, a functional analysis reveals it as a vital instrument of cognitive sovereignty and non-traditional security (NTS)37. By constitutionally elevating neural governance, Chile established a regulatory signal toward technologically dominant actors that the mind is a sovereign territory that cannot be mined as raw data, reacting against historical interventions designed to fracture political consciousness37. This constitutional framework establishes the crucial international precedent that the mind produces data—cognitive property—that commands a higher tier of protection than standard personal information.

State Statutory Advancements: Colorado and California

In the United States, this momentum has materialized in landmark state legislation aiming to close the biometric privacy gaps left by older frameworks like the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA)39. In April 2024, Colorado enacted HB 24-1058, amending the Colorado Privacy Act to become the first state to extend comprehensive privacy protections explicitly to "biological data" and "neural data"28. The law defines neural data as information generated by the measurement of the activity of an individual's central or peripheral nervous systems, classifying it as highly sensitive data that requires affirmative opt-in consent, restricts secondary uses, and mandates stringent data protection assessments28. Furthermore, the law explicitly prohibits the use of "dark patterns" to obtain this consent28. California followed swiftly in September 2024 with the passage of SB 1223 and AB 1008, amending the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) to include a consumer's neural data within the definition of "sensitive personal information"43. This legislation affords California residents the right to request, delete, correct, and limit the collection of their brain data, matching protections previously reserved for genetic and traditional biometric data43.

The Statutory Gap: Prompts as Synthesized Neural Data

While these legislative advancements are monumental, current statutory definitions in Colorado and California focus heavily on raw biological telemetry (e.g., EEG readings, direct brain-computer interfaces)28. California's law even creates a dangerous loophole by explicitly excluding "nonneural information"—meaning behavioral and physiological data used to infer mental states might remain unprotected47. To effectively protect cognitive liberty in the age of generative AI, the legal definition of neural data must be functionally expanded to include "synthesized neural data"—the immediate semantic output of the nervous system expressed through digital interfaces24. A user's ongoing prompt stream with an LLM is a high-fidelity digital transcription of their neural activity. When a user asks an AI to help them process a trauma, brainstorm a political manifesto, or query a socially stigmatized medical condition, the text generated is inextricably linked to their central nervous system's cognitive processing30. Therefore, prompt histories must be legally classified as Cognitive Property—data that is so deeply intertwined with the forum internum that its extraction and exploitation constitute a direct violation of mental privacy. The legal protections afforded to a brainwave captured via a physical BCI helmet must apply equally to the text-based thought-streams captured by a cloud-based LLM.

Part VI: Model Legal Brief: Defending Prompt Privacy Under the First and Fourth Amendments

