Neural-data privacy is a legitimate frontier issue and worth regulating proactively — that part is fair. But the specific claim is misleading because it presents a speculative dystopia as current reality. Today Neuralink is a small clinical-trial device implanted in a few dozen people with paralysis, operating under FDA oversight and informed-consent protocols; the data involved are motor-intent signals used to move a cursor, not a readout of private thoughts, and there is no evidence Neuralink is selling brain data. The “mind-reading surveillance” framing misunderstands the technology: decoding intended movement is a long way from extracting memories or thoughts. Reasonable people can demand strong neural-privacy laws and data-handling standards now, before such devices scale — but “Neuralink harvests and sells your brain data” describes a fear, not a documented fact.