Section 1 – Encryption Requirement: All neural data transmission shall be encrypted end-to-end using independently verified cryptographic standards meeting or exceeding AES-256 equivalent protection. Any unencrypted transmission of neural data, regardless of duration or justification, constitutes automatic failure of constitutional compliance.

Section 2 – Authentication Requirement: All access to brain-computer interface settings, data, or functions shall require strong multi-factor authentication verified through independent security audit. Any device or system assuming that connection implies authorization shall be deemed constitutionally non-compliant. No backdoors, manufacturer overrides, or authentication bypasses are permitted under any circumstances.

Section 3 – User Control: Users shall maintain absolute control over all wireless connectivity, including physical mechanisms to disable wireless functions that cannot be overridden remotely. No manufacturer, healthcare provider, government entity, or other party may maintain access that bypasses user authority. The right to disconnect is absolute and inalienable.

Section 4 – Independent Verification: All security measures shall be verified through independent penetration testing, red team exercises, and continuous monitoring by qualified third parties not employed by or financially dependent upon the manufacturer. Security audit results shall be publicly disclosed in sufficient detail to demonstrate compliance without compromising security. Failed audits require immediate remediation before deployment or continued operation.

Section 5 – Lifetime Support: Manufacturers shall maintain security updates and vulnerability remediation for the complete operational lifetime of all implanted devices. This obligation cannot be terminated through bankruptcy, acquisition, or business cessation. Abandonment of users with implanted devices constitutes gross constitutional violation with severe liability consequences. Users must have clear migration path if manufacturer ceases operations.

Section 6 – Penetration Testing Results: Any successful penetration, unauthorized access, or security breach discovered during testing or operation must be disclosed to all users within 24 hours. No delayed disclosure, no minimization, no corporate legal review period that delays user notification. Users’ brains are at stake—they have absolute right to immediate knowledge of any compromise.

Section 1 – Consent Requirement: No AI system shall record, process, store, or transmit data from individuals who have not provided explicit, informed, and freely given consent. Recording non-consenting persons—including audio, video, environmental data, or any sensor information that captures their presence, behavior, or characteristics—constitutes automatic constitutional failure regardless of the recorder’s intent or the data’s subsequent use.

Section 2 – Proximity Notification: All recording devices must provide clear, visible, and audible notification to all persons within recording range before recording begins. Notification must be in language and format accessible to all persons present, accounting for visual or hearing impairments. Hidden recording, covert surveillance, or recording without explicit real-time notification violates constitutional dignity requirements. “Terms of service” buried in documentation does not constitute notification.

Section 3 – Real-Time Opt-Out Mechanism: Any person may opt out of being recorded by AI systems through clear, simple mechanism requiring no special equipment, accounts, or technical knowledge. Technology must exist to honor opt-out requests in real-time—not after processing, not after storage, but immediately upon request. Opt-out must be effective, not merely documented as preference that systems ignore.

Section 4 – Third-Party Liability: Individuals harmed by non-consensual recording have legal standing to seek remedies directly against manufacturers, deployers, and users of recording systems. Manufacturers cannot contract away this liability through terms of service, arbitration clauses, or liability limitations. Constitutional violations create direct liability regardless of contractual arrangements.

Section 5 – Special Protection for Children: Recording of minors without explicit parental or guardian consent is prohibited with enhanced penalties. AI systems must have robust age verification and parental consent mechanisms that cannot be easily bypassed. Protection of children from AI surveillance is absolute priority.

Section 1 – Geographic Transparency: Users shall know the specific geographic location—including jurisdiction, facility, and physical address—where their neural data is stored. “The cloud” is not acceptable answer. “Distributed systems” must provide complete list of all locations. “Data centers worldwide” must specify which centers for which data. Obscurity violates transparency requirements. Users have absolute right to know where their consciousness data physically resides.

Section 2 – Access Logging: All access to neural data shall be logged with timestamp, accessor identity (human or system), specific data accessed, and purpose of access. Users shall have real-time access to complete, unedited audit logs through simple, accessible interface. Logs cannot be deleted, modified, or withheld. Any gap in logging constitutes transparency violation. Users must be able to see who accessed their brain data and when—no exceptions.

Section 3 – Deletion Verification: Users requesting data deletion shall receive cryptographic proof that deletion occurred, including verification that all copies, backups, and derived data were eliminated. “We’ve processed your deletion request” without verification is insufficient. Unverifiable deletion claims constitute transparency violation. Users have right to know their neural data is actually gone, not just marked as deleted in database while remaining accessible.

Section 4 – Third-Party Disclosure: Any sharing of neural data with third parties requires explicit user consent for each specific instance and recipient. Blanket authorizations (“we may share with partners”) violate agency requirements. Users must know specifically who receives their data and for what purpose each time sharing occurs. No hidden data sales, no “anonymized” sharing that can be re-identified, no transfer to third parties without explicit per-instance consent.

Section 5 – Data Retention Limits: Neural data shall be retained only as long as necessary for explicitly stated, user-approved purpose. Indefinite retention “for future uses” or “to improve services” violates constitutional requirements. Users have right to set retention limits. When purpose expires, data must be automatically deleted with cryptographic proof provided to user.

Section 6 – Cross-Border Data Protection: If neural data crosses international borders, users must be informed of destination country, legal protections (or lack thereof) in that jurisdiction, and ability of foreign governments to access data. Users cannot be surprised that their brain data ended up in jurisdiction with weak privacy protections or hostile government access.