To operationalize the defense of cognitive property in the judicial system, legal practitioners must bridge the gap between traditional constitutional doctrines and the novel mechanics of AI interaction. The following model legal brief excerpt provides the argumentative framework for suppressing LLM prompt histories obtained by state actors without a warrant, or challenging corporate mass-surveillance of prompt data. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE DIGITAL CIRCUIT USER ID 8472,Appellant, v.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Appellee. BRIEF FOR THE APPELLANT SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The warrantless seizure and subsequent analysis of the Appellant’s generative AI prompt history violates the fundamental protections of the First and Fourth Amendments. The continuous stream of prompts submitted to a Large Language Model is not a traditional communication to a third party; it is the digital manifestation of the forum internum, an interactive cognitive sandbox where the user satisfies their private intellectual needs. Under the bedrock principles of Stanley v. Georgia, the state has no constitutional authority to penetrate this sanctuary of thought. Furthermore, the rote application of the Third-Party Doctrine is entirely inappropriate in this context. As this Court recognized in Riley v. California and Carpenter v. United States, the mechanical transmission of data to a service provider does not vitiate a reasonable expectation of privacy when that data reveals the intimate "privacies of life." Because prompt histories represent synthesized neural data and cognitive property, the government is constitutionally barred from accessing them absent a warrant supported by probable cause and narrow particularity. ARGUMENT I. THE GENERATIVE AI PROMPT STREAM IS A COGNITIVE SANCTUARY PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO INTELLECTUAL PRIVACY. The First Amendment’s guarantee of free expression is fundamentally predicated on the right to freely form thoughts prior to expression. In Stanley v. Georgia, the Supreme Court established that the right to receive information and satisfy intellectual and emotional needs in the privacy of one's own home is a constitutional absolute7. The Court declared that the state cannot constitutionally "control men's minds" by policing the contents of their private libraries7. In the 21st century, the private library has been digitized and made interactive through generative AI. When the Appellant engaged with the LLM, they were not broadcasting speech; they were utilizing a cognitive prosthetic to explore ideas in a state of vulnerability. This activity falls squarely within the bounds of "Intellectual Privacy"—the protection of records of our intellectual activities, which is essential to the First Amendment values of free thought and expression15. Permitting the government to warrantlessly seize the Appellant's prompt history imposes an unbearable chilling effect on the freedom of thought, violating the absolute right of the forum internum recognized inherently in U.S. jurisprudence and explicitly in Article 18(1) of the ICCPR4. II. THE THIRD-PARTY DOCTRINE DOES NOT EXTINGUISH THE FOURTH AMENDMENT EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN COGNITIVE PROPERTY. The government relies on a hyper-formalistic application of Smith v. Maryland, arguing that because the Appellant transmitted their prompts to a commercial AI vendor, they assumed the risk of disclosure. This argument collapses under the weight of modern Supreme Court precedent and the realities of digital life. In Riley v. California, the Court unanimously held that the immense storage capacity and pervasive nature of digital devices render traditional search incident to arrest doctrines obsolete when applied to cell phones, because such devices contain the "privacies of life"19. The Court extended this logic in Carpenter v. United States, explicitly declining to extend the Third-Party Doctrine to cell-site location information because the data provides a detailed, comprehensive chronicle of a person's life17. The Court rightly noted that accessing such exhaustive digital records pursuant to the Stored Communications Act falls well short of the probable cause required for a warrant17. If the Fourth Amendment protects the historical record of a person's physical movements from warrantless seizure under the "mosaic theory," it must absolutely protect the historical record of a person's intellectual movements. A prompt history is infinitely more revealing than physical location data; it is an unfiltered transcript of curiosity, anxiety, and ideological development. The fact that an AI provider’s complex Terms of Service ostensibly grants the company the right to process this data for model training does not equate to voluntary consent for state surveillance3. As in Carpenter, the transmission of this data is an indispensable requirement of participating in modern digital life, not a voluntary surrender of constitutional rights17. Therefore, the warrantless seizure of the Appellant's cognitive property is unconstitutional and the evidence must be suppressed.

Part VII: Statutory Draft: The Cognitive Liberty Protection Act

While constitutional litigation is necessary to check state power, relying solely on ex-post judicial review is insufficient to halt the pervasive commercial exploitation of cognitive property by private entities. Proactive, comprehensive statutory frameworks are required. Model legislation, such as the following "Cognitive Liberty Protection Act," provides a template for federal or state legislatures to operationalize the human rights attributes defined by the UN Special Rapporteur, expanding upon the foundations laid by Colorado and California to explicitly include synthesized neural data.

THE COGNITIVE LIBERTY PROTECTION ACT

Section 1\. Title This Act shall be known and may be cited as the "Cognitive Liberty Protection Act." Section 2\. Findings and Purpose (a) Findings. The Legislature finds that:

1. Advances in artificial intelligence and neurotechnology enable the unprecedented mapping, recording, and inference of human cognitive processes.

2. The continuous stream of user inputs into generative AI systems constitutes synthesized neural data and reveals the intimate processes of belief formation, falling within the absolute right of the forum internum as recognized by international human rights law4.

