Download app, install, click to accept terms and conditions, and in no time at all you’re free to use the app to make your life easier. Sure, there’s talk of data privacy somewhere in the sign-up process, but it’s so tied up in legalease that the average user can’t begin to unravel what it really means.
Then you see the headlines of how the UK requested global access to Apple’s encrypted data, and you ask: “Can they really do that?” Seems that they can, and they did. And politics and government policy aside, this is not the first time tech companies have been asked to hand over data.
As much as there is a strong precedent for keeping user data secure and private, the question of who actually owns it, is a bit of a grey area. Most users will assume that any data about them or created by them, belongs to them. But remember that little check box you’re required to tick accepting terms and conditions?
Legally, you might still own your data, but invariably terms and conditions give permission for apps to access and use the data. Because you want to use the app, or maybe because the convenience of apps is sold so well, most people will happily click away. It’s just data after all.
Yet for tech companies, data is gold. Billion-dollar companies have been built on it, industries and economies influenced by it. It’s not just data. It’s a highly valuable commodity. One that users are getting marginal returns on compared to the tech giants.
They have become so large and influential because of the data economy. They’ve used the data they’ve collected over decades to build experiences, design products, and now with AI, they’re using that data to train their LLMs. This is one of the concerns that is frequently raised about AI.
Some regulations such as EU’s GDPR, or California’s CCPA, are aimed at protecting user data. The challenge comes in assigning ownership of that data to individuals. If it can’t be assigned, does that mean ownership is open to anyone? Or that tech companies can use it as they like?
Let’s not forget the ‘minor’ mistake some Samsung employees made when ChatGPT was first launched. They fed company proprietary code into ChatGPT, completely unaware that this would exposing it to a much broader audience, including industry competitors.
By now most companies and employees are more educated and they’re more cautious of what tech they use and how they manage privacy. When it comes to legally enforcing ownership of data, though, it’s back in tricky waters. It seems that the old adage of possession is nine tenths of the law still applies and tech companies know this.
As long as they’re holding the data, they’re retaining most of the bargaining power. If users want the benefits of their tech, that’s going to come at a cost. Today it’s a subscription or a free sign-up, from tomorrow it’s the data currency that’ll be paying the cost.
