4 ms·

Thinking out loud here. This ownership analogy isn't working well, because ownership is a concept invented for physical things, whereas data can be copied. We

Thinking out loud here. This ownership analogy isn't working well, because ownership is a concept invented for physical things, whereas data can be copied. We can keep it, and pass it on. We know from copyright how painful it is, to put ownership on digital "things". Did data ownership ever work like that in the physical world? Say we see a person walk by, someplace, at some time: is my sensory impression and memory like data? Is it a privacy intrusion to remember that later? Tell somebody? What would be the equivalent online? (Do we have a private "house" online, and public space?)

devoply 8y ago
Yes. It's called copyright and intellectual property. Literally the right to copy.
palehose 8y ago
If the person who walks by did something memorable and unique then we do own that experience and it very much translates into meaningful data. If I was a witness to a crime happening on the street I can convey that information to the police or media as a witness. Even if it was something silly I witnessed it might make a good story to tell friends about. I own the decision to tell others or not.
kaxline 8y ago
There are types of situations where I think it gets really blurry and complicated, but I think we need to start with things that we intuitively feel like we own, like DNA, or the 3D map of our face. Then as we move out into grayer territory we can rely on precedent, social norms, or consensus to draw lines where needed.
max76 8y ago
> Did data ownership ever work like that in the physical world? Insider trading is a crime in which someone takes an action based on data they had no right to. (Trading on corporate secrets, or data that belongs to the corporation and not the individual profiting.) If a student finds a copy of the answers to a test, even if the student finds the data in a completely legitimate way, it is considered academically dishonest for the student to take the test after learning this information. In many games learning certain information is considered cheating. For example, in Poker it is cheating to know another players cards expect after a player folds and chooses to show their cards. Until very recently it was illegal to make a copy of "Happy Birthday" in the form of a live performance at restaurants in the United States. Yes, in the real world data has owners and it can be illegal/restricted to provide copies of the data or to perform certain actions with the data.
- febeling 8y ago
  Nice examples, yes. I hope I didn't come across as someone from the if-you-don't-have-anything-to-hide crowd. I do think your conclusion is a bit quick, though. > Yes, in the real world data has owners Things happen in the real world, and people perceive and know it as a consequence. We came to call some of that data (if recorded with machines I guess). We wouldn't think of perceptions in terms of ownership. It just wouldn't work. We don't have a response for intrusion, e.g. If someone catches us in the act, there's just no protocol. We often just pretend it didn't happen, and are embarrassed. You can't unsee it, or punish someone for seeing something private. We can throw them out of our house, if they trespass. But if they see you through the window, what do we do? My point earlier was only: ownership as an analogy for data is not as helpful as some think it is. But if you stick with ownership, you possibly end with making very strict rules around personally identifiable information (PIN), like in Europe. Some of that ends in log files, like IPs. I think that is a bit like walking by and peeking into a shop window. The shop owner might see you too (perception). Why is that the shoppers protected information? I think it's rigid and comes from off analogies. That's not to say some data doesn't need to be private. In the end, when this cultural development is further along the way, we might have very specific rules. Like with books, and movies, which have fair-use rules etc.
thatoneuser 8y ago
The physical analogy is different because a hundred years ago we couldn't infer a lot of very sensitive and private information from easily accessible public info. Hell - our longest lived president was wheelchair bound and wouldn't have won his last election or two in the modern day. The only reason he got in was because they hid his disability from the public. Can you imagine trump getting away with that now? Back in the day of physical goods privacy was plentiful. Now it's a scarcity. The difference is not just between physician and intangible property. It's a complex matrix and at some point we have to protect citizens to accomodate to the world that we live in.

devoply 8y ago

Yes. It's called copyright and intellectual property. Literally the right to copy.

palehose 8y ago

If the person who walks by did something memorable and unique then we do own that experience and it very much translates into meaningful data. If I was a witness to a crime happening on the street I can convey that information to the police or media as a witness. Even if it was something silly I witnessed it might make a good story to tell friends about. I own the decision to tell others or not.

kaxline 8y ago

There are types of situations where I think it gets really blurry and complicated, but I think we need to start with things that we intuitively feel like we own, like DNA, or the 3D map of our face. Then as we move out into grayer territory we can rely on precedent, social norms, or consensus to draw lines where needed.

max76 8y ago

> Did data ownership ever work like that in the physical world? Insider trading is a crime in which someone takes an action based on data they had no right to. (Trading on corporate secrets, or data that belongs to the corporation and not the individual profiting.) If a student finds a copy of the answers to a test, even if the student finds the data in a completely legitimate way, it is considered academically dishonest for the student to take the test after learning this information. In many games learning certain information is considered cheating. For example, in Poker it is cheating to know another players cards expect after a player folds and chooses to show their cards. Until very recently it was illegal to make a copy of "Happy Birthday" in the form of a live performance at restaurants in the United States. Yes, in the real world data has owners and it can be illegal/restricted to provide copies of the data or to perform certain actions with the data.

febeling 8y ago
Nice examples, yes. I hope I didn't come across as someone from the if-you-don't-have-anything-to-hide crowd. I do think your conclusion is a bit quick, though. > Yes, in the real world data has owners Things happen in the real world, and people perceive and know it as a consequence. We came to call some of that data (if recorded with machines I guess). We wouldn't think of perceptions in terms of ownership. It just wouldn't work. We don't have a response for intrusion, e.g. If someone catches us in the act, there's just no protocol. We often just pretend it didn't happen, and are embarrassed. You can't unsee it, or punish someone for seeing something private. We can throw them out of our house, if they trespass. But if they see you through the window, what do we do? My point earlier was only: ownership as an analogy for data is not as helpful as some think it is. But if you stick with ownership, you possibly end with making very strict rules around personally identifiable information (PIN), like in Europe. Some of that ends in log files, like IPs. I think that is a bit like walking by and peeking into a shop window. The shop owner might see you too (perception). Why is that the shoppers protected information? I think it's rigid and comes from off analogies. That's not to say some data doesn't need to be private. In the end, when this cultural development is further along the way, we might have very specific rules. Like with books, and movies, which have fair-use rules etc.

thatoneuser 8y ago

The physical analogy is different because a hundred years ago we couldn't infer a lot of very sensitive and private information from easily accessible public info. Hell - our longest lived president was wheelchair bound and wouldn't have won his last election or two in the modern day. The only reason he got in was because they hid his disability from the public. Can you imagine trump getting away with that now? Back in the day of physical goods privacy was plentiful. Now it's a scarcity. The difference is not just between physician and intangible property. It's a complex matrix and at some point we have to protect citizens to accomodate to the world that we live in.