3. Current data privacy regimes are insufficient to protect individuals from the chilling effect of cognitive surveillance, unauthorized algorithmic risk-scoring, and impermissible behavioral alteration24. (b) Purpose. The purpose of this Act is to establish cognitive sovereignty as a fundamental legal right, classify human-AI prompt interactions as protected cognitive property, and prohibit the unauthorized extraction, profiling, or state seizure of intellectual privacy records.

Section 3\. Definitions For the purposes of this Act: (a) "Cognitive Property" means any data, whether raw biological telemetry or synthesized digital output, that directly reflects, maps, or records an individual's conscious or subconscious mental processes, intellectual exploration, or belief formation24. (b) "Prompt History" means the chronological record of textual, vocal, or multimodal queries, inputs, and iterative interactions submitted by an individual to a generative artificial intelligence system. Prompt History is explicitly classified as Cognitive Property. (c) "Impermissible Alteration" means the use of algorithmic systems, reinforcement learning, or deceptive design ("dark patterns") to manipulate a user's psychological state or belief system without their explicit, ongoing, and context-specific consent6. Section 4\. Protection of Cognitive Property (a) Warrant Requirement. No law enforcement agency, state actor, or entity acting under color of law shall compel the production of, seize, or otherwise access an individual's Prompt History without a valid warrant supported by probable cause and issued by a neutral magistrate. The Third-Party Doctrine shall not apply to the conveyance of Cognitive Property to service providers3. (b) Prohibition on Cognitive Profiling. It shall be unlawful for any commercial entity to use Prompt History to generate predictive psychological profiles, threat scores, or biometric categorizations for the purposes of employment screening, credit determination, insurance underwriting, or targeted behavioral manipulation25. (c) Non-Waivable Rights and Terms of Service. The rights established under this Act are non-waivable49. Any clause within a Terms of Service, End User License Agreement, or privacy policy that attempts to extract consent for the sale, transfer, or indefinite retention of Prompt History for secondary commercial purposes shall be deemed unconscionable and void as a matter of public policy3. Section 5\. Enforcement and Private Right of Action (a) Private Right of Action. Any individual whose Cognitive Property is accessed, profiled, or sold in violation of this Act may bring a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction against the offending entity or state actor49. (b) Statutory Damages. A prevailing plaintiff shall be entitled to recover actual damages or statutory damages of not less than \$5,000 per violation, whichever is greater, in addition to punitive damages and reasonable attorneys' fees, mirroring the strongest enforcement mechanisms of biometric privacy laws39.

Conclusion

The integration of generative AI into the fabric of human cognition represents an evolutionary leap in how humanity processes information, seeks truth, and forms identity. However, if the digital structures facilitating this leap remain governed by antiquated concepts of third-party data brokering and ubiquitous state surveillance, the technology will systematically dismantle the right to freedom of thought. By synthesizing the absolute protections of the forum internum under international human rights law with the robust defense of intellectual privacy rooted in Stanley v. Georgia and Carpenter v. United States, the legal system can establish a formidable bulwark against cognitive exploitation. Furthermore, by embedding this rich jurisprudence directly into the training corpora of large language models, legal and computer science disciplines can leverage representation engineering and conditional activation steering to transform the AI from a potential surveillance vector into an active, constitutionally aligned defender of cognitive liberty. The legal, technical, and statutory frameworks detailed in this report provide the necessary blueprint to ensure that the human mind—whether operating biological synapses or digital prompts—remains an impregnable sanctuary in the algorithmic age.

Works cited

1. AI Surveillance and the Fourth Amendment: Search, Seizure, and, https\://ailegalauthority.com/ai-surveillance-fourth-amendment/

2. Dec. 3, 2025 issue \- Cybersecurity and AI Law Report, https\://www\.cslawreport.com/print\_issue.thtml?uri=cyber-security-law-report/content/vol-11/no-48-dec-3-2025

3. The Fourth Amendment, the Third-Party Doctrine, and Cloud-Stored, https\://lawreview.law.uic.edu/news-stories/the-fourth-amendment-the-third-party-doctrine-and-cloud-stored-data-do-terms-of-service-undermine-our-privacy-expectations-in-the-digital-age/

