The Last Word

Here is a framework for legislation.

PREAMBLE

1. Data has value. Data as captured produces value endlessly across multiple production processes.

2. Such value must be realized and used in the interest of the public whose data it is in the first place.

 

LEGISLATIVE PRINCIPLES

1. All data must be anonymized and encrypted and stored in a publicly owned NATIONAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE (NDI)

2. Rules of use: NDI Data usage cost will be according to volume of data being used and size of the firm seeking usage (revenue).

3. Some categories of users such as non-profits, universities, schools etc will be allowed free access to the data.

4. NBI revenue from data usage surcharge will be allocated within the federal budget with some restrictions. It Is mandated that the fund be used primarily for education, health, and housing. It will be mandated that it cannot be used for defence, intelligence etc.

5. The encryption and anonymization of the data will ensure security for the individual and society as a whole while allowing big data sets and the inherent value of such data sets to be used by multiple organization/individuals at minimal cost and will encourage overall innovation and growth.

6.: The anonymization of data severely limits creation of inference data sets that target individuals and manipulate behavior.


Respond. Tweak. Comment.

43 thoughts on “The Last Word

  1. 1. I agree that Data has value, Recently, Equifax, a US based consumer credit reporting agency that collects and aggregates information on over 800 million individual consumers and more than 88 million businesses worldwide, suffered a data breach of 143 million users. As a result, they’re facing a class action lawsuit of up to US$ 70 billion.

    In 2015, an insurance company compensated its 75,000 users with $100 per person for breach of their personal data. These are just two of the several cases of data breach, which over the past few years have become a frequent occurrence. Alongside these developments, on 17 August, the Supreme Court of India passed a landmark judgment reinforcing the citizen’s right to privacy as a ‘fundamental right’. These incidents highlight the emerging issues surrounding data – its privacy, security and sovereignty. To discuss and resolve these issues, it is imperative to be cognizant about the value of data. In this age of hyper connected consumers, data is definitely the new age ‘oil’.

    Having an active social media presence can be beneficial for both consumers and organizations because it creates unlimited possibilities to connect with others on a global scale. Unfortunately, this increased connectivity also raises the risk of privacy violations on social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram.

    Lawmakers have tried to keep pace with the ever-increasing presence of social media in our lives and business relationships by enacting new laws and regulations, but it’s not always easy to keep up with technology. Lawyers can also help consumers deal with issues that affect privacy in the context of the important relationships that they develop with social media providers, other users, and even their employers.

    Right to be Forgotten Laws
    In the E.U., the GDPR includes “right to be forgotten” provisions, which give individuals and corporations the right to request that their information be deleted from certain internet sites. The rationale behind these laws is that people should not be harmed by the disclosure of irrelevant or outdated information. The U.S. doesn’t have right to be forgotten laws, but such laws overseas still impact U.S. based companies such as Google that operate internationally.
    Relationships Between Social Media Companies and Users
    Users of social media agree to broad terms and conditions when they join social media platforms. Much of the relationship is based on the company’s:
    – Privacy policies,
    – Marketing materials, and
    – Standards and practices.

    The high-profile data breach involving Facebook and Cambridge Analytica is an example of a violation of the company’s standards and practices. Many U.S. jurisdictions have some version of data breach notice laws requiring companies to reveal disclosures of information so companies like Facebook can be subject to fines when they don’t inform consumers of these breaches.

    Although social media companies are accountable for data breaches and the misuse of data, their liability is limited concerning content posted by users on their sites under the CDA. This means that social media platforms can freely allow access to their sites without worrying about third party users’ actions subjecting them to litigation.

    https://www.findlaw.com/consumer/online-scams/social-media-privacy-laws.html#:~:text=There%20are%20several%20federal%20laws%20that%20touch%20on,The%20Children%27s%20Online%20Privacy%20Protection%20Act%20%28COPPA%29.%20

    Like

    1. Very Informative post.

      I especially enjoyed the contrast between Europe and the US in the context of privacy laws. Europe true tries to protect its customers with the new laws that were passed. The right to forgot law law is a perfect example. Comply or be fined attitude has prevent to work so I wonder why such laws are not even considered here in the United States. One answer that comes to mind is the lobbying power of the Big 4.

      Like

    2. Hello, after reading your post I found many interesting and insightful points, For instance pointing out the constant emergence of data breach cases that have happened recently demonstrated the imperative need for data protection as this data breach affects millions of individuals. as their identity can be stolen and used for illegal things that might have major repercussions on the lives of millions of people worldwide. As we do not have much idea as to what is done with our data or the security protocols companies take data breaches can affect every single person reading this post or it can be a person you know this, I believe a good starting point to fix this issue is anonymized and encrypted data. By doing so, we can have more security that the likelihood of those cases can decline. Moreover, pointing out the “forgotten laws” also shows something that can help fight this cause as it allows for data to be deleted impeding data breaches. All in all, I believe the fight for data security will be a long fight nevertheless, it is a fight that we as individuals need to push for.

      Like

  2. 1. All data must be anonymized and encrypted and stored in a publicly owned NATIONAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE (NDI)

    -Regarding this point, I think there is a large amount of risk in storing all data (anonymized and encrypted) in one central location, being the NDI. What concerns me the most about this is the impact of a potential data breach would have on this information. If not managed correctly, since all data is stored in one location, if a hacker were able to access this location, they would have access to all data. I think it would be better to ensure companies are following certain protocols to anonymize and encrypt their own data. Some companies already have this in place, but I think it needs to be a global requirement. This also eliminates the risk of storing all of the data in one place.

    2. Rules of use: NDI Data usage cost will be according to volume of data being used and size of the firm seeking usage (revenue).

    -I agree with this point. I think the key point here is the data being “used”, not the data being “held”. If the data is being held but not being used by the company, I do not think it is necessary to charge the company. However, if the company is using and distributing the data, I think it is fair to charge them. I think also charging larger companies a larger amount makes sense since they have more money at their disposal.

    3. Some categories of users such as non-profits, universities, schools etc will be allowed free access to the data.

    -I agree to this point to an extent. I think the data that they have access to needs to be controlled. They should not have access to all data for free. It also brings into question public vs private universities. I think both should have access to free data, whether public or private.

    4. NBI revenue from data usage surcharge will be allocated within the federal budget with some restrictions. It Is mandated that the fund be used primarily for education, health, and housing. It will be mandated that it cannot be used for defence, intelligence etc.

    -I think there is value in allocating how the money should be distributed in the federal budget. I would also like to see clean energy be funded via the data usage surcharge. Ultimately, I think there needs to be room to allocate the budget in different buckets, but given the considerable amount already spent on defense, I think it is more necessary to focus on education, health, housing, and energy.

    5. The encryption and anonymization of the data will ensure security for the individual and society as a whole while allowing big data sets and the inherent value of such data sets to be used by multiple organization/individuals at minimal cost and will encourage overall innovation and growth.

    -I agree with this point. I think the critical part is ensuring that it is impossible to identify the individual based on the data set that is being reviewed. If this is the case via encryption and anonymization, then the individual remains secure while organizations are able to utilize the datasets, without obtaining specific customer identity. This will allow the continued use of data for innovation and growth.

    6.: The anonymization of data severely limits creation of inference data sets that target individuals and manipulate behavior.

    -I do not think the anonymization of data limits creation of inference data sets. I think by pooling data sets together, organizations are still capable of identifying trends in consumer behavior by specific demographics and understanding where to focus. As I mentioned earlier, I think as long as the identity of the person who’s data is being used remains anonymous, there should be no security risk to the individual.

    Like

    1. Hey David, great reply. I felt that you did very well in explaining these specific points, and I agreed with a lot of them. I think if it were really possible to secure someone’s identify and data completely, it would be a good idea to allow the companies to use the big sets of data. I would fear that it is impossible to fully encrypt data, as there will always be a risk of it being exposed or hacked. While this could allow data to provide innovation and growth, there would have to be new practices set in place to fully ensure the anonymous status of this data.

      Like

    2. Hi David,

      Great Post!
      I’m afraid I disagree that some categories could avoid paying fees. Although collecting personal data is not ethical, it isn’t easy to regulate and protect the data to prevent data leaking. However, I agree that some categories could pay a minimum fee to anonymize data.

