Abstract: With the billions of Internet of Things devices connected via the 5G and other networks, loads of useful data are produced. However, the majority of these data are disappearing into the silos of cloud and IoT companies. This problem is exacerbated by the current economic system creating perverse incentives that push companies to keep their data private and not to sell or share them. From the society point of view, this leads to severe inefficiencies. More structurally, Adam Smith's invisible hand does not work: in the data markets, the public and private interests are not aligned by the current market forces.
Based on these observations, we present a conjecture wherein we state that any attempts to fix the market failure in the data markets within the current economic structures are bound to be inefficient. Only by redefining fundamental economic concepts, such as ownership and money, we can efficiently align the interests, clear the markets, and gain welfare potential. Furthermore, we briefly suggest an urban community currency experiment wherein this conjecture could be empirically tested.

With this article Paul Jurcys continues to dive deeper into personal data ‘ownership’ topic.

• What data is most valuable to you?
  
• What segments of your data would you prefer to keep anonymous?
  
• What segments of your personal data would you be willing to share with third parties?

In January 2020, when NPO switched from tracking-based targeting to contextual targeting, revenue increased 61% more than January 2019.

A great article about data economy mentioning many iniatives that are part of MyData movement like Decode and Fair data economy.

Empowering the individual through human-centric data governance in a world loaded with power-asymmetry: reflections on the MyData 2019 conference.

This book is the result of a larger project titled ‘Future Regulation of Industrial Internet (FRII)’, a collaborative academic-industry study funded by Business Finland (former Tekes). Experts in various relevant fields of science and industry measure the legal tensions created by Industrial Internet in our global economy and propose solutions that are both theoretically valuable and concretely practical, identifying workable business models and practices based on both technical and legal knowledge.

Data activism has emerged as a response to asymmetries in how data and the means of knowledge production are distributed. This article examines MyData, a data activism initiative developing principles for a new technical and commercial ecosystem in which individuals control the use of personal data.

Our digital environment is changing, fast. Nobody knows exactly what it’ll look like in five to ten years’ time, but we know that how we produce and share our data will change where we end up. We have to decide how to protect, enhance, and preserve our rights in a world where technology is everywhere and data is generated by every action.

Some interesting drawings about the different dimensions and approaches of PIMS (Personal Information Management System).

Delacroix and Lawrence emphasize the limits inherent in an ownership approach to data: at most, data ownership confers the kind of access rights that are similar to water rights.

Arguments about data ownership... ”you can’t own legally, but ownership is also a social construct... more rights you have closer to ownership you feel”

This week was another planning call for the MyData operator workshop. The session description currently is: 'An outcome-orientated, multi-stakeholder workshop to better define the role of the Operator within the MyData ecosystem. The session will include perspectives from Japanese data banks, US fiduciaries, and global intermediaries with existing public and private-sector practitioners. The aim of the workshop will be to develop the direction and working party for a whitepaper to be published in 2019.'

The content of the session sounds great: asking the community for their opinion, given the vacuum left by leadership on this issue. The session title conveys the idea that a decision has already been made, which is a different message of course.