5 ms·

> Data can't be owned in the first place Of course it can. Ownership is a social construct. It’s more accurate to say data resists being controlled. But hones

> Data can't be owned in the first place Of course it can. Ownership is a social construct. It’s more accurate to say data resists being controlled. But honestly, so do e.g. air and mineral rights and the “ownership” of catalytic converters in cars parked on the street.

__MatrixMan__ 6mo ago
Yes, but it is a social contract governing things that can't be easily copied. We desperately need better social contracts which help us deal with data-about-me and data-i-created, but neither of those align very well with property.
- WarmWash 6mo ago
  I own paper money that is pretty easy to copy and worth far more than the paper it's on...
  - __MatrixMan__ 6mo ago
    Easier to copy than a bit?
    - WarmWash 6mo ago
      Trivially more difficult, kids in middle school were doing it so that bar isn't that high.
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
  > but it is a social contract governing things that can't be easily copied I think it’s fair to argue this makes data something that should not be able to be owned. But saying it can’t be owned is plain wrong.
  - __MatrixMan__ 6mo ago
    You're right. We can implement social contracts however we please. But regarding the particular implementation as codified in US law (and I think elsewhere also), property rights do not extend to data.
    - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
      > regarding the particular implementation as codified in US law (and I think elsewhere also), property rights do not extend to data Maybe not in general, though I’m curious for a source. Practically speaking, what separates data and information is a necessarily subjective exercise. And information absolutely can be property.
      - __MatrixMan__ 6mo ago
        What kind of source would satisfy you? There are laws about what happens to me if I break into your house and steal your property. I can therefore find you case precedent indicating that a TV is property because people have been charged with violating those laws when they steal a TV. But I can't present to you the absence of such a thing. We have trademark, copyright, and patent law, but as far as I'm aware there's no crosstalk with things that talk about property, things like armed robbery.
        JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
        > What kind of source would satisfy you Any lawyer making this argument. > I can't present to you the absence of such a thing I’m asking why you’re saying data theft isn’t codified under U.S. law. (It isn’t comprehensively, at least at the federal level. But it’s surprising to claim it doesn’t exist at all.)
randallsquared 6mo ago
We've built a lot of layers of social machinery on top of it, but looking at the behavior of animals, ownership predates humanity, let alone social convention. Coming at it from that direction, something can be private property only if it is defensible in principle. Physical objects meet this bar, but concepts and types do not.
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
  > something can be private property only if it is defensible in principle. Physical objects meet this bar, but concepts and types do not Why not? I sing song. You sing song. I beat you with stick because that’s my song. You stop singing song.
  - __MatrixMan__ 6mo ago
    Well it really comes down to how good you are with that stick. You "can" stop me from singing your song... But can you? You don't even know where I am.
    - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
      > You "can" stop me from singing your song... But can you? Yes. I kill you. Stealing was usually punishable by death in ancient cultures. > You don't even know where I am This isn’t a thing in early human societies. Like, yes, you could theoretically get away. Lots of thieves of physical property actually get away. That doesn’t make said property indefensible in principle.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 6mo ago
        >> You don't even know where I am > This isn’t a thing in early human societies. Sure it is. I hear you sing your song. I travel. I sing your song to other people while you're not around to hear it. You don't even know where I am. (Of course, there was never any "theft", as it were. I even paid to go to your concert!)
      - 6mo ago
sublinear 6mo ago
You don't distinguish between the data and the data source. Plenty of data becomes stale almost immediately. Plenty of data sources can be owned, but they also tend to be people.
margalabargala 6mo ago
There's multiple types of ownership. There's legal title. And then there's possession. AA clearly possesses this data. It's not incorrect for them to refer to it as "their" data, until and unless it is removed from their possession.
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
  > It's not incorrect for them to refer to it as "their" data Totally agree.

__MatrixMan__ 6mo ago

Yes, but it is a social contract governing things that can't be easily copied. We desperately need better social contracts which help us deal with data-about-me and data-i-created, but neither of those align very well with property.

WarmWash 6mo ago
I own paper money that is pretty easy to copy and worth far more than the paper it's on...
- __MatrixMan__ 6mo ago
  Easier to copy than a bit?
  - WarmWash 6mo ago
    Trivially more difficult, kids in middle school were doing it so that bar isn't that high.
JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
> but it is a social contract governing things that can't be easily copied I think it’s fair to argue this makes data something that should not be able to be owned. But saying it can’t be owned is plain wrong.
- __MatrixMan__ 6mo ago
  You're right. We can implement social contracts however we please. But regarding the particular implementation as codified in US law (and I think elsewhere also), property rights do not extend to data.
  - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
    > regarding the particular implementation as codified in US law (and I think elsewhere also), property rights do not extend to data Maybe not in general, though I’m curious for a source. Practically speaking, what separates data and information is a necessarily subjective exercise. And information absolutely can be property.
    - __MatrixMan__ 6mo ago
      What kind of source would satisfy you? There are laws about what happens to me if I break into your house and steal your property. I can therefore find you case precedent indicating that a TV is property because people have been charged with violating those laws when they steal a TV. But I can't present to you the absence of such a thing. We have trademark, copyright, and patent law, but as far as I'm aware there's no crosstalk with things that talk about property, things like armed robbery.
      - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
        > What kind of source would satisfy you Any lawyer making this argument. > I can't present to you the absence of such a thing I’m asking why you’re saying data theft isn’t codified under U.S. law. (It isn’t comprehensively, at least at the federal level. But it’s surprising to claim it doesn’t exist at all.)

randallsquared 6mo ago

We've built a lot of layers of social machinery on top of it, but looking at the behavior of animals, ownership predates humanity, let alone social convention. Coming at it from that direction, something can be private property only if it is defensible in principle. Physical objects meet this bar, but concepts and types do not.

JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
> something can be private property only if it is defensible in principle. Physical objects meet this bar, but concepts and types do not Why not? I sing song. You sing song. I beat you with stick because that’s my song. You stop singing song.
- __MatrixMan__ 6mo ago
  Well it really comes down to how good you are with that stick. You "can" stop me from singing your song... But can you? You don't even know where I am.
  - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
    > You "can" stop me from singing your song... But can you? Yes. I kill you. Stealing was usually punishable by death in ancient cultures. > You don't even know where I am This isn’t a thing in early human societies. Like, yes, you could theoretically get away. Lots of thieves of physical property actually get away. That doesn’t make said property indefensible in principle.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 6mo ago
      >> You don't even know where I am > This isn’t a thing in early human societies. Sure it is. I hear you sing your song. I travel. I sing your song to other people while you're not around to hear it. You don't even know where I am. (Of course, there was never any "theft", as it were. I even paid to go to your concert!)
    - 6mo ago

sublinear 6mo ago

You don't distinguish between the data and the data source. Plenty of data becomes stale almost immediately. Plenty of data sources can be owned, but they also tend to be people.

margalabargala 6mo ago

There's multiple types of ownership. There's legal title. And then there's possession. AA clearly possesses this data. It's not incorrect for them to refer to it as "their" data, until and unless it is removed from their possession.

JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
> It's not incorrect for them to refer to it as "their" data Totally agree.