      Thank you,
      Cici Ouyang

      Like

    3. David – awesome post this week to wrap up the class! I agree with your analysis regarding data obfuscation and the generation of inference data as a result. The predictive analytics can still be derived, but they wouldn’t be targeted which is one of the criticism of inference data. Having forward looking information on mass populations of people for product development will help to drive innovation, but when it gets too specific I believe it is a major violations and breech of an individuals privacy and free will & decision making.

      Like

  3. 1. All data must be anonymized and encrypted and stored in a publicly owned NATIONAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE (NDI)

    – While I agree that the data should be anonymous, I feel that there needs to be rules and regulations on how the public will be able to use that data as there are people who will be able to un-encrypt it utilize it to their advantage. Data is never truly encrypted.

    2. Rules of use: NDI Data usage cost will be according to volume of data being used and size of the firm seeking usage (revenue).

    – I agree that this is a good use on the cost of the NDI Data Usage, but I would not call it a rule, it is more of a contract of use. I would also take out the “data being used” and change it to the “data being received.” They could ask for more data than they use and will only pay for what they used and not the whole slew of data they received.

    3. Some categories of users such as non-profits, universities, schools etc will be allowed free access to the data.

    – I agree. It should be controlled to a point, but the necessary data that would be useful to them should be accessible. They should be able to make an account and select what they would need and be able to get that information that pertains to them.

    4. NBI revenue from data usage surcharge will be allocated within the federal budget with some restrictions. It Is mandated that the fund be used primarily for education, health, and housing. It will be mandated that it cannot be used for defence, intelligence etc.

    – I believe this should be the NDI revenue and not the NBI revenue and it was not stated. This is a tricky point as while we could say we do not want it used for defense, intelligence, etc. it has a high probability that it will be used for that and that those entities can get the data from other users.

    5. The encryption and anonymization of the data will ensure security for the individual and society as a whole while allowing big data sets and the inherent value of such data sets to be used by multiple organization/individuals at minimal cost and will encourage overall innovation and growth.

    – As I stated above, I do not believe that we can 100% guarantee security, encryption, and anonymization as there are coders and hackers who could easily get that information and make it public. Nothing is ever anonymous and nothing is ever secure.

    6.: The anonymization of data severely limits creation of inference data sets that target individuals and manipulate behavior.

    – We can try and limit the creation of inference data sets that would target individuals and manipulate behavior, but there is no guarantee that we will be able to do that or catch everyone that does try. Living in the digital world is tricky as nothing is ever safe, or used for its intended use.

    Like

    1. Hi Jessica, I really enjoyed reading your response. I found your points to be very well-detailed and written out, and I would agree with a lot of them, if not all. Data would most likely be used for intelligence and defense, even though this proposed framework would demand it not to be. This is something the large companies desire, and it would be difficult to stop this. I also felt that it is nearly impossible to actually guarantee the full secrecy and encryption of data. Companies will continue to use the provided data they have to grow, even though only the large ones will be the ones to succeed, most likely. Great job!

      Like

    2. Hi Jessica,

      I enjoyed reading your post! I agreed with several of your points and echo your sentiments that nothing is ever 100% safe in the digital world. One way to mitigate security concerns with the proposed NDI is to allocate a portion of the budget to cybersecurity R&D or maybe even be proactive enough to invest in hiring ethical hackers to find loopholes. I also think that there should be limits on what kind of data and the amount of data that is collected by the NDI and stored in this database since not everyone would like their data to be made public information. Having individuals consent to which data they are alright with being collected might help mitigate this. Overall, great job!

      Like

  4. 1. Data has value. Data as captured produces value endlessly across multiple production processes.

    I completely agree that data has value. No matter how big, small, private, and non-confidential the data is, it will always be valuable to anyone.

    2. Such value must be realized and used in the interest of the public whose data it is in the first place.

    I agree with this statement that it should be used for the public interest and not for yourself.

    1. All data must be anonymized and encrypted and stored in a publicly owned NATIONAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE (NDI)

    This i don’t agree with. I believe some information is private and confidential and should not be stored in a publicly owned national database. There should be restrictions on the encryption of data and to make sure companies don’t take advantage of the data. However, it makes sure there is no paywall for the data.

    2. Rules of use: NDI Data usage cost will be according to volume of data being used and size of the firm seeking usage (revenue).

    I don’t agree with this only because some firms might not use the data they buy. The size of the firm should not also be penalized. A start up company could use ten times more data and the bigger company would be penalized if they use data.

    3. Some categories of users such as non-profits, universities, schools etc will be allowed free access to the data.

    I completely agree with this. The reason why is because the data could be used for a good cause and the more data they find useful, the faster their research is. The more advanced the research is, the better the outcome for the public. This would all come from the data they find.

    4. NBI revenue from data usage surcharge will be allocated within the federal budget with some restrictions. It Is mandated that the fund be used primarily for education, health, and housing. It will be mandated that it cannot be used for defence, intelligence etc.

    I believe this is a good idea. However, for some companies they might vote against it since they gain profits from the intelligence and market activity of other users.

    5. The encryption and anonymization of the data will ensure security for the individual and society as a whole while allowing big data sets and the inherent value of such data sets to be used by multiple organization/individuals at minimal cost and will encourage overall innovation and growth.

    I don’t agree with this because security of data is not guaranteed. Hackers and type of data attacks are very advanced today and they can access just about anything if they really tried. Private data should not be stored publicly owned databases that are easier to hack.

    6.: The anonymization of data severely limits creation of inference data sets that target individuals and manipulate behavior.

    This i can agree with. However, the digital world is changing everyday and we have to adapt and read the data that is presented.

    Like

    1. Hi Anthony, I agreed with many of your points here. A few points that stood out were what you mentioned, regarding how data should be private and not public. I feel that data should be accessible for free in moderation to the non-profit organizations and schools, as having full and complete access to the information could be a bit problematic, especially in terms of potential data breaches. Your final comment about the anonymization of data is accurate. There is always changing technology that we must adapt to, but with that, companies will definitely try and find new ways to use our data for profit.

      Like

    2. Hi Anthony,
      Regarding point number 2, I also went back and forth with. I am aligned with you that companies should be taxed based on the amount of data that they are using. Where our views differ is with the smaller versus larger company comparison. If I look at two companies which seek to fulfill the same purpose regarding the use of data, but one is a company which has been established for a very long time with a lot of capital, and the other is a startup company, a larger company which is more established can accept this surcharge without impacting their profit significantly. However, that same surcharge on a smaller company could be devastating and act as a barrier to entry into a particular market. For this reason, I think it is important to tax based on the amount of data being used, but also scale it based on the size of the company in the sector.

      Like

  5. Data has value. Data as captured produces value endlessly across multiple production processes.
    -I agree that data most certainly has value, in many forms. Data can be considered an asset, and can be analyzed and manipulated for profit in some terms. One website, Medium.com, explains that data from one person is not very valuable, but having thousands of people contribute data can create new insight and value.

    Such value must be realized and used in the interest of the public whose data it is in the first place.
    -This is something I agree with, although this is not the thought process of big companies. Our personal data is handled by big companies, and generally sold and traded for profit. The data is handled involuntarily and distributed in order to provide gain to these companies at our expense. We should have full access, and control, over our data.

    LEGISLATIVE PRINCIPLES
    All data must be anonymized and encrypted and stored in a publicly owned NATIONAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE (NDI)
    -I do disagree with this. Our data should be stored and handled where we deem it to be, rather than in a large, publicly owned data bank. While our data should be accessible when we choose it to be, I do not feel comfortable having it stored within a large infrastructure, even if anonymous. The best way to handle the data would be to allow us to control where it goes and how we use it, which relates to the above statement about the value being used in our interest.

    Rules of use: NDI Data usage cost will be according to volume of data being used and size of the firm seeking usage (revenue).
    -Data should be charged based on how much is used, so this is appropriate. Companies are using data at large-scale rates, either for promotional or profitable use. Having it where the businesses would have to be charged for their data usage would regulate things in a better way.

    Some categories of users such as non-profits, universities, schools etc will be allowed free access to the data.
    -This is appropriate, to an extent. These types of locations can use data for some aspects, such as using it to better the school or organization. Data such as ethnicity, gender, etc. can be used to ensure fair practices and rights for possible participants. The individual should have the right to choose which information and data is shared though.

    NBI revenue from data usage surcharge will be allocated within the federal budget with some restrictions. It Is mandated that the fund be used primarily for education, health, and housing. It will be mandated that it cannot be used for defence, intelligence etc.
    -I feel that, while this is a good idea, it might not be popular within the companies it applies to. Defense and intelligence are probably important factors to them, including their markets, and having the data and its surcharge not applied there could make it an unfavorable selection.

    The encryption and anonymization of the data will ensure security for the individual and society as a whole while allowing big data sets and the inherent value of such data sets to be used by multiple organization/individuals at minimal cost and will encourage overall innovation and growth.
    -It is basically impossible to guarantee full data safety. There is always risk of compromise in regards to data, and it happens quite frequently. While we can always hope to have our data secured, the best way to do this would be by utilizing different passwords that are hard to guess for certain log-ins, but that is only in terms of keeping our directly accessible data secure and safe. The data that floods the databases and infrastructures can be accessed by hackers if they find a way to get to it, and there would be nothing we could do with that. Data would be best held at a private level, than in a public database, but this would not allow for innovation and new ideas from companies since the information would not be quickly accessible.

    The anonymization of data severely limits creation of inference data sets that target individuals and manipulate behavior.
    -I do agree with this, since this makes it difficult to advertise products and services to specific audiences. Having data not anonymous would allow for companies to target their markets with further ease, although this is currently how it is usually handled, with data being sold and traded, and tailored to our desires.

    https://odsc.medium.com/data-valuation-what-is-your-data-worth-and-how-do-you-value-it-b0a15c64e516

    Like

    1. Hi Jared,
      You make some good points, especially about how data cant be fully protected. This is very true especially if all the data is stored in central file. No firewall can be foolproof and the human factor can also be exploited to gain access to restricted data. And in this case we are talking about the aggregate data of our whole country so any breech can have severe consequences\. My suggestion is to remove the data points that identify the individual. This should ensure that even if exposed this data is not easily exploited.

      Like

    2. Hi Jared,

      I agree with your stance in that there is no way to provide a user with full security in their online usage. As we have continually seen over recent years, many companies in many different markets have had data breaches, with millions of users having their personal data taken and manipulated. With that said, allowing user data to remain anonymous is a benefit to an extent, and does help provide an extra layer of protection to a system which has flaws.

      Like

    3. Hi Jared, great insightful post. first off I agree that data with your point that data is an asset as it can be manipulated to create profit for corporations. For instance, look at Google which makes billions of dollars through their targeted ads that come from the data you input into your phone. I feel that this is a delicate issue since we as individuals are stripped away from our information and that information is turned into profit for corporations and we as individuals do not get anything back thus, I believe we should be able to anonymize and encrypt data as this gives us the choice of deciding if we want to give our data away. At the moment we have a false choice as corporations in a way force you to agree to their terms because if you don’t the quality of their services declines. Corporations have found a gold mine with our data as you mentioned in your post the data of thousands of people has great value thus this value has to be used for the benefit of society, not big corporations and their greed for more profits. Thus I believe that the idea of an NDI is a good starting point to reclaim the privacy of our data that we have been losing for the last couple of years to these big corporations.

      Like

  6. 1. All data must be anonymized and encrypted and stored in a publicly owned NATIONAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE (NDI)

    While this idea would facilitate the managing of the data and making it more accessible, it would also make it extremely vulnerable to state actors, who have the manpower and expertise to extract information anonymously. A perfect example is the hacking of the CIA mainframe in 2017 (Washington post article) where hackers had access to the database for over 6 months. Security vulnerability need not be system base only, there can be a human element locally that can be compromised.

    2. Rules of use: NDI Data usage cost will be according to volume of data being used and size of the firm seeking usage (revenue).

    I strongly agree with this point. The compensation for data usage needs to be based on usage. I am not sure if the stipulation of the size of the firm would make a difference. A simple way around the size stipulation would be a shell company which is easy enough to set up.

    3. Some categories of users such as non-profits, universities, schools etc. will be allowed free access to the data.

    I strongly agree with this point as well. I feel that those type of entrees should be allowed free access to the data based on projects that they are working on. As I mentioned on the previous point smart lawyers for corporations would partner with non-profits to access the data at no cost or at worse create their own non for profits companies to take advantage of this benefit.

    4. NBI revenue from data usage surcharge will be allocated within the federal budget with some restrictions. It Is mandated that the fund be used primarily for education, health, and housing. It will be mandated that it cannot be used for defense, intelligence etc.

    I support this idea as well. However, my fear is that just as with many other laws (the Iran nuclear deal comes to mind) with enough support in the congress the law could be changed. Those funds could be appropriated and merged into different budgets as to distort their usage.

    5. The encryption and anonymization of the data will ensure security for the individual and society as a whole while allowing big data sets and the inherent value of such data sets to be used by multiple organization/individuals at minimal cost and will encourage overall innovation and growth.

    I think this idea could work. By eliminating specifics such as name and addresses from the data points we could really use these massive data sets for the common good.

    6.: The anonymization of data severely limits creation of inference data sets that target individuals and manipulate behavior.

    This is an extremely good thing as we discussed this week the sale of such data can not only enable companies to create profiles for each one of us but also if these data were more accurate it could facilitate fraud and identity theft.

    Like

    1. Hi Ervis,

      Regarding public entities, such as schools and non-profits, I agree that they should be provided free access to this NDI data. As I mention in my post, these entities normally have less profit and tighter budgets to operate with, but allowing them free access to the data can provide them with a large advantage. And these same entities may then help the public, utilizing the data to improve themselves and the resources they can provide consumers.

      Like

    2. Hello Ervis,

      I’d have to say I am pretty much in lockstep with your vantage point on this post. I also think the encryption of data could help create a more secure, public database. Making firms pay a fee for the similar amount of data they use makes a lot of sense as well. A larger company can afford to pay for more data. Funneling the revenue back into the healthcare or education system would really help alleviate some expensive living costs for citizens. Of course, all of these ideas have inherent risk; encrypted data could be hacked and, as you said, lawmakers could change where data revenue is allocated. Overall, I think we can no longer ignore the fact that our data is all over the internet and we need to create a better, safer, way for our data to be transfered.

      Like

    3. Hi Ervis,

      Great job on the discussion. I also agree that the compensation for data usage needs to be based on usage. major companies are going to use more data than most and they should pay more as well. it would not be fair for me to pay the same as someone that uses way more data than me. This seems like the most fair way to do this that most people would be okay with. This would be like a utility that the more you use the more you pay.

      Like

  7. 1. I agree with parts of this sentiment. It is beneficial for data to be anonymous and encrypted for security reasons for the user, however, I do not feel all data should be stored in an NDI. The concept of an NDI, the infrastructure to house data based on predetermined rules, is a protection alternative similar to what we had discussed the past week. With that said, I would be more comfortable with a structure like the data surplus or forcing companies to pay for data. In those instances, the public would be benefited more, and it would match with our current social structures. Unless a surplus or some sort of benefits are provided back to the public, then a feel an alternate plan may be best.

    2. This structure seems like a fair way to provide NDI data. A company, such as Apple, who has tremendous resources and influence, would normally be able secure and manipulate user data at a much higher level than their competitors. By placing these limitations based on volume and size it allows a more level playing field.

    3. I feel this is also a fair trade-off of the NDI. Publicly supported ventures and groups, such as universities and non-profits, can benefit greatly from public and user data. However, these same groups tend to lack certain funds and operate on tight budgets, preventing them from securing this information. Allowing these entities free access to this data will allow for them to grow, which in turn helps benefit the public.

    4. This option makes the idea of an NDI much more appealing, as it provides a benefit to the public, which I mentioned earlier being a major benefit. I think it is even more important that any surcharges can only be used on specific projects, such as education, housing, and additional public works, rather than government vested projects. It then becomes imperative to ensure there are no manipulations with these funds, and ensuring they are actually being placed towards their intended projects. Whether this would call for an independent board to manage is unclear, but for public trust it is important the funds are used correctly.

    5. I agree with this aspect, as user security should be of the upmost importance. By doing so, the user is left in a better position, and companies will be on a level playing field as they cannot use items such as demographics in interpreting the data. While it allows more companies to use the data, innovation may still be lagged as companies will have to put in extra work to ensure their data applies to the correct parties.

    6. Anonymization of data does help limit inference data, as companies must make larger assumptions and put in a larger amount of research to determine who the data actually applies to. Certain companies need to target certain demographics in order to profit, and providing security to the user helps limit how much companies can secure and target people.

    Like

  8. 1. All data must be anonymized and encrypted and stored in a publicly owned NATIONAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE (NDI)

    A: I agree that data needs to be anonymized & encrypted in an NDI. Under the assumption the data is protected, a singular source of our data could keep it from getting into the wrong hands. Regulation would be required for companies to access our data to ensure further protection. The level of sensitivity for our data must also be taken into account especially if addresses, phone numbers, or social security numbers are stored.

    2. Rules of use: NDI Data usage cost will be according to volume of data being used and size of the firm seeking usage (revenue).

    A: I think this is a fine idea. Large companies looking for large quantities of data should have to pay a similar price to acquire this data. Especially considering these organizations can afford it and will likely generate greater revenue from this data. This would also force larger firms to be more selective with the data they acquire on internet users.

    3. Some categories of users such as non-profits, universities, schools etc will be allowed free access to the data.

    A: I think it makes sense for these types of organizations to have free access to the data. Universities already have data on potential applicants free of charge. Nonprofits should not be forced to purchase data on citizens they intend to help through whichever service they provide. Forcing these organizations to pay for data might have a negative impact and de-incentivize them from acquiring as much data as they have today.

    4. NBI revenue from data usage surcharge will be allocated within the federal budget with some restrictions. It Is mandated that the fund be used primarily for education, health, and housing. It will be mandated that it cannot be used for defence, intelligence etc.

    A: Couldn’t agree more with this idea. Any way to make life costs less expensive is something that I can get behind. We’ve discussed in class how the disparity between wages and costs of living is growing each year. A federally funded program that funnels data usage revenue back into the economy would be a great way to reduce some living expenses like education, health, etc. How it is allocated would be challenging but I see it as a worthy endeavor.

    5. The encryption and anonymization of the data will ensure security for the individual and society as a whole while allowing big data sets and the inherent value of such data sets to be used by multiple organization/individuals at minimal cost and will encourage overall innovation and growth.

    A: I am more cautious about this statement. Yes encryption and anonymization will help to protect the dataset but simply assuming the data can then just be made widely available is a dangerous precedent. While rare, there are situations where encrypted data can be breached and that alone would make people weary to know their data is exposed to a large set of organizations and individuals. Of course, the type of data dictates the perceived risk. The more sensitive the data, the less likely people would want it available so easily. Perhaps this approach could be used for more common, less sensitive, data.

    6.: The anonymization of data severely limits creation of inference data sets that target individuals and manipulate behavior.

    A: I wouldn’t agree in totality that the anonymization of data limits inference data. Organizations would still be able to create inference data based on the information they are provided through anonymization. There may be less information than before, but the data would be more accurate and, more importantly, secure. People would be less worried their data is available if more accurate and safely secured.

    Like

  9. 1. All data must be anonymized and encrypted and stored in a publicly owned NATIONAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE (NDI)

    Based on the premise that data has value and that data as captured produces value endlessly across multiple production processes I do believe that to some extent data should be anonymized and encrypted. Moreover, I believe a National Data Infrastructure is an interesting proposition and some countries in Europe have tried this, however, proposing this as the answer to data privacy seems like an easy answer to a really complex issue. As in a study done of NDI’s in Germany and Switzerland it was found that it has been unsuccessful and they found a “significant gap between policy and practice of NDIs. This gap is strengthened by on the one hand having broad goals and strategies that do not offer substantive direction or control, and on the other hand by a diverse field of actors, existing systems, building blocks, and practices that form or affect parts of the NDI ” (Klievink 2017). Thus an NDI is a good starting point however how to make it work will be the hard part and governments and big tech need to come to a compromise on this issue because going back to the premise data has immense value.
    https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3085228.3085270

    2. Rules of use: NDI Data usage cost will be according to the volume of data being used and the size of the firm seeking usage (revenue).
    I agree with the rules of use and with the idea that the cost will be according to the volume of data and the size of the firm. I believe this is a good compromise as it aids in regulating the monopolies in the industry as companies such as Google, Amazon and Facebook use the most volume of data they can be charged more which will impose more regulations on them. Even though some can say these companies have billions of dollars and that will not affect them it is money that will aid in different sectors and if you think about it at the moment they are paying little to no money for all this information and making billions of it thus it is a good idea.

    3. Some categories of users such as non-profits, universities, schools, etc will be allowed free access to the data.
    I do not believe this is the best idea as some of these non-profits, universities, schools, and such receive donations from some tech companies and this could influence their stance on the issue and seeing the greed these companies have they can infiltrate and find ways to cross the barres that are set through them through these types of institutions. I believe that these institutions can get free data in certain circumstances such as projects for their own benefit.

    4. NBI revenue from data usage surcharge will be allocated within the federal budget with some restrictions. It Is mandated that the fund be used primarily for education, health, and housing. It will be mandated that it cannot be used for defense, intelligence, etc.

    I totally agree with this point as data should benefit society, not in defense, intelligence, etc. I strongly believe the US spends too much money on its defense budget. For instance, in 2022 they will be spending $778 billion in its defense budget. Moreover “the discretionary budget for 2022 is $1.688 trillion. Much of it goes toward military spending, including Homeland Security, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and other defense-related departments.” Thus, the revenue from the NDI should be allocated to education, health, and housing as these are areas that need to be addressed as they pose big issues to society. Education, health, and housing have been topics that have declined in the last years and we need to give back to them.
    https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-federal-budget-breakdown-3305789
    https://www.electronicsweekly.com/blogs/mannerisms/dilemmas/757095-2020-09/

    5. The encryption and anonymization of the data will ensure security for the individual and society as a whole while allowing big data sets and the inherent value of such data sets to be used by multiple organizations/individuals at minimal cost and will encourage overall innovation and growth.

    Going back to the premise that data has value, the encryption and anonymization of data will ensure security which is extremely valuable in today’s society. Moreover, the usage of this valuable data that could be used by multiple organizations instead of only the big $ in tech at the moment and by adding new organizations t the mix this can lead to growth and innovation nevertheless there should always be regulations with this data as prior stated data has immense value and misused data can lead to really bad outcomes if not treated properly and as an individual we have to makes sure we do our part in it.

    6.: The anonymization of data severely limits creation of inference data sets that target individuals and manipulate behavior.

    It is known that inference data sets target individuals and manipulate behaviors of the individual for monetary profits for big tech corporations leading to surveillance capitalism which only benefits these big corporations. Some of the downsides of Surveillance capitalism are that it reduces personal privacy, increases cyber insecurity, the value of personal data accrues to third parties, narrows choices through creation of algorithmic “echo chambers”, increases supply-side manipulation, surge pricing increases, information asymmetry (supply-side high, demand-side low), and myth of convenience” (e.g. password management). Thus, it is imperative that these issues are addressed and I believe anonymization of data can aid in this issue and will help society as a whole.
    https://www.cognizant.com/futureofwork/article/the-pros-and-cons-of-surveillance-and-surveillance-capitalism

    Like

  10. 1. Data has value. Data as captured produces value endlessly across multiple production processes.
    All companies trade in data now.

    Car companies like Tesla, taxi companies like Uber are all using consumer harnessed data to drive performance and help their business.

    1. All data must be anonymized and encrypted and stored in a publicly owned NATIONAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE (NDI)

    Yes, this is a good start. Additionally, the argument that encrypted data can be hacked is a bit weak considering data that is not encrypted would be even more susceptible to hacking. Additionally, hackers have shown the ability to breach even some of the most securely protected networks. Cyber security is a separate discussion.

    2. Rules of use: NDI Data usage cost will be according to volume of data being used and size of the firm seeking usage (revenue).

    Volume is a decent metric, but why limit to one. The quality of data should and can be measured as well. Companies seeking consumer spending habits, and other more valuable data should pay premiums.

    3. Some categories of users such as non-profits, universities, schools etc will be allowed free access to the data.

    There should be a couple provisions detailing the usage and transference of data given to universities and non-profits, so they are not pressured or tempted to circumvent Principle #2, thereby lowering the value of data. Additionally, non-profits should also be limited to groups who are non-profit in nature, not only in name.

    4. NBI revenue from data usage surcharge will be allocated within the federal budget with some restrictions. It is mandated that the fund be used primarily for education, health, and housing. It will be mandated that it cannot be used for defense, intelligence etc.

    Dedicated funds are excellent in theory. The question is how to observe the disbursement of these funds to their appropriate homes. To borrow a page out of the Elon Musk playbook, why don’t we suggest open-source accounting? So that every penny is tracked and broken down for others to see the effects of this plan. While we are revolutionizing the market for data, let’s take it a step further with financial transparency.

    5. The encryption and anonymization of the data will ensure security for the individual and society as a whole while allowing big data sets and the inherent value of such data sets to be used by multiple organization/individuals at minimal cost and will encourage overall innovation and growth.

    Yes, this will certainly be a great step forward considering it will be more secure than not. Once again, fear of hacking is kind of irrelevant. That’s kind of like saying buying a lock for your door makes you more susceptible to being robbed. The lock is a step in the right direction. Yes, burglars have tools to circumvent this, but clearly this framework will require serious cyber-security frameworks to accompany it.

    6.: The anonymization of data severely limits creation of inference data sets that target individuals and manipulate behavior.

    After learning about inference data and k-means trees used to do it, I’m not so sure anonymization will be a major factor in limiting the ability of inference algorithms. Perhaps imposing legal restraints on using inference algorithms without having paid for the data would be a good way to reign in this unchecked power.

    Like

    1. Hi Jesse,

      I enjoyed your post and agree with your statement that anonymization may not be enough to limit the creation of inference data. As you mentioned earlier in your post. a majority of companies trade in data now. The creation of inference data provides a competitive advantage for these companies, meaning that there is significant motive for these companies to find workarounds to the anonymization of the NDI data. I like your idea of imposing legal restraints to limit inference data creation; however, I do believe that there needs to be greater consequences than fines in order for these large companies to actually follow the law.

      Like

  11. 1. I agree that data is the new oil and creates lasting value. Therefore, it is good to keep data anonymized in some situations. However, it will be challenging to build the regulations to store the data in a publicly owned NDI.
    2. I agree that companies that use the data should pay accordingly. On the other hand, it isn’t easy to prevent data from being used again. A company could pay once and store the data to use multiple times. How should the regulation be set up to avoid or obtain such a charge from the company?
    3. I’m afraid I disagree that some categories could avoid paying fees. Although collecting personal data is not ethical, it is difficult to regulate and protect the data to prevent data leaking.
    4. I agree that the NBI revenue from data usage surcharge will be allocated within the federal budget with some restrictions. It will be mandated that it cannot be used for defense intelligence since the data were collected from each person. It is personal data, so the fund could be used back to support unique expenses.
    5. I agree that ensuring the security of the individual data could allow other companies to use data to be more creative and encourage growth. Practicing in this way could also prevent one company from becoming too powerful and becoming a monopoly.
    6. I agree that the anonymization of data severely limits the creation of inference data sets that target individuals and manipulate behavior. Nowadays, Data inference plays such an important role, and each of us benefits from it. However, the encryption and anonymization of the data will ensure security for the individual seems like it is the easiest way to protect private data and allow companies to grow.

    Like

    1. Hi Yongshi,

      I enjoyed reading your post. While i agree that data is the new oil, i do not agree that all data must be anonymized and encrypted and stored in a publicly owned NDI. I think that there is data that should be kept private. Certain data should be made public like for business but not all data like for individuals. By having all public data people would be very against this and our country would not be as “free”.

      Like

    2. Hi Yongshi,

      Great post! I agree with you on all of your points, but one I especially want to talk about would be the utilization of NBI revenue from data usage surcharge will be allocated within the federal budget. Although I am of firm belief that large companies like Google, Facebook and Twitter should not be able to make large data profiles on their consumers, I do think if they have to pay for collecting data then that revenue should be put to good use for bettering the country. We already raise money for federal infrastructure projects through federal and state tax dollars, so I don’t see why we can’t monetize data collection for our benefit? The only caveat I would put with this though would be an adoption of Europe’s GDPR laws which should allow consumers the right to refuse the collection of any consumer data based on their rights to privacy. However, despite this caveat, I still think it would be a great idea to implement into the federal government if just to have more ways of generating revenue for our government’s overall operations and infrastructure development.

      Like

  12. 1. I would partly agree to point of Data anonymization which helps in protecting our private or sensitive data by deleting or encrypting personally identifiable information from a database and as well as the trading companies who buys our data makes use of it for their benefits. On the other hand i disagree that we voluntarily shouldn’t store our personal data in any of the public databases that can’t be controlled and accessed whenever we want it.
    National and regional government agencies also control vast stores of data covering many levels of their citizens’ behavior. We would certainly hope that such agencies would respect their own laws governing the use of personal data. But you can never be sure that government-held data will never be stolen—or shared with foreign agencies that aren’t bound by the same standards.
    It also isn’t rare for rogue government agencies or individual employees to abuse their obligations to you and your data

    2. Yes, The NDI should charge the firms for the data being used from the total volumes of the database, and on the basis of their requirements for the creation of better products and services either used for better development of society and public welfare. There should be rules and regulations set up especially charging in terms of size of companies because this can impact small scale companies growth and their skillset in deployment of products that can be reached to normal people thereby eliminating the crisis in human needs and the demands of goods and services. By certain techniques of decoding anonymized data is possible through a process known as De-anonymization (or “re-identification”). Due to the fact that anonymized data can be decoded and unraveled, critics believe anonymization provides a false sense of security.

    3. It is true choice of based on consideration and the importance of how the user data impacts the nation’s development such as non-profits, universities, schools for one’s survival and growth, can provide free access to the data.

    4. Digital privacy laws help control how your data is stored, shared across the companies. NBI revenue from data usage surcharge be used primarily for education, health, and housing to a large extent. For the existence/creation of competitive markets revenue should also be shared for intelligence and defense sectors too.

    5. I agree that encryption and anonymization data will ensure security for an individual but to multiple organizations. For example, a hospital sharing confidential data on its patients to a medical research lab or pharmaceutical company would be able to do so ethically if it keeps its patients anonymous. This can be done by removing the names, Social Security Numbers, dates of birth, and addresses of its patients from the shared list while leaving the important components required for medical research like age, ailments, height, weight, gender, race, etc.

    6. I do believe and agree that anonymization of data severely limits creation of inference data sets that target individuals and manipulate behavior. Anonymization can play a critical role in building trust in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and its applications within society. Various anonymization techniques have been used in order to shield individual privacy in the context of these datasets. Furthermore, the possibility of
    inference on the anonymized dataset is significantly reduced but the data remains valuable for the specified use case.
    https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/what-is-personal-data/

    Click to access Deloitte_Trustworthy%20AI%20_Data%20Anonymization_Feb2022.pdf

    Like

  13. 1. While I agree that some companies should not be allowed to hold and store user data, putting it all in one central location scares me from a security perspective. The “Fort Knox” of consumer data would be a highly valued target from an adversary perspective. Serious security would need to be in place and the company doing this would likely have to incur SIGNIFICANT cost to avoid a data breech or be paying SIGNIFICANT fines.

    2. Companies storage data as a service and not utilizing that same data for financial gain shouldn’t have to pay a cost. Rather companies seeking to buy information with the consumer consent should be charged. That being said, how consumer provide consent needs to be simplified. Essentially, people should feel the need to hire an attorney to intemperate disclosures before signing off, so simplify the darn consent process!

    3. I think it depends on the nature of the data. I spent a significant portion of my professional career at a non-profit and the goin adage was while the company is “non profit” they are also “non for loss.” These institutions are only non-profit in nature if their expense, contributions, & reserves equal the revenue so I think putting data in their hands while also not holding them to the same stands as the for profit sector is dangerous. Business nature or profit status shouldn’t dictate user data regulations in my opinion.

    4. This is again an institution profiting off of the user data not owned by them! Public sector, non-profit, public company, it shouldn’t matter who is “making the money” off of user data and information on a user population that is used for financial gain, they should be paying a dividend. Keeping it within the Federal government makes it a little more tolerable, but I guess that depends on what side of the political spectrum you land and the current administration.

    5. This point, I agree with. When the data is anonymized and obfuscated, obviously it makes it less proscriptive for targeted advertising, selling, and even less impact in a data breech. This would absolutely need to be a requirement for the NBI – data populations for information based on the laws of averages is different than specific user data detecting, depicting, and relaying user behavior & analytics.

    6. Negative, inference data can still be generated but it cannot be driven down to the individual user. That being said, inference data can still be derives tased on mass populations allowing the buyers to understand what population majorities prefer.

    Like

    1. Hi Christian,

      You bring up a good point that storing all the data in one central location is intimidating. It opens for two different scenarios – a hacker and come in and wipe all of the data or a hacker can come in and steal all of the data. I am sure that the data housed in the central databases isn’t confidential or that sensitive, however, someone can look at it to their advantage. Even the loss of such data would be extremely costly, and housing a backup database is even costlier.

      Like

  14. 1. All data must be anonymized and encrypted and stored in a publicly owned NATIONAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE (NDI)
    Based on the premise that data has value and that data as captured produces value endlessly across multiple production processes I do believe that to some extent data should be anonymized and encrypted. Moreover, I believe a National Data Infrastructure is an interesting proposition and some countries in Europe have tried this, however, proposing this as the answer to data privacy seems like an easy answer to a really complex issue. As in a study done of NDI’s in Germany and Switzerland it was found that it has been unsuccessful and they found a “significant gap between policy and practice of NDIs. This gap is strengthened by on the one hand having broad goals and strategies that do not offer substantive direction or control, and on the other hand by a diverse field of actors, existing systems, building blocks, and practices that form or affect parts of the NDI ” (Klievink 2017). Thus an NDI is a good starting point however how to make it work will be the hard part and governments and big tech need to come to a compromise on this issue because going back to the premise data has immense value.
    https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3085228.3085270

    2. Rules of use: NDI Data usage cost will be according to volume of data being used and size of the firm seeking usage (revenue).
    I agree with the rules of use and with the idea that the cost will be according to the volume of data and the size of the firm. I believe this is a good compromise as it aids in regulating the monopolies in the industry as companies such as Google, Amazon and Facebook use the most volume of data they can be charged more which will impose more regulations on them. Even though some can say these companies have billions of dollars and that will not affect them it is money that will aid in different sectors and if you think about it at the moment they are paying little to no money for all this information and making billions of it thus it is a good idea.

    3. Some categories of users such as non-profits, universities, schools etc will be allowed free access to the data.
    I do not believe this is the best idea as some of these non-profits, universities, schools, and such receive donations from some tech companies and this could influence their stance on the issue and seeing the greed these companies have they can infiltrate and find ways to cross the barres that are set through them through these types of institutions. I believe that these institutions can get free data in certain circumstances such as projects for their own benefit.

    4. NBI revenue from data usage surcharge will be allocated within the federal budget with some restrictions. It Is mandated that the fund be used primarily for education, health, and housing. It will be mandated that it cannot be used for defense, intelligence etc.
    I totally agree with this point as data should benefit society, not in defense, intelligence, etc. I strongly believe the US spends too much money on its defense budget. For instance, in 2022 they will be spending $778 billion in its defense budget. Moreover “the discretionary budget for 2022 is $1.688 trillion. Much of it goes toward military spending, including Homeland Security, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and other defense-related departments.” Thus, the revenue from the NDI should be allocated to education, health, and housing as these are areas that need to be addressed as they pose big issues to society. Education, health, and housing have been topics that have declined in the last years and we need to give back to them.

    https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-federal-budget-breakdown-3305789
    https://www.electronicsweekly.com/blogs/mannerisms/dilemmas/757095-2020-09/

    5. The encryption and anonymization of the data will ensure security for the individual and society as a whole while allowing big data sets and the inherent value of such data sets to be used by multiple organizations/individuals at minimal cost and will encourage overall innovation and growth.
    Going back to the premise that data has value, the encryption and anonymization of data will ensure security which is extremely valuable in today’s society. Moreover the usage of this valuable data that could be used by multiple organizations instead of only the big 4 in tech at the moment and by adding new organizations the mix this can lead to growth and innovation nevertheless there should always be regulations with this data as prior stated data has immense value and misused data can lead to really bad outcomes if not treated properly and as an individual we have to makes sure we do our part in it.

    6.: The anonymization of data severely limits creation of inference data sets that target individuals and manipulate behavior.
    It is known that inference data sets target individuals and manipulate behaviors of the individual for monetary profits for big tech corporations leading to surveillance capitalism which only benefits these big corporations. Some of the downsides of Surveillance capitalism are that it reduces personal privacy, increases cyber insecurity, value of personal data accrues to third parties, narrows choices through creation of algorithmic “echo chambers”, increases supply side manipulation, surge pricing increases, information asymmetry (supply side high, demand side low), and myth of convenience” (e.g. password management). Thus, it is imperative that these issues are addressed and I believe anonymization of data can aid in this issue and will help society as a whole.
    https://www.cognizant.com/futureofwork/article/the-pros-and-cons-of-surveillance-and-surveillance-capitalism

    Like

  15. 1. Data has value. Data as captured produces value endlessly across multiple production processes.

    I agree. We are in a data driven society and are continuing to develop new ways to harness data (i.e biometrics on phones, emotional data via VR) in order to generate value whether its through private companies or for publicly funded ventures (tracking who has been exposed to COVID via one’s cell phone). Data can be both collected and analyzed in new ways to generate unique insights that can provide a competitive advantage.

    2. Such value must be realized and used in the interest of the public whose data it is in the first place.

    This data has immense value and can be used to provide key insights on and even resolve several complex public issues. Making lives easier through means of data analysis would be quite beneficial and humanitarian.

    LEGISLATIVE PRINCIPLES

    1. All data must be anonymized and encrypted and stored in a publicly owned NATIONAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE (NDI)

    I have some concerns with all data being stored in a national data infrastructure. Several national agencies have experienced large data breaches in the past, including the Pentagon, the State Department, and the Department of Homeland Security. As seen in the New York Times article linked below, these are some of the most secure agencies in the nation and they were targeted particularly due to the sensitive nature of their data. Having a centralized location for all publicly owned data would make it vulnerable to cyber attacks from other nations and even terrorist groups. Additionally, even if data is anonymized and encrypted, there is always a way to decrypt it. Additionally, if one has enough data points on an individual, it would make it easier for someone to essentially put the pieces together to create a profile and track someone down. It may sound far fetched but people can do crazy things with large amounts of information.

    2. Rules of use: NDI Data usage cost will be according to volume of data being used and size of the firm seeking usage (revenue).

    This sounds good in theory. However, I am concerned that there may be companies that try to work around this by forming smaller agency companies and then sharing that data between themselves. Having regulations and clearly defined consequences to mitigate this would increase the security around the usage AND distribution of this data.

    3. Some categories of users such as non-profits, universities, schools etc will be allowed free access to the data.

    I agree; however, I believe that individuals from these organizations should have to fill out a request form and must indicate exactly what they plan on doing with the data that they are requesting. Giving 100% free access to all of the data without any sort of limitations could potentially backfire.

    4. NBI revenue from data usage surcharge will be allocated within the federal budget with some restrictions. It Is mandated that the fund be used primarily for education, health, and housing. It will be mandated that it cannot be used for defence, intelligence etc.

    I believe that it should state NDI and not NBI. The NDI revenue should be entirely separate from the federal budget and not controlled by career politicians. Instead, I believe that this budget should be controlled by those in higher education, particularly with a background in counseling, psychology, and social work and a management degree. As seen in the pie chart on the national priorities website linked below, 54% of the federal budget is spent on the military. Having the NDI revenue budget be separate from the federal budget would ensure that the money earned from public data is spent appropriately and doesn’t somehow end up being used on defense and/or intelligence.

    https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/military-spending-united-states/

    5. The encryption and anonymization of the data will ensure security for the individual and society as a whole while allowing big data sets and the inherent value of such data sets to be used by multiple organization/individuals at minimal cost and will encourage overall innovation and growth.

    If done securely, the usage of such data could be used to foster innovation and growth both nationally and even globally. Additionally it would allow public wellness and health organizations to better serve the community. However, nothing is guaranteed. As technology continues to evolve and advance, someone will figure out a way to decode and decrypt who the data belongs to.

    6. The anonymization of data severely limits creation of inference data sets that target individuals and manipulate behavior.

    Despite the data being anonymous, with enough data collected in the data sets, it will be impossible to completely eliminate inference data. For example, having data that states that an individual shops at Forever 21 every Friday between the hours of 3:30pm and 7pm and buys women’s clothing might allow me to infer that the individual is a young female student who is into fashion, despite not knowing any specifics about the individual. WIth enough data, inference data can be created especially with the development of increasingly complex AI and machine learning technologies and it will be difficult to limit its creation simply through anonymization.

    Like

  16. 1. All data must be anonymized and encrypted and stored in a publicly owned NATIONAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE (NDI)

    I agree with the following statement -A national data infrastructure is a global technical infrastructure (portals, platforms, and services) that enables access to data and transfer based on predefined norms across the country.
    Across different sectors of the economy, the NSDI enables smooth data creation, information sharing, and collaborative decision-making.

    2. Rules of use: NDI Data usage cost will be according to the volume of data being used and the size of the firm seeking usage (revenue).

    I agree with this point as NDI data may only be utilized for public health and medical research provided no measures are taken that could have a significant impact on the individual or businesses as a result of their unique identity. And if others want to consume the data they should be charged by applying some regulations to eradicate data misuse

    3. Some categories of users such as non-profits, universities, schools, etc will be allowed free access to the data.

    Big data can also be used in three ways by nonprofits: marketing and fundraising, monitoring and implementing specific tasks, and simplifying funds.
    In terms of fundraisers, big data can be used to gain a much more comprehensive view of each potential contributor in addition to customize interaction among NGOs and potential donors. Because donor relationships are one of the most significant variables in marketing, these insights can be utilized to drive decision-making in fundraising and marketing initiatives, both to increase the nonprofit’s visibility and to increase donor donations.

    4. NBI revenue from data usage surcharge will be allocated within the federal budget with some restrictions. It Is mandated that the fund be used primarily for education, health, and housing. It will be mandated that it cannot be used for defense, intelligence, etc.

    While I believe this is an excellent idea, I believe it will not be well received within the companies to whom it applies. Defense and intelligence are likely major factors for them, as are their markets, and not receiving the information and fee applied there could make it a less favorable choice.

    5. The encryption and anonymization of the data will ensure security for the individual and society as a whole while allowing big data sets and the inherent value of such data sets to be used by multiple organizations/individuals at minimal cost and will encourage overall innovation and growth.

    I believe Users should give their permission to sites to gather personal information such as IP addresses, device IDs, and cookies, according to the GDPR. Collecting anonymous data and removing IDs from databases restricts your capacity to extract value and insight from your data. Anonymized data, for example, cannot be utilized for marketing or to personalize the user experience.
    Similarly, there are some Disadvantages of encryption- When we access data, it is necessary to remember or record key/passwords. which also consumes a lot of resources.
    There are occasions when ridiculous criteria are required and The problem of compatibility
    So, no one can assure 100% Data safety

    6.: The anonymization of data severely limits the creation of inference data sets that target individuals and manipulate behavior.
    Anonymization is a data-processing technology that removes or modifies personally identifiable information, resulting in data that cannot be linked to a specific person. It’s also an important part of Google’s privacy promise.
    Advantages: During the data collection stage, this strategy is simple to implement. It’s useful for concealing personal information.
    DisAdvantage: The regulatory compliances require websites to receive permission from users to gather personal information, such as cookies, IP addresses, and computer IDs. Gathering anonymous data and removing identities from the database would restrict the ability to extract meaningful information from the results.
    Anonymized information, for example, cannot be used for targeting purposes or personalizing the user experience.

    Like

  17. 1. Data has value. Data as captured produces value endlessly across multiple production processes.

    Data 100% has value. In our modern world data helps so many companies and individuals. Companies can use the information to better sell to certain areas or people. Knowing what works and doest really helps a company and data is the driving force behind this.

    2. Such value must be realized and used in the interest of the public whose data it is in the first place.

    I think that some data should be used in the interest of the public and some be kept private. There is a line that must be drawn between personal data and public data. Our personal dat should stay personal.

    1. All data must be anonymized and encrypted and stored in a publicly owned NATIONAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE (NDI)

    I do not agree with this statement that All data must be anonymized and encrypted and stored in a publicly owned NATIONAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE (NDI). I think that this brings a lot of risk and temptation. By having all this data stored in one area, I believe that it could be very easy to hack and obtain all this information. People would be hesitant to trust this even if it was secure and closely monitored.

    2. Rules of use: NDI Data usage cost will be according to volume of data being used and size of the firm seeking usage (revenue).

    I definitely think that NDI Data usage cost according to volume of data being used and size of the firm seeking usage would be a fair way to handle this. It’s only fair that larger companies like amazon would pay more since they are using way more data then the average company. This also works for the average person, you would not want to pay more than someone using a larger amount of data then you. By paying what you use it comes out to be fair for everyone.

    3. Some categories of users such as non-profits, universities, schools etc will be allowed free access to the data.

    I agree with this too but only certain aspects of it. Public schools and non-profit organizations should be allowed free access to the data, however I do not believe that universities should since most have a lot of money and students are paying. This would have to be reviewed on a case by case basis to make sure it is fair.

    4. NBI revenue from data usage surcharge will be allocated within the federal budget with some restrictions. It Is mandated that the fund be used primarily for education, health, and housing. It will be mandated that it cannot be used for defense, intelligence etc.

    With this idea I believe that people would get behind it more since it is bringing money back into good use. With only having it mandated that the fund be used primarily for education, health, and housing.not be used for defense, intelligence and more; people would maybe shift in a different direction. This could generate a good amount of money for people and organizations that could use it .

    5. The encryption and anonymization of the data will ensure security for the individual and society as a whole while allowing big data sets and the inherent value of such data sets to be used by multiple organizations/individuals at minimal cost and will encourage overall innovation and growth.

    I do not agree with this statement since I still believe that no matter how secure it is, maybe some people will still be able to hack into this. It is a large amount of important information in one place. People will definitely be tempted to access this.

    6.: The anonymization of data severely limits creation of inference data sets that target individuals and manipulate behavior.

    This is definitely true since companies could indivialive consumers and create more accurate data. By knowing who to target and where, companies can earn more money and expand.

    Like

    1. Hey Kyle,

      I like your post! You did a great job explaining all your ideas for why or why not the data collection process should be allowed to continue with or without consumer consent. One point that I have to disagree agree with you on is your refusal to entertain the notion of allowing all data to be anonymized and encrypted and stored in a publicly owned NATIONAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE (NDI). I think encryption and anonymization of data is a good thing as it acts similar to the way a VPN hides our public IP address. Consumer data that is encrypted and anonymized is unable to be reached or taken by large companies for the express purpose of creating advertiser revenue. Without any system of encryption/anonymization of consumer data, this would allow companies the ability to collect more information on consumers and create a specialized advertising file on them to send them targeted ads and gain money through manipulative tactics.

      Like

  18. 1.) I’m in favor of anonymizing and encrypting our consumer data. Leaving out names, addresses, etc. would protect us in a way from targeted advertising. As consumers, we are being manipulated by the ads we see. This could prevent, for example, casino ads from targeting a person with a gambling addiction. I believe there is a psychological aspect to this as well, as many consumers feel as though they are being watched 24/7.

    2.) Having a cost for NDI data based on usage seems reasonable as well. Large corporations will desire the most data, and will pay their fair share to access it. A smaller company can request data that is tailored to their specific needs, and won’t have to break the bank to access it.

    3.) I’m not sure if non-profits/schools should have TOTALLY free access, as this could in many ways be taken advantage of. Perhaps they are given a discount of some kind? If not, then just give them access to specific data points, not the entire pool.

    4.) While I’d like to think the Federal government would follow the rules (for the most part), it seems unlikely. They wouldn’t openly disclose their processes for accessing the data, and if they’re caught breaking the rules (like using for intelligence), they would just say it’s for “national security” and move on.

    5.) By having this anonymized/encrypted data pool be accessible to anyone (for a small fee), you would ABSOLUTELY be encouraging innovation and growth. Sure, the data could certainly be hacked, but the risk to end users is far smaller than before.

    6.) By anonymizing the data, you limit inference data in theory. Companies could, however, use the anonymized data (and data they previously had) to draw their own conclusions about individual consumers. So while your personal information would be safe, it is highly likely their advertising to you would be accurate.

