IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - September 2021 - 94

Feature
demonstrates the conundrum of ownership. A user
inputs keystrokes and takes actions that are recorded
and processed by the computer into binary codes.
The codes create " bits " of data that are accessible to
collectors of data, such as the internet service provider,
the operating system, software, and websites.
The involvement of multiple actors involved in the
data processing complicates data ownership, and
competing views exist on whether the producer or
collectors of data should have rights to it. The intangibility
of data does not lend itself to governance in
the sense of traditional property law, and addressing
at what point data becomes valuable or transfers in
ownership is difficult, especially with biometric data.
As politicians call for individual rights to own and
sell personal data in traditional legal understanding
of ownership, some warn against commodification
of data as it results in cascading societal problems
[8]. Digital spaces require a reimagining of ownership
and extension of rights to personal autonomy
without this monetization component in order to
protect dignity. Copyright law continues to grapple
with the complexity of governance in the digital
space, as endless copies are easily made, making
enforcement difficult and ownership unclear.
According to Intel, " every day 2.5 quintillion
bytes of new data are produced " and " 90% of all
available data was produced after 2015 " [9]. With
the influx of available data, these datasets become
problematic. Not all data is useful information, or
accurate when repurposed from original collection
to another insight [10]. Additionally, there is an
issue of anonymous data still remaining traceable
to an individual. An example of this is a case where
Netflix posted information about 10 million movie
rankings collected from 500,000 users with random
numbers to assure anonymity [11]. Researchers
were able to de-anonymize data by comparing it
to public information found on the Internet Movie
Database for some users [12]. Only a small amount
of information is required to potentially identify data
to an individual. Keeping data anonymous is difficult,
as also found by Latanya Sweeney regarding
the 1990 census, where " 87% of the population in
the United States, 216 million of 248 million, could
likely be uniquely identified by their five-digit ZIP
code, combined with their gender and date of birth "
[11]. One practice that would aid in alleviating this
problem is aggregating data at the source, as Google
Sidewalk Labs was recommended to do but failed to
94
implement [13]. Requiring this as a default practice
would reduce individual and societal harms, such as
surveillance, and rebalance the power inequity of
data, lessening ownership concerns.
Currently, U.S. laws do not clearly define data
ownership, and it defaults to collectors and processors.
These concerns became prominent with awareness
of mass amounts of data being captured, and
revelations of problematic usage of data in both private
and public sectors. Notable examples include
the National Security Administration's illegal mass
bulk collection of data under the guise of national
security, as revealed by Edward Snowden [14] and
Facebook's Cambridge Analytica scandal [15].
Addressing data ownership in the policy realm
remains an important endeavor due to the extensiveness
of personal information collected and the lack
of autonomy over that data, along with the harms it
may entail. For example, data is often shared with
third parties, known as data brokers, for the analytics
and processing of the data for various purposes,
often creating profiles of users [11]. The Cambridge
Analytica scandal brought public awareness to data
collection practices, as people do not often consider
the extent to which their data is used, or have the
capacity to meaningfully consent. Companies rarely
provide clear terms and transparency of their data
processing and who has access to the data. There is
a lack of regulation to assist in this and difficulties in
enforcement and meaningful consent [16].
The lack of regulation becomes a greater issue
with data that fall outside of what is protected under
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act (HIPAA). HIPAA offers certain protections pertaining
to medical information and prevents discrimination
by employers and insurance companies [17].
Technologies that are not under HIPAA protections
include fit-bits and nonmedical implants. The question
of data ownership becomes even more tangled
when considering implantable devices gathering
data that is the most personal in nature, especially
when considering future aims, such as Elon Musk's
Neuralink [18]. Ownership of that data defaults to
the manufacturers and stakeholders without comprehensive
regulation explicitly granting ownership
of such personal data to individuals. This is the
case even with regulated medical devices, such as
pacemakers [19].
IEEE Technology and Society Magazine
IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - September 2021

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - September 2021
