|
The repackaging of aggregate data creates value – but that
does not mean that the individuals that contributed (through the supply of
information) to the aggregate cannot or should not be appropriately recognized/compensated
for information they generate/supply. I would caution against any language that
implies (though inclusive or presumptive bundling ) that data
rights of ownership and/or a right to substantively participate in co-created
value based on degree of participation is in some way nullified by the mashing/packaging
process. Lack of recognition undermines the concept of ownership. For me ownership = value participation. Divorcing the two from
each other does provide vendor service flexibility (programmatic value) but it may
also open up a channel for abuse. This is why volunteering is a very slippery
slope and represents a ownership loophole designed to deny individual
participation in the value realized through the commercialization of their data.
From: Iain Henderson
[mailto:
] Hi Trent, I don't believe that there has been a definitive discussion
on this in VRM-land, although we spend lots of time on the concept of the
personal data store - the generic term for data specifically built on the side
of the individual, with ownership an un-said characteristic of the data within
that store. Beyond that, I wrote a post a
while back on the subject of 'can I own my data', which as I recall says there
are a lot of grey areas around such a statement, but fundamentally i'll know
that I own it when I can/ could sell it and underpin that sale with a legal
contract. So, if we assume that ownership is meant in the legal sense,
then who owns what data depends on who signed what terms and conditions
document. Beyond the legal definition, there has long been a recognition (first
coined by Andre Durand as I recall) that the data creation process in the
context of supplier relationships can be split into: - my data (what I bring to the relationship) - your data (what you bring) - our data (co-created through doing business) I think this categorisation is helpful, although there are
plenty of situations where data is created on an individual without their being
a direct relationship in place (e.g. by credit bureau). The problem, for the
individual, is that at present the 'our data' typically lives within an
operational customer management system (web site/ CRM) owned by the supplier,
so the 'our data' is only available to the individual as and when the supplier
enables it (or the individual deploys screen scraping tools or similar). At present, a sub-group in VRM-land is developing the
concept of 'volunteered personal information', which is another variant on the
ownership discussion. In this scenario, the organisation is is invited to sign
the terms and conditions of use set by the individual - again implying that
this particular type of data is owned by the individual. Anyway, I hope that helps shed some light on the issue from
the VRM perspective. I agree that it would be good to develop shared
definitions that each project could use; do you have anything on a wiki/
workspace we can use to do so? Cheers Iain On 26 Aug 2008, at 18:17, J. Trent Adams wrote:
Iain Henderson This email and any attachment contains information which is
private and confidential and is intended for the addressee only. If you are not
an addressee, you are not authorised to read, copy or use the e-mail or any
attachment. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
by return e-mail and then destroy it. |
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.