3 ms·

Data ownership sounds great but is incoherent as a concept as we get lower down the IP to information spectrum. Intellectual Property has strong protections un

Data ownership sounds great but is incoherent as a concept as we get lower down the IP to information spectrum. Intellectual Property has strong protections under copyright law. If I copyright a photo, or publish a book of my web browsing history, I can sue the pants off anyone who attempts to use it with permissions outside of fair use. The protections are strong, and the enforcement mechanisms are strong (though expensive). Automated information collection (data), does not have strong permissions, because there is a fundamental blurring of system logs and user tracking. It is necessary to know what external systems are interacting with your systems to ensure system integrity and availability (can't IP ban without knowing IP addresses). So there is obviously legitimate collection and usage of this data. Not to mention weak enforcement mechanisms for privacy. So weak protections, weak enforcement (and enforcement is still expensive).

butokai 3y ago
Your suggestion of publishing a book with one's browsing history really sounds interesting. Did anybody try something along these lines? I had never thought about privacy as part of the same spectrum as IP protection.
seydor 3y ago
It doesn't have protection because the law did not protect it, and indeed the law protects the big tech, up until today. It's not incoherent
pulvinar 3y ago
A problem is that facts are not copyrightable, in the US anyway[0]. You can copyright your browsing history book but anyone can use the facts in it or even republish them in a different format with their own copyright. [0] Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991)
jart 3y ago
This comes so close to speaking the truth. Take the thought to its logical conclusion. I think of online services like I think of my local bodega. You can't run a store if it's illegal for you to see or have any knowledge about the people who walk into your store. No store owner ever said, "I have a legitimate need of being able to see the people who walk into my store, just so I can prevent theft, and I immediately forget about all my customers after 48 hours." Store owners want to be able to develop relationships with the people who walk into their stores. That requires getting to know the person. Finding out what things they like. So they can make sure their shelves are stocked with their favorite things. And that's basically all tech companies want. When people talk about privacy in this context, it comes across to me like someone who doesn't want anyone to know they've visited the local porn store. Not that far from the truth if we consider how consumers used the web during its first decade of history. The web has evolved since then but that culture stuck and turned into policy. Tech is profoundly anti-social by default, and the only way that tech companies can be successful (e.g. Twitter, Facebook) is by overcoming that to create spaces where people can know the people they're interacting with online. So when people say they don't think tech companies should be able to have knowledge or information about people, what they're really saying is they don't want tech companies to be successful.
- akavel 3y ago
  When I visit a bodega, the bodega owner looks me in the eye, and I can look them back in the eye. They can develop a relation with me, and I can with them. If instead I enter a bodega where all the walls are one-way mirrors, where I can only interact with the hidden bodega owner by putting my money in a slot then waiting to receive goods through another slot, and an unspecified number of bodega employees are watching, analyzing, tracking, drawing, and recording my every move while they themselves are hidden behind the mirrors, I'm not that fine about this. See also probably "power imbalance" or something like this.

butokai 3y ago

Your suggestion of publishing a book with one's browsing history really sounds interesting. Did anybody try something along these lines? I had never thought about privacy as part of the same spectrum as IP protection.

seydor 3y ago

It doesn't have protection because the law did not protect it, and indeed the law protects the big tech, up until today. It's not incoherent

pulvinar 3y ago

A problem is that facts are not copyrightable, in the US anyway[0]. You can copyright your browsing history book but anyone can use the facts in it or even republish them in a different format with their own copyright. [0] Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991)

jart 3y ago

This comes so close to speaking the truth. Take the thought to its logical conclusion. I think of online services like I think of my local bodega. You can't run a store if it's illegal for you to see or have any knowledge about the people who walk into your store. No store owner ever said, "I have a legitimate need of being able to see the people who walk into my store, just so I can prevent theft, and I immediately forget about all my customers after 48 hours." Store owners want to be able to develop relationships with the people who walk into their stores. That requires getting to know the person. Finding out what things they like. So they can make sure their shelves are stocked with their favorite things. And that's basically all tech companies want. When people talk about privacy in this context, it comes across to me like someone who doesn't want anyone to know they've visited the local porn store. Not that far from the truth if we consider how consumers used the web during its first decade of history. The web has evolved since then but that culture stuck and turned into policy. Tech is profoundly anti-social by default, and the only way that tech companies can be successful (e.g. Twitter, Facebook) is by overcoming that to create spaces where people can know the people they're interacting with online. So when people say they don't think tech companies should be able to have knowledge or information about people, what they're really saying is they don't want tech companies to be successful.

akavel 3y ago
When I visit a bodega, the bodega owner looks me in the eye, and I can look them back in the eye. They can develop a relation with me, and I can with them. If instead I enter a bodega where all the walls are one-way mirrors, where I can only interact with the hidden bodega owner by putting my money in a slot then waiting to receive goods through another slot, and an unspecified number of bodega employees are watching, analyzing, tracking, drawing, and recording my every move while they themselves are hidden behind the mirrors, I'm not that fine about this. See also probably "power imbalance" or something like this.