<p>Advances in Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) have intensified debates about their alleged capacity to read minds and the implications for mental privacy. Prevailing accounts often assume that brain data can reveal inner mental states, framing privacy as a matter of data protection. Yet experimental demonstrations, such as PIN decoding or semantic reconstruction, show that successful decoding depends on structured tasks, controlled stimuli, and participant cooperation. This paper asks: what does mind reading with BCIs really mean, how should such results be interpreted, and what are the ethical stakes? Drawing on enactivism, we reframe BCI-mediated mind reading not as direct access to hidden thoughts but as an interactional effect co-produced by technology, environment, and user engagement. From this perspective, protecting mental privacy requires more than controlling data: it must safeguard individuals’ autonomy and agency in sense-making and embodied expression. This reframing not only challenges inflated claims about BCI capabilities but also grounds a more robust ethical framework for protecting mental privacy and guiding neurotechnology governance.</p>