Talk Summary

DataEthics4Allᵀᴹ brings this Series of Weekly Ethics 1stᵀᴹ Live Talks for Leaders with an Ethics 1stᵀᴹ Mindset. Food for thought for Leaders who put People above Profits!! Come, join us for this lively and informative weekly discussion on how to create an Ethics 1stᵀᴹ World with Ethics 1stᵀᴹ minded: People, Cultures, and Solutions. In this Live Talk, we discussed the topic of Get Paid for your Data.

Transcript

00:25 Shilpi Agarwal:

Hey everyone, welcome to Ethics 1st Live! I’m your host, Shilpi Agarwal, founder and CEO of DataEthics4All, and I’ll be joined by my panelists today, from the DataEthics4All Leadership Team, Susanna Raj and Samantha Wigglesworth, good evening. Today we are going to talk about whether we should we be paid for our data? It’s a very interesting question that we all have on our mind. Last week on Ethics 1st Live we talked about how our personal and private information is being misused or sold without our permission, so this is a kind of part two of that: whether we should be paid for our own data or not. As you know, Andrew Yang, who was a former presidential candidate, started the Data Dividend project because he believed that social media companies should pay a dividend to the consumers whose data they are holding and making money off. That was also a theme for California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, who also created a digital dividend project and wanted Californians to be paid something for their own data. So let’s start with what our panelists think – first of all, do you guys think that consumers should be paid for their data? We’ll start with Susanna.

 

3:05 Susanna Raj:

I don’t believe we should be paid for our data. I don’t think I’m ready to say yes to that question – to sell my privacy to people. I know it is already being taken over by companies; but I would like to have my ownership back, I don’t want to sell it.

 

3:36 Shilpi:

You don’t want to sell it, you just want the ownership back. But what would you like to do with the things that you have shared freely, on Facebook or on any other social media platform?

3:50 Susanna:

I have not yet shared anything freely, but whatever was taken without my permission I would like it back. If not, I would like to take everything back and also be informed what is being taken away from me – that is what I would like to have.

 

Susanna: I don’t think privacy should become a commodity; I don’t think it should become something you sell.

Susanna: I don’t believe you want to go down that path – I know what California has done is in a way empowering people, they think that is one way of being bringing data ownership back to the people by saying there is a price for the data; so that means that you become the seller and then you have ownership back. But why do I have to sell anything to have ownership back? I can keep that to myself and still have my ownership – why do I have to sell it?

 

5:02 Sam Wigglesworth:

Susanna has raised a really good point. For me we’ve got to a point where quite a lot of our data is already with social media companies and tech companies, and has been for quite a while, so the horse has already bolted in some respects. Initially I was thinking that yes we could certainly benefit as citizens from having some sort of reward for the utilization of our data if it’s appropriately used. But first I think let’s look at the data that is currently in the data lake, if you like; and that’s being utilized by private companies, and let’s focus on protection under legislation similar to what we were discussing last week and what you’ve just raised about the California legislation.

I think it’s important that we focus on that and that organizations have their own very robust disclaimers as well that state what data they have about you and what it’s going to be used for. Legal policy would give us that power back, which is what Susanna was saying.

Sam: There are some incentives out there in the marketplace for us to benefit financially from data, but again I don’t think it’s a great deal, that’s my view.

 

6:43 Shilpi:

I hear both of you, here’s where I’m coming from: the California Consumer Privacy Act is the baseline protection for consumers, right – there is some level of protection that has now been turned into the law. Unfortunately California is the only state in the United States that has adopted that as the bare minimum for privacy protection. Of course we would like all states to implement something, hopefully something standardized, not that every state comes up with their own version, because then it is a mess to do business across states and for consumers to understand. Today we have to understand GDPR as a consumer and as a business owner, and GDPR and CCPA are very different in their own ways.

