1. It’s reusable
2. It predicts behavior
3. It creates personalized recommendations
4. It improves business outcomes
5. It boosts revenue.
1. Everyone has the right to control their personal data
2. Everyone is entitled to use their own personal data according to their will, so long as this use does not infringe upon the human rights and dignity of any other person
3. No one shall use the personal data of another person without receiving their free and informed consent
Philosophical Discussion
"Data is the new oil." What does this mean?
Data cannot be used unless it's refined.
When refined it can be used for incredibly profitable activities.
Whoever controls the sources of data has a lot of power.
1. It’s reusable
2. It predicts behavior
3. It creates personalized recommendations
4. It improves business outcomes
5. It boosts revenue.
Companies like Google and Facebook have generated a large part of their wealth from the data collected on on consumers. You can sell your data through online marketplaces, like DataCoup,
Your activity in cyberspace has a digital footprint. It produces a tangible and valuable asset, data that can be collected, processed, transferred, and sold.
This data is not an abstract entity. It is an electronic signal that has a physical existence. Kind of like property! This model intends to promote privacy and security without compromising freedom of expression.
However, the right to property does not sufficiently ensure that the rights of the individual and the usage of their personal data is properly respected.
Defining Right to Property ▼
John Locke, one of the most influential philosophers on property, theorized the right to property stems from the exertion of labor upon natural resources. Locke posited that the earth, and all its resources, were originally given to humanity by God.
When an individual mixes their labor with natural resources, that individual acquires a right to the resulting property.
Why is this important? this view has influenced the development of our society, embedding the concept of individual ownership and the right to property as a fundamental human right.
How does this definition fit in today’s world? ▼
In today's digital age, Locke's traditional notion of property faces numerous challenges in adapting to the intangible nature of digital data and assets.
In the digital age, personal data encompasses a wide range of information, from basic things like names and addresses to more complex data points like online behavior and preferences.
Unlike tangible assets that can be clearly owned and controlled, personal data is intangible, fluid, and often shared across multiple platforms and entities, making the application of traditional property rights problematic.
Why is this a problem? ▼
The challenge: dual nature of personal data.
It is both an extension of the individual, akin to a personal attribute, and a commodity that can be traded, processed, and monetized by corporations and governments. This duality raises questions about consent, ownership, and the extent of control individuals have over their personal information.
It is therefore imperative that a new definition and understanding is generated. Here, we believe that usage is a more appropriate term for our current times than the traditional notions of property or ownership.
Current Protections: Harm-Based Prevention
Creating a property regime in personal data, under which the property entitlement belongs to the data subject and is partially alienable. -Jacob Victor, The Yale Law Journal
As with any market, the trade of data is subject to regulations. Historically, data privacy rights in the US have been rooted in a harm-prevention-based model ▼
What is the harm-prevention-based model? Protections are intended to mitigate harms from the collection and trade of data in specific sectors. In the US, jurisprudential focus has been on cognizable harms or damages that result from privacy invasions defined under statutory or common law.
There is a problem with harm-prevention based model... ▼
Courts almost always require a showing of damages before the victim is afforded due remedy →
this often not quantifiable!
While financial or emotional harm may be a consequence of such a practice, these should not be the primary goal of data protections.
Moving away from a propertized personal data regime
A bundle of interests rather than a despotic dominion over a thing. - Paul Schwartz (theorist of data property)
Imagine the following scenario:
You go to a coffee shop to meet a friend.
Unbeknownst to you, a man is sitting in the corner recording every detail of your conversation.
While creepy, we wouldn’t consider this to be a violation of your right to property.
In fact, there is a tiny sign on the cashier’s desk stating, in almost indecipherable print, that anyone entering the coffee shop consents to the man in the corner recording their conversation.
Online content platforms function in much the same way. When we enter a website, we unknowingly accept the terms and conditions for use. This usually relinquishs ownership over our property, whether that be emails, geolocation, photographs, or comments.
Rather than focusing on the way that personal data is treated as a commodity by corporations, we should be giving authority back to consumers to determine how their personal data should be used.
Applying the right to property implies that our personal data:
1. something that is alienable
2. something that can be used by others to generate value
A right to the control of our personal data protects us from the commodification of our data. It ensures that we are the ones to decide how and by whom our data will be used.
Right to Data Ownership and Control Case Study Analysis: Open Source Software
What is an Open Source Software...? ▼
Open source software provides publicly acessible source code which allows for collaboration and contribution.
Application to License of Data... ▼
Open source licenses promote transparency by making the terms of use clear and accessible to the users. Consent for personal data should be similarly transparent, providing individuals with information about how their data will be used and enabling them to hold data controllers accountable for complying with their consent preferences.
Standardization and Licensing ▼
The Open Source Initiative (OSI) maintains the Open Source Definition, a criteria that open-source licenses must meet. Similarly, license of data can specify essential details such as the scope of permitted use, duration of the license, restrictions on data handling, confidentiality requirements.
"Open Source Lisence" to "License of Data"?
1.Transparent Visible Terms and Use:
2.Protection of Ownership and Rights Under Objective Regulatory Framework with Definition?
"The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software."
Some data that this site has gathered since you accessed this site: