Difference between revisions of "Personal Information Economics"

Revision as of 12:06, 21 February 2021 (view source) Tom (talk | contribs) (→‎PI must not be labled as an econmic good) ← Older edit		Latest revision as of 13:08, 21 February 2021 (view source) Tom (talk | contribs) (→‎Context)
(14 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Full Title or Meme==		==Full Title or Meme==
−	The idea that our Personal Information is an '''economic good''' has gained attention. Is that a good thing?	+	The idea that our Personal Information (PI) is an '''economic good''' has gained attention. Is that a good thing?
	==Context==		==Context==
	* From the economic meaning of the term '''good''' as something of value comes the question whether all of life's pleasures should be valued in economic terms.		* From the economic meaning of the term '''good''' as something of value comes the question whether all of life's pleasures should be valued in economic terms.
−	* Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University's CyLab Security and Privacy Institute assessed the degree of autonomy that people would feel comfortable giving to personalized privacy assistants (PPAs).<ref>Daniel Tkacik, ''How Much Control Are People Willing to Grant to a Personal Privacy Assistant?'' (2020-06-18) Carnegie Mellon University CyLab Security and Privacy Institute https://orange.hosting.lsoft.com/trk/click?ref=znwrbbrs9_6-25b42x32309fx079946&</ref> The team surveyed users on three increasingly autonomous versions of PPAs; most participants reacted positively to the first version, which would simply let users know that devices were around them, while a few said it would make them anxious. A second version that knows users' personal privacy preferences, and makes recommendations from that information, also found wide favor, while the third PPA, which would exclude users from decision-making entirely, provoked mixed reactions. CyLab's Jessica Colnago said, "We found that people are definitely interested in having some sort of assistance like that provided by a PPA, but what that assistance looks like varies across the board. In different scenarios with different people, they want different ways of interacting with the system.”	+	* The meaning of [[Privacy]] is not the same in all situations.
		+	# [[Privacy]] is the right to be let alone as defined in the late 19th century. <ref name="Warren">Warren and Brandeis ''The Right to Privacy'' (1890-12-15) Harvard Law Review http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacy_brand_warr2.html</ref>
		+	# [[Privacy]] more recently has come to mean the right to hide [[User Information]] or behavior.
	==Opposing arguements==		==Opposing arguements==
	===PI is an economic good===		===PI is an economic good===
−	A New York Times '''Economic View''' is that there is "value as an eonoic resource.<ref>David Deming, ''A Need to balance Privacy with Data Sharing''. New York Times p. B5 </ref>	+	*A New York Times '''Economic View''' opined that data has "value as an eonomic resource".<ref>David Deming, ''A Need to balance Privacy with Data Sharing''. New York Times p. B5 </ref> It is not clear why data about private people should ever become the economic property of a company, but that appears to be a common phenomonon. <blockquote>Data increasingly prowers innovation and it needs to be used for the public good. ... Data provides a record of what has already happened, but its main value comes from improving predictions. ... The buzzy refrain of the digital age is that "data is the new oil". ... When Celera mapped a gene first, it protected its(sic) intellectual property by requiring other firms to negotiate licensing agreements or pay high fees before using the dta. Years later the genes mapped by Celera led to many fewer innovations and commercial products than those that were immediately put in the public domain. ... Data's increasing value as an economic resource requires a new way of thinking.</blockquote>
		+
	===PI must not be labled as an econmic good===		===PI must not be labled as an econmic good===
−	In a Q&A session with Harvards's Elizabeth Renieris the question of	+	In a Q&A session with Harvards's Elizabeth Renieris the question of data as an economic good was roundly disputed. If we focus on [[Privacy]] as the right to be let alone, then selling my data could impact others rights to control who can impinge on their attention.<ref>Jeff Benson, ''Data Ownership Is Dangerous'' https://digitalprivacy.news/2020/03/30/harvards-elizabeth-renieris-data-ownership-is-dangerous/</ref><blockquote> ...blockchain-obsessed idealists, want to forge a future in which people can profit from their data. Elizabeth Renieris thinks that’s a dangerous idea. ...this idea of a transaction that actually extinguishes your rights in relation to that data is really dangerous, because you cannot imagine all the ways that could go wrong.  ...If I sell “my” contact list to Facebook, the people in that list have no opportunity to consent to that. They don’t have any say in the matter.</blockquote>
−	<ref>Jeff Benson, ''Data Ownership Is Dangerous'' https://digitalprivacy.news/2020/03/30/harvards-elizabeth-renieris-data-ownership-is-dangerous/<ref>
−
−	==Problems==
−	* Decentralized IDs were created to give user's control of their identifiers, but at the cost of posting those identifiers on a publicly resolvable public ledger. The result is that any usage of the the DID can be correlated with any other use of the same DID. Once sufficient correlations have been accumulated against that DID, the person is uniquely identifiable.
−	* Most identifier authentication services on the web now offer a [[Service Endpoint]] that can provide information about the identifier. If the user is hosting their identifier on there smartphone, no service endpoint on that phone could be always available for query.
−	* Nearly all of the privacy solution require users to keep separate track of identifiers used in public and private settings. This is not likely to be acceptable to the majority of users if we don't also give them an agent that can track all of their relationships and the identifier that they use for that relationship.
−
−	==Solutions==
−
	==References==		==References==
	[[Category:Privacy]]		[[Category:Privacy]]

---

Latest revision as of 13:08, 21 February 2021

Full Title or Meme

The idea that our Personal Information (PI) is an economic good has gained attention. Is that a good thing?

Context

• From the economic meaning of the term good as something of value comes the question whether all of life's pleasures should be valued in economic terms.
• The meaning of Privacy is not the same in all situations.

1. Privacy is the right to be let alone as defined in the late 19th century. ^[1]
2. Privacy more recently has come to mean the right to hide User Information or behavior.

Opposing arguements

PI is an economic good

• A New York Times Economic View opined that data has "value as an eonomic resource".^[2] It is not clear why data about private people should ever become the economic property of a company, but that appears to be a common phenomonon.

  Data increasingly prowers innovation and it needs to be used for the public good. ... Data provides a record of what has already happened, but its main value comes from improving predictions. ... The buzzy refrain of the digital age is that "data is the new oil". ... When Celera mapped a gene first, it protected its(sic) intellectual property by requiring other firms to negotiate licensing agreements or pay high fees before using the dta. Years later the genes mapped by Celera led to many fewer innovations and commercial products than those that were immediately put in the public domain. ... Data's increasing value as an economic resource requires a new way of thinking.

PI must not be labled as an econmic good

In a Q&A session with Harvards's Elizabeth Renieris the question of data as an economic good was roundly disputed. If we focus on Privacy as the right to be let alone, then selling my data could impact others rights to control who can impinge on their attention.^[3]

...blockchain-obsessed idealists, want to forge a future in which people can profit from their data. Elizabeth Renieris thinks that’s a dangerous idea. ...this idea of a transaction that actually extinguishes your rights in relation to that data is really dangerous, because you cannot imagine all the ways that could go wrong. ...If I sell “my” contact list to Facebook, the people in that list have no opportunity to consent to that. They don’t have any say in the matter.

References

1. ↑ Warren and Brandeis The Right to Privacy (1890-12-15) Harvard Law Review http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacy_brand_warr2.html
2. ↑ David Deming, A Need to balance Privacy with Data Sharing. New York Times p. B5
3. ↑ Jeff Benson, Data Ownership Is Dangerous https://digitalprivacy.news/2020/03/30/harvards-elizabeth-renieris-data-ownership-is-dangerous/