Multiply this by 50, or if every country came up with their own, and there are some countries who have their own versions of it, so it would become a real nightmare to keep track of everything for consumers as well as for businesses. I agree with both of your points – at some point I was also of the opinion that it’s our data and so consumers should benefit from it. To your point Susanna, one set of data is the information that we have shared freely when we are creating an account, posting pictures, sharing posts, saying things, tagging our friends, posting group pictures, posting videos  – there are things that we have freely given. Yes, these platforms are portrayed as a way to connect to people and so we thought that we are really just sharing this with our friends, our family, so we are share how we feel; our thoughts, our desires, our hopes, our ambitions.

 

It is different if I’m asking my friend about a car and that information is sold to a car company to say that I’m in the market to buy a car. There are some things that I shared, but then there are some tangential advantages that were taken out of that data, not only that information but also collecting third-party information like where we go to fill our car or service our car, or buy groceries or clothes, or apps that we use.

Shilpi: There are other things that we have not given explicit permission on to take that information, but now they are creating this 360 degree profile validating and accumulating information from multiple sources and then selling it to companies to target us in many different ways.

 

Coming back to the question on hand of whether we should be paid for it; it is a very messy situation and the more I read about it the more I feel that yes, we should have ownership of it; there should be transparency on what is out there on us, but at the same time if we also start trading our information, we could start going down a very bad path.

 

Shilpi: Let me ask you another question, how much would these companies pay for our data, if we went down that route?

11:25 Sam:

Very little, very little, I think.

 

11:28 Susanna:

Yeah, even if they paid $100,000/year that’s like a penny for them, compared to the billions that they make out of each person’s data. The amount that they are now giving, that they said that they will be giving, is not even at that level – it is around 5, 10, 20 or 30 dollars. It’s nothing compared to what they are going to make out of it.

 

 

12:00 Sam:

You’re right. There’s a couple of quotes I’ve read that the digital dividend could be something like $20-$50 per data set. There is value there but is it significant enough to warrant it being put in place? And yes, a thousand pounds is quite helpful I guess but is it sufficient to share data to that extent?

 

 

12:33 Shilpi:

One of the key factors to consider is that data is the new oil and it is an inexhaustible resource, so it’s unlike any other resource that is exhaustible; this is an inexhaustible resource. $100,000 is a very far-fetched number

 

13:03 Susanna:

I’m just putting it out there – challenging companies to pay $100,000 per person, haha!

 

13:14 Shilpi:

Yeah… I read somewhere that the statistics show that they make seven dollars profit out of every person after deducting all their own expenses and costs that come with it – so no, one thousand dollars, one thousand pounds is a very far-fetched number!

 

Shilpi: Even if that were true, we are giving them an inexhaustible resource to own it, and saying that we give them permission. There need to be really good laws in place to say that you have to pay every time, not just once. I just saw a lot of questions from Michael Novak – he seems to have some interesting points.

 

 

16:18 Susanna:

He mentioned ‘exchange for services’  – that’s what the medical industry uses now; you could be part of a clinical trial and for the time you spend there you are compensated for it, but you’re not exactly compensated for your data.

 

 

16:38 Shilpi:

I was reading that in these clinical research trials they pay different to different participants based on whether it’s a rare disease – one person’s disease may be different than the other – whether it’s a new area that they need more data on, based on age demographics whatever – so it’s very common.

In the same way one person’s data might be more valuable than another person’s data – it may be based on age, it may be based on ethnicity. So even if we come up with a number, it will be very difficult to make sure everybody can be paid a fair amount – and will that amount be a standard amount, will it be a one-time payment, or will it be an annual year after year payment? Will the data appreciate over time and will I be paid more or less based on now what my data is worth year after year? All those are very interesting points to consider.

 

18:00 Susanna:

Right now credit is given in the medical industry for using your cell line – there was a famous movie about it even recently.

 

18:10 Sam:

I think they do don’t they, I know that in health research because clinical studies traditionally attract payment, when you’re collating data in that area, that’s one of the things to consider – utilizing that resource. Obviously because of restrictions on patient data, it’s going to be harder for us to obtain that as researchers. I think that is a good thing; that should be in place. But there are models in place already to to get funding when you participate in a trial.