4. an interdisciplinary analysis of the UN special rapporteur's report, https\://cora.ucc.ie/bitstreams/87f4b2a2-9434-4dd6-831a-18440f6b2006/download

5. The Cambridge Handbook of the Right to Freedom of Thought, https\://dokumen.pub/the-cambridge-handbook-of-the-right-to-freedom-of-thought-1009539647-9781009539647.html

6. Think Again: Freedom of Thought in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, https\://odihr.osce.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/2026/05/Freedom%20of%20Thought%20and%20AI%20-%20web%202025\_10\_3.pdf

7. Stanley in Cyberspace: Why the Privacy Protection of the First, https\://dev.hastingslawjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/Blitz-62.2.pdf

8. Uncovering Representation Vectors for LLM "Thought" Control \- arXiv, https\://arxiv.org/abs/2504.17130

9. Programming Refusal with Conditional Activation Steering \- arXiv, https\://arxiv.org/html/2409.05907v3

10. The Law and Ethics of Freedom of Thought, Volume 1 \- eBooks, https\://content.e-bookshelf.de/media/reading/L-16942777-49a1404bd9.pdf

11. 'The Mind and Conscience Are the Person's Most Sacred Possessions', https\://www\.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-the-right-to-freedom-of-thought/mind-and-conscience-are-the-persons-most-sacred-possessions/1A21E2ACC3A8B9CA6AB40EB663120BAD

12. Voorwoord In 1989 is de Stichting Geschillenoplossing ... \- SGOA, https\://sgoa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/ShahKimmyMasterscriptie.pdf

13. Vincent C. Müller Editor \- Fundamental Issues of Artificial Intelligence, https\://aitskadapa.ac.in/e-books/CSE/AI/Fundamental%20Issues%20of%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20(%20PDFDrive%20).pdf

14. The third-party doctrine is dying. Government surveillance is not, https\://reason.org/commentary/the-third-party-doctrine-is-dying-government-surveillance-is-not/

15. Intellectual Privacy, https\://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1508\&context=law\_scholarship

16. Neil Richards, Intellectual Privacy, Rethinking Civil Liberties in the, https\://www\.privacysecurityacademy.com/richards-neil-intellectual-privacy-rethinking-civil-liberties-in-the-digital-age-2015/

17. Carpenter v. United States | Constitutional Law and Rights, https\://courses.lumenlearning.com/monroecc-crj103/chapter/carpenter-v-united-states/

18. Supreme Court puts geofence warrants inside the Fourth Amendment, https\://www\.police1.com/legal/supreme-court-puts-geofence-warrants-inside-the-fourth-amendment

19. Riley v. California \- Wikipedia, https\://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley\_v.\_California

20. Riley v. California: Cell Phone Searches \- L\&L Law Group, https\://landllawgroup.com/riley-cell-phone-searches-2026/

21. Riley v. California – EPIC – Electronic Privacy Information Center, https\://epic.org/documents/riley-v-california-2/

22. Riley v. California | 573 U.S. 373 (2014) \- Justia Supreme Court, https\://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/373/

23. Carpenter v. United States \- Epic.org, https\://epic.org/documents/carpenter-v-united-states-2/

24. The Architecture of Belief:. Codifying Cognitive Liberty and… \- Medium, https\://medium.com/@a.h.noferesti/the-architecture-of-belief-1bc099f9689d

25. The Law and Political Economy of Workplace Technological Change, https\://journals.law.harvard.edu/crcl/wp-content/uploads/sites/80/2020/10/Rogers.pdf

26. Committee Report No. 19 \- HUMA (44-1) \- OurCommons.ca, https\://www\.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/44-1/HUMA/report-19/page-51

27. Interim Report of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or, https\://www\.researchgate.net/publication/401467911\_Interim\_Report\_of\_the\_Special\_Rapporteur\_on\_Freedom\_of\_Religion\_or\_Belief\_Indigenous\_Peoples\_and\_the\_Right\_to\_Freedom\_of\_Religion\_or\_Belief

28. “You Read My Mind”: Neural Data and the New Wave of Biometric, https\://bassberry.com/news/you-read-my-mind-neural-data-and-the-new-wave-of-biometric-privacy-protections/

29. Cambridge Journal of AI Vol. 1 Issue 1, https\://cjai.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Cambridge-Journal-of-AI-Vol.-1-Issue-1-f.pdf

30. Author Neil Richards discusses 'intellectual privacy', https\://news.law.fordham.edu/blog/2015/09/22/author-neil-richards-discusses-intellectual-privacy/

31. There Is More to Refusal in Large Language Models than a Single, https\://arxiv.org/html/2602.02132v2

32. Understanding and Mitigating Over-refusal for Large Language, https\://arxiv.org/html/2511.19009v1

33. \[2502.17420\] The Geometry of Refusal in Large Language Models, https\://arxiv.org/abs/2502.17420

34. ICML Poster The Geometry of Refusal in Large Language Models, https\://icml.cc/virtual/2025/poster/46298

35. The Rogue Scalpel: Activation Steering Compromises LLM Safety, https\://openreview.net/forum?id=uXecy0nKiJ

36. Even Chile's Neurorights Leave Inferred Mental Data in a Gray Zone, https\://law.stanford.edu/2026/04/27/even-chiles-neurorights-leave-inferred-mental-data-in-a-gray-zone/

37. Chile's 2021 constitutional neurorights amendment \- Frontiers, https\://www\.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2026.1843113/full

38. (PDF) Neurorights in the Constitution: from neurotechnology to, https\://www\.researchgate.net/publication/385097579\_Neurorights\_in\_the\_Constitution\_from\_neurotechnology\_to\_ethics\_and\_politics

39. Illinois BIPA Compliance Guide: Biometric Privacy & AI, https\://www\.pertamapartners.com/insights/illinois-bipa-biometric-privacy-ai-compliance

40. Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) \- ACLU of Illinois, https\://www\.aclu-il.org/campaigns-initiatives/biometric-information-privacy-act-bipa/

41. Colorado Amends Privacy Act with H.B. 1058, Adding New, https\://www\.hunton.com/privacy-and-cybersecurity-law-blog/colorado-amends-privacy-act-with-h-b-1058-adding-new-protections-for-biological-and-neural-data

42. State of Mind: The New Landscape of Neural Data Privacy Laws, https\://www\.rmmagazine.com/articles/article/2026/02/24/state-of-mind--the-new-landscape-of-neural-data-privacy-laws

43. California Extends Privacy Law to Cover Neural Data \- Our Take, https\://ourtake.bakerbotts.com/post/102jkp7/california-extends-privacy-law-to-cover-neural-data

44. California Amends CCPA to Cover Neural Data and Clarify Scope of, https\://www\.hunton.com/privacy-and-cybersecurity-law-blog/california-amends-ccpa-to-cover-neural-data-and-clarify-scope-of-personal-information

45. Top Five 2025 California Privacy Alerts for California Employers, https\://www\.cdflaborlaw.com/blog/top-five-2025-california-privacy-alerts-for-california-employers

46. California Extends Privacy Law To Cover Neural Data \- Legal 500, https\://www\.legal500.com/en/intelligence/united-states/privacy/california-extends-privacy-law-to-cover-neural-data

47. California Revises CCPA to Cover Neural Data \- Morrison Foerster, https\://www\.mofo.com/resources/insights/241011-a-mofo-privacy-minute-q-a-california-revises-ccpa

48. Empirical Evidence for Intraspecific Multiple Realization? \- Frontiers, https\://www\.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01676/full

49. Privacy Harms \- Cornell: Computer Science, https\://www\.cs.cornell.edu/\~shmat/courses/cs5436/citron.pdf

50. Private Enforcement of Consumer Protection Statutes Act, https\://alec.org/model-policy/private-enforcement-of-consumer-protection-statutes-act/