No. Most of the time you cannot own where the data is stored. Joerg Von: Kevin Cox [mailto:
] You cannot own the data but you can own where the data is stored and you can then restrict access to the data which has the same outcome as owning the data. Kevin On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Luk Vervenne <
" target="_blank">
> wrote: Thx Joerg, that nailed it for good. On 25 Sep 2013, at 09:26, "Joerg Resch" <
" target="_blank">
> wrote: Yes, correct. And in fact, the legal system in Germany and in most other countries knows the term “ownership” only for physical goods. This is the reason, why you cannot buy software. You only can buy a usage right. Legally, there is no such thing like “personal data ownership”. Joerg Von: Luk Vervenne [mailto:luk@synergetics.be] Ownership is a very bad concept. It is the oldest legal concept (it's my cave...) and should be avoided at all cost when debating personal data. Instead I would suggest to use "access & usage rights". These are somewhat more flexible and distributable, and can be adapted to existing legel frameworks (for starters) L. On 25 Sep 2013, at 01:05, Kevin Cox <
" target="_blank">
> wrote: I have been following UMA for many years and they are on the right track. There are some practical problems that will be addressed as people start to use the ideas. The first practical problem is that most organisations that hold information on people believe it is not owned by the person but is owned by the organisation. My understanding is that the organisations are correct. Who owns the place where data is stored owns the data. In practice this means that the organisation has to give permission for the data to be taken from their storage area as well as requesting permission from Alice. This set of agreements and access is unlikely to occur unless there is some value through service associated with the transfer of data. The other problems with the approach are usability and scalability. The setting of permissions is too hard to understand. A simpler approach is that by allowing both the individual and the organisation to be paid for the data then the contracts around the supply of data automatically enables permissions. This means that instead of permissions both the organisation and the individual remember sales. Imagine you have 500 different places where your data is stored. Controlling the permissions is difficult - imagine the dashboard. A simpler approach is to remember what has been sold and to whom. We come back to the idea of Value for Service rather than Value for Exchange. Underlying UMA is the idea that there is value in the data and in the exchange of data. If instead we think of Value for service when the data is used then all we have to do is to keep track of when the data is sold and the setting of permissions is no longer needed. Permissions are part of the sales process and only activated when the service is performed. The value can be very small but it doesn't have to be large because its main purpose is to automatically record the permissions when and only when required. Kevin On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Liz Coker <
" target="_blank">
> wrote: Hi Doc - |
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.