Michael mentioned that it might not necessarily attract a payment but there might be other things you could exchange, rather than it being funded through the dollar or pound, it would be a token for example. I know that that’s something that’s been discussed and thought about as well. It’s something along the lines of a token; I heard of tokenization and tokens and how they might then be exchanged for other services; so that’s some something that I’ve looked at recently, and I think companies have started to think about that as an alternative.

 

Sam: Like you said it’s really difficult to locate data when you’ve shared it – and I did think about this before; we’re looking at things retrospectively, so how do we follow the data itself, and what value do we give to it?

 

 

20:13 Susanna:

One of the interesting questions now is how do we retrieve back all the data that we have given – if I deactivate my Facebook account, Instagram, Whatsapp and just disappear off the grid, is my data also taken out? No, it’s not.

 

20:38 Shilpi:

Like they say, once on the internet, forever on the internet.

Hi Michael! I know you had so much to say, did you have trouble getting on?

 

 

 

21:00 Michael Novak:

… yes. But nonetheless! Thank you for having me on today, I was looking forward to it this week, I’ll put it that way. I’ve been working on several projects related to privacy, security and ethics for several groups, and it’s exciting because now is the time for us as a society to begin addressing this, so that’s why I was adding all those comments as you were talking earlier, because it’s very important.

 

21:40 Shilpi:

Absolutely. So what is a burning comment that you want to add for the discussion that we have had so far?

 

21:52 Micahel:

Yeah, if you don’t mind I’ll go back to a couple that I made previously. Regarding compensation –  this is my experience, I don’t claim to know everything all the time, but it’s been raised by several groups that rather than pay money, what if companies gave you compensation? Meaning that, for example – you like to go to a certain well-known coffee store, here’s some vouchers.

 

Michael: Or in the medical field if I’m suffering from a condition, maybe I want to participate, but I want to control my data, so using a distributed digital identity system it is technically possible and it’s politically feasible to allow me to say: ‘okay Sam, I’m gonna give you six months of access to these physical attributes of me –  my height, my weight, my mental condition, whatever it might be – and once I agree to that, it’s done. When the timer goes, I get to decide if I want to stay or go; I’m in control.

 

 

23:30 Shilpi:

I think what Michael is saying is what we touched upon last week – one, the user should have full control over their data, and two they should have the control of not just consenting to say yes, but also to say no, and there should be a clear sunset policy so if you give them permission to sell your data, they don’t get to keep it forever and sell it on again.

 

 

24:07 Michael:

Compensation could be something as simple as a gift certificate to the local bookstore – it’s what’s valuable to you, and what do I as the vendor have access to; maybe it’s a frequent flier mileage – it doesn’t have to be money for money.

 

24:33 Susanna:

Is this similar to the bartering system – are we going back to the bartering system, exchanging one good for another?

 

 

24:42 Michael:

Philosophically, yes, but it could include currency – I may say: ‘here’s this money, here’s 10 or 100 pounds’, it could be money. But the idea is – and you spoke about this earlier – how much does it cost for the vendors or the merchants or the entity to collect all that data, and how much is it worth to them – so again the answer is it depends on what they’re willing to barter it for, whether it’s a dollar, a mark, or a voucher.

The other part that I wrote in my comments is that I would let the market decide – for example, during the holiday season I imagine retailers would pay more to have access to what you’re looking for, what do you need this year, what do you need right now compared to March or April? So again, it’s not just a standard ‘okay this is the only rule, and that’s it’. The other part that I’ll bring up before I be quiet for a minute is… are you familiar with the privacy paradox? It’s the idea that when you sign up currently for a credit card or something, the companies will provide you with the terms and conditions: if we allow you to use the card, here are all the details. Most people, most of the time, myself included, look at and go ‘yeah, I’m not reading five pages of terms and conditions’ – I put it in a drawer, and then if something goes wrong I come back and say: ‘hey, why didn’t you tell me?’ They can respond with ‘well, you consented to this.’

So the idea of the privacy paradox is that even if companies with the best intents provide users with all the terms of the privacy – how I’m going to use your data, what I may or may not use it for, it’s such a large volume that it’s there but consumers won’t use it. So the paradox is: you’ve got the data, but you’ve made the decision: I’m not going to read that information even though you provided it to me. So when I’m talking about the ethical part of that, it’s still a dilemma because how do we provide you the user with enough information to encourage you to read it so that you know what your privacy rights are – how long will you have my data for, what do I get in return, etc – without giving you all the terms and conditions about the 2500 conditions that our lawyers put together.

 

27:30 Shilpi:

So, there are a couple of thoughts here – there are a few companies now that have started independently doing this sort of thing. Instead of letting the tech giants who own our data in some way or another put a number on how much our data is worth, there are independent third-party companies that have started platforms where as a consumer I can go and register there, and every so often they will say ‘oh you’ve accumulated 250 kilobytes of data this week, that is worth five dollars’. Do you think that is the right way to move in this direction?

 

 

29:38 Shilpi:

I mean like a user creates an account on their portal and then they will track how much information – just like these third-party cookies are tracking us, and the third-party cookies are browser-based; they will collect all the information and then they will say that this information you have allowed to be tracked, they can put a number on it and tell you how much your data is worth. So my question was: is that the right way to move forward?

 

30:36 Susanna:

That’s again somebody else deciding for me how much my data is worth. I can go on Facebook or Gmail and there are extensions and toolkits where I can download my own data and see how much is collected – now, there is an agency called Data C or something, and they are now going to track all of this information for me and then tell me whether I want to sell it or not sell it, and then they are going to get a rate for it. On what basis?

 

31:17 Shilpi:

What they are saying is that they are more transparent – that’s where they’re coming from, they’re showing you what information they collected, they’re giving you a choice of whether you want to sell this data or not, and they are giving you a price. You can’t say that you want more for it, they have decided a number saying the data that we’ve collected on you would probably sell in the marketplace for five dollars. Whether they make a hundred dollars out of it or not, we are willing to pay you five dollars for this data and then you are in control – do you want to sell it or not. That’s what Data C, and there’s another one called Reclaim – they both are doing that and I’m sure there are plenty more.

 

32:00 Michael:

Yeah, so I was going to say again – I’d let the market decide. It’s a valuable service, because as a user I don’t keep track of every single thing that happens to my information electronically by all the companies, whether it’s the utility, the apartment etc – so I have a choice as an individual, but the key is I have the option, compared to five years ago where you don’t even have the option. It’s a service if i want to use it; if I don’t I take responsibility; that does come with consequences both good and bad. If I use it maybe they do find me a better priced credit card for my use cases; maybe they find me better health insurance based on my needs etc. But if I don’t, that is a individual decision which I think is a good thing.

 

33:03 Shilpi:

I think I’m not hearing what I want to hear from each of you! We started this discussion with saying that I am the owner of my data and I should be paid something for it; then we came to the thought process that if I as an owner of this data sell it once, then I am commercially commoditizing my data ownership, and once it is sold, it will then be used, misused, sold, resold to other companies. And now privacy has been made into a commodity, and we will put a price tag on it, and whether that is the right thing to do or not.

Now the other end of that spectrum is if the tech giants aren’t making this decision of how much your data is worth, but a third-party company deciding – again, we are not going to ever be the decision makers, because then everybody will say: ‘I want ten dollars’ and somebody else will say twenty dollars or one thousand pounds, right? So I don’t think we are ever going to come to a point where the user is going to decide what that number will be – the best we can get is a choice whether we want to do it or not, and these third-party providers like Reclaim and Data C are moving in that direction, where they are telling us that we have collected this data with your permission – do you want to sell it or not? And if you decide to sell it, we can give you five dollars for it. My question was – and I did not hear an answer from any of the panelists! – is whether that is the right way to move forward, or we should just say that ‘it’s my data and I don’t want to sell it’ – each company should tell me what they have on me, and then don’t do anything about it.

 

35:13 Sam:

For me, if we have organizations like Data C and the others that you mentioned and you’re browsing online at a retail store and the cookies are tracking what you’re looking at and what your preferences are, I think there’s an assumption that from the user’s