3 ms·

Though, it would seem like data in general is more commercializable now than it was a century ago. I certainly don't want to be the person to have to draw a li

Though, it would seem like data in general is more commercializable now than it was a century ago. I certainly don't want to be the person to have to draw a line in the sand between "non commercial data" and "commercial data". Then again, maybe I want to sell access to brain scans of people using hardware I made to a 3rd Party in the future… :P

thatcat 9y ago
Its not any harder than labeling things for tax purposes. If you sell it, it is commercial and should have restrictions on how it's held and transmitted. It's not unreasonable to require part of that process to involve payment to the data originator, as a royalty for the unique data they created. This would also allow those creating the data an easy way to see how it is ultimately used.
- cinquemb 9y ago
  >Its not any harder than labeling things for tax purposes. And how many countries are companies able to skirt through financial engineering? Yeah, people can create all the rules they want, but I'm more interested in how people plan on enforcing it… because from where I sit, that's where countries are lacking (esp with politicians accepting some kind of bribes/kickbacks/revolving door/election financing/lobbying doors in them all), and it isn't getting any better… Even when the hardware for brain scans get cheaper and more open, the raw data it self in the hands of the average WeChat/Facebook/Line, user is useless unless one understands how to process it into something useable… Companies that can attract talent will increasingly start making all the data that they collect public by default… side stepping the pain of data breeches when you keep costs down by making it public by default… how they process it, that's a different story… maybe those companies will get their useds pissed off enough to actually think about their choices of using their platforms and not use them… though, that last part seems increasingly unlikely.

thatcat 9y ago

Its not any harder than labeling things for tax purposes. If you sell it, it is commercial and should have restrictions on how it's held and transmitted. It's not unreasonable to require part of that process to involve payment to the data originator, as a royalty for the unique data they created. This would also allow those creating the data an easy way to see how it is ultimately used.

cinquemb 9y ago
>Its not any harder than labeling things for tax purposes. And how many countries are companies able to skirt through financial engineering? Yeah, people can create all the rules they want, but I'm more interested in how people plan on enforcing it… because from where I sit, that's where countries are lacking (esp with politicians accepting some kind of bribes/kickbacks/revolving door/election financing/lobbying doors in them all), and it isn't getting any better… Even when the hardware for brain scans get cheaper and more open, the raw data it self in the hands of the average WeChat/Facebook/Line, user is useless unless one understands how to process it into something useable… Companies that can attract talent will increasingly start making all the data that they collect public by default… side stepping the pain of data breeches when you keep costs down by making it public by default… how they process it, that's a different story… maybe those companies will get their useds pissed off enough to actually think about their choices of using their platforms and not use them… though, that last part seems increasingly unlikely.