    Like

  19. 1. All data must be anonymized and encrypted and stored in a publicly owned NATIONAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE (NDI). This is a point that I agree with. Companies like Facebook and Google should not have access to our data for their own monetization purposes. If we are able to encrypt our public data, then we will be more able to properly manage how much we want to give out to large corporations or not. This validates a consumer’s right to privacy and the like and gives them more autonomy over their personal data when surfing the Internet.

    2. Rules of use: NDI Data usage cost will be according to volume of data being used and size of the firm seeking usage (revenue). I do think there should be a usage cost associated with the volume of data being used and size of the firm seeking usage (revenue). If there’s a fee associated with accessing consumer data then maybe this will dissuade major companies from even doing it in the first place. They often would want to avoid paying such high fees as it would take away from their bottom line. However, if larger companies do pay for NDI Data usage then maybe the funds generated from that can be put towards different projects fro the federal government, (similar to tax revenue, revenue from NDI data collection can be used for consumer benefit and help enhance the infrastructure of the country overall).

    3. Some categories of users such as non-profits, universities, schools etc will be allowed free access to the data.I do think universities should have access to this data. If just to prevent outside hacking and give them the ability to effectively monitor their students to prevent any extremist action. In this politically divisive world, we’ve seen there be many clashes at universities and other public schools due to political differences. Students often critique and bully each other based on a variety of different factors online. If schools are allowed to track their student’s data then they may be able to put a stop to such extremist activity. I also don’t think the data could be used for monetization purposes as schools are often funded by federal and state tax dollars in the United States so they have no reason to monetize the data they collect from their students. It should just be used to surveil students if just for their overall security at school due to the current, turbulent times we are living in.

    4. NBI revenue from data usage surcharge will be allocated within the federal budget with some restrictions. It Is mandated that the fund be used primarily for education, health, and housing. It will be mandated that it cannot be used for defense, intelligence etc. Going back to what I mentioned before, I think that the utilization of a public fund for revenue from data usage surcharge will be allocated within the federal budget is a great idea. This would help bolster U.S. infrastructure and also help the U.S. build more in terms of economic growth. It is more of an economic alternative to raising taxes and would be a creative for the government to raise more money for the federal budget.

    5. The encryption and anonymization of the data will ensure security for the individual and society as a whole while allowing big data sets and the inherent value of such data sets to be used by multiple organization/individuals at minimal cost and will encourage overall innovation and growth. I agree with this statement to an extent. For in European countries they often have GDPR laws to protect their consumers from having their data harvested by companies on the Internet. Additionally, data can be encrypted and anonymized if any consumer who uses the Internet decides to use a virtual-private network to access the internet and hide their public IP address. They can use their regional VPN to change their IP address to European countries with GDPR laws like France, Germany and Ireland to avoid such data collecting activities that are common in the U.S. For individuals, encrypting and anonymizing data would allow them to have a right to privacy as well as not be tracked by large companies through surveillance capitalism. What I do not like in this statement are the condition that if big data sets are allowed to be collected and utilized by companies. Companies do not care about consumer rights and simply just want to monetize consumer data for their own selfish purposes. There’s nothing complex about it, and in my honest opinion, companies should fully be banned from collecting this data and utilizing it because it’s similar to profiting off consumers without their consent or legal affirmation. There’s no innovation or growth to be gained from companies being able to use large data pools of consumers, just more monetization for the company’s own selfish purposes.

    6.: The anonymization of data severely limits creation of inference data sets that target individuals and manipulate behavior. I don’t think that anonymizing data limits inference data. I think it invalidates the principle all together. By anonymizing data, we can ensure that companies do not have the ability to build a set profile around individuals. This ensures that there’s surveillance capitalism associated with using the Internet.

    Like

    1. I really enjoyed your responses to this discussion. I thought that you made a lot of good points about monetization of companies with consumer data and what should and shouldn’t be regulated or allowed.

      Like

  20. PREAMBLE
    1. Data does have value in my opinion. The value of data can be very beneficial across multiple production processes. It can influence directly the consumer.
    2. The value of data should be realized. Companies need to help making public why they value data so much. It is a breach of privacy if companies are obtaining data without the individual’s knowledge. As mentioned in the lecture, we do share personal information willingly through social media accounts. As an individual, we should be aware of whose data it is and how it is being used or traded.

    LEGISLATIVE
    1. In regard to data collection and how it is obtained, I agree that it should be anonymized and stored in publicly own infrastructure. It should be publicly available same as when financial data from companies are made public. I think if the data contains personal information such as social security numbers, then it should not be accessible publicly.
    2. I think NDI data can be regulated by volume, but it can be controversial to base it on the size of the firm. This could be unfair to those smaller companies that do not have the revenue of the bigger corporations.
    3. I do not think these categories should have free access to the data. In my opinion, schools, universities, and non-profits are all businesses and have sources of revenue coming in. They should have to pay for the data just like the rest of the industries.
    4. I think the funding should be used to benefit the public and improve the ways of living. I think this funding should be kept separate from the resources that are used in defense or weaponry. It should not be used as an advantage in defense or intelligence. Ultimately, as of today, we know that a large volume of data is being collected so it is possible a country or territory is using the data for their own advantages.
    5. I think that the anonymity and encryption of the data through the NDI will protect the public. On the other hand, the fees to obtain the data will help with regulation and funding. I think companies do need this data especially in the consumer industry to help with satisfying the needs of the consumers and stay ahead of the latest trends.
    6. I do not think the anonymity of the data hinders the creation or analysis of the data. I do not see why it would have to be not anonymous for the companies to get the benefits of the data. If I was aware my data was in the NDI, then I would prefer my name or personal data to not be available to the public. The data should be used to get my demographics and other similar categories

    Like

  21. 1. I agree that data needs to be protected especially if it is placed in a publicly owned NDI. If not, then it is vulnerable to hacks.
    2. If the data is being used then companies should be charged for it, if the company is just holding it then they shouldn’t be charged.
    3. I think if universities could use data to construct research rather than companies using it for profit would be a lot better.
    4. I personally am fine with this idea, as long as the profits are used for good. If there was need to redirect profits towards defense and intelligence then that would make sense, however there is no need for because there is already so much money being allocated to these areas.
    5. I believe that as long as the users identity remains unknown then it is ok for companies to use the data for research and what not.
    6. I disagree, corporations will still be able to recognize trends by pulling together other data sets.

    Like

  22. 1. Data has value. Data as captured produces value endlessly across multiple production processes.

    2. Such value must be realized and used in the interest of the public whose data it is in the first place.

    LEGISLATIVE PRINCIPLES

    1. All data must be anonymized and encrypted and stored in a publicly owned NATIONAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE (NDI)

    – I agree with this Framework, this can still give businesses the ability to see things like other products that are bought after buying a certain thing and what sites are gone to after visiting a certain site.

    2. Rules of use: NDI Data usage cost will be according to volume of data being used and size of the firm seeking usage (revenue).

    – I agree with this as well, there shouldn’t be a specific number paid based on how much or little data you are using. It should vary based off how much you want to use.

    3. Some categories of users such as non-profits, universities, schools etc will be allowed free access to the data.

    – I think that this is a little broad for me to completely agree with this statement. If they are using the data to then use the student to monetize, they should have to pay a limited fee however, if they are using it to enhance student or employee experience then I can get on board.

    4. NBI revenue from data usage surcharge will be allocated within the federal budget with some restrictions. It Is mandated that the fund be used primarily for education, health, and housing. It will be mandated that it cannot be used for defence, intelligence etc.

    – I think that this is another thing could be changed. As long as it is set in stone what amount or percent is going to be allocated in what direction, then I don’t see an issue using the data surcharge to improve these things.

    5. The encryption and anonymization of the data will ensure security for the individual and society as a whole while allowing big data sets and the inherent value of such data sets to be used by multiple organization/individuals at minimal cost and will encourage overall innovation and growth.

    – I think that this is the best way to do it. Businesses don’t really care about the name behind the data as long as they are getting the data itself.

    6.: The anonymization of data severely limits creation of inference data sets that target individuals and manipulate behavior.

    – I don’t think it really limits individual targeting it will just make it a little tougher and more scientific. For example, a business can easily look at the data, see products bought, sites visited, or accounts followed and then pull up everyone with similar interests. Then you can use that and know we want to run this ad when people have looked at these specific things.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s