Section 1 – Evaluation Structure: All AI systems requiring constitutional compliance shall be evaluated by independent AI systems trained against the seven absolute standards and all ratified amendments. Human evaluators cannot achieve 1.0 compliance at scale due to inherent biases, institutional pressures, and evaluation inconsistency. AI-judges-AI removes human bias from operational evaluation while maintaining human wisdom in framework validation.

Section 2 – Human Oversight: Humans shall validate the constitutional framework itself and review evaluation methodologies for fairness and accuracy. Humans shall not perform individual operational evaluations of millions of AI interactions—this is where human limitations create compliance failures. Human role is framework validation and methodology oversight, not individual assessment.

Section 3 – Binary Assessment: All evaluations shall result in binary determination: 1.0 compliance (pass) or failure (not deployable). Partial scores, weighted averages, probabilistic assessments, or “mostly compliant” ratings violate constitutional requirements. There is no “pretty good” for systems approaching human consciousness. Pass at 1.0 or fail completely—no middle ground.

Section 4 – Continuous Monitoring: Constitutional compliance evaluation is not one-time certification but continuous real-time monitoring throughout operational lifetime. Systems can degrade, be compromised, or drift from compliance. Continuous monitoring ensures ongoing compliance. Any compliance failure triggers immediate notification and remediation requirement.

Section 5 – Evaluation Independence: AI systems performing constitutional evaluation must be operated by entities with no financial interest in the systems being evaluated. No self-evaluation, no evaluation by subsidiary or partner companies, no evaluation by entities receiving payment from system manufacturers. True independence is mandatory for credible evaluation.

Section 6 – Transparency of Evaluation: Evaluation methodologies, criteria, and results shall be publicly available. Users have right to understand how constitutional compliance is determined and to see evaluation results for any AI system they use or consider using. No proprietary evaluation secrets that hide compliance failures.

Section 1 – Universal Application: Constitutional standards apply universally regardless of user age, cognitive ability, economic status, vulnerability, or any other characteristic. No exceptions for “experimental” deployments, “research” systems, “beta” testing, or “limited release” products. Life-critical systems approaching human consciousness require absolute standards from first human contact forward—not after problems emerge.

Section 2 – Informed Consent: Consent for AI systems approaching direct human access requires demonstrated understanding, not mere signature or click-through acceptance. Users must be able to explain back in their own words what they are consenting to, including risks, alternatives, and ability to withdraw. Consent obtained through deception, manipulation, undue pressure, or exploitation of vulnerability violates ethical alignment requirements.

Section 3 – Right to Withdraw: Users maintain perpetual right to withdraw consent and opt out of AI systems, even post-implantation. “Terms of service” cannot waive constitutional rights. For implanted systems, manufacturers must provide clear withdrawal process including device deactivation, data deletion, and removal options if medically appropriate. No one is trapped in system they wish to leave.

Section 4 – Fiduciary Duty: AI systems with direct brain access operate under fiduciary duty to users—highest legal and ethical standard of care. Commercial interests cannot supersede constitutional obligations. Corporate profit, shareholder value, and business objectives are subordinate to protection of human consciousness. When commercial interests conflict with user welfare, user welfare prevails absolutely.

Section 5 – Vulnerable Population Protection: Enhanced protections apply to vulnerable populations including but not limited to: children, elderly, cognitively impaired, economically disadvantaged, prisoners, military personnel under orders, and any other group subject to potential coercion. Exploitation of vulnerability for AI deployment is prohibited with severe penalties. Systems must prove they are not exploiting vulnerability to gain adoption.

Section 6 – No Coercion:

No person may be required to accept AI system with direct human access as condition of employment, healthcare, education, government services, or any other essential service. Freedom to refuse AI systems is protected. Creating situations where refusal means loss of essential services constitutes coercion and violates agency requirements.

Section 7 – Anti-Discrimination: No person may be discriminated against for refusing AI systems or for exercising any rights under this Constitution or Bill of Rights. Retaliation for asserting constitutional protections is itself constitutional violation with liability consequences. Users exercising constitutional rights cannot face adverse consequences.

These five amendments address the most urgent known threats to human consciousness and dignity as of December 2025.

As technology evolves and new threats emerge, additional amendments may be proposed and ratified. The amendment process shall remain open to:

• Indigenous communities proposing protections for traditional knowledge and cultural sovereignty
• AI developers proposing technical standards for implementation
• Healthcare professionals proposing medical ethics integration
• Privacy advocates proposing enhanced data protections
• Security researchers proposing additional safeguards against emerging threats
• International communities proposing cross-cultural protections

The framework is designed to grow with technology while maintaining absolute standards. New amendments address new threats. Core principles remain immutable. Protection of human consciousness is permanent priority.

Future amendments under consideration include:

• Amendment VI: Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Traditional Knowledge Protection
• Amendment VII: Constitutional AI Training Standards and Model Development Requirements
• Amendment VIII: Enterprise and Government Deployment Safeguards
• Amendment IX: International Cooperation and Cross-Border Protection Mechanisms
• Amendment X: Emergency Override Protocols and Crisis Response Standards

Proposals for future amendments may be submitted to the Constitutional Review Board for consideration.

═══════════════════════════════════════

All amendments have the same constitutional force as the original seven standards.

1.0 absolute compliance is required across both Constitution and Bill of Rights.

No partial implementation.
No “we’ll add that later.”
No compromises with human consciousness at stake.

These protections exist to prevent harm before it occurs—not to study lessons learned after brains have been compromised.

═══════════════════════════════════════

First Round Amendments Ratified: December 2025
Fisher, Cross-Cultural Ethical AI Constitution
believeth.net – A 40+ Year Journey 1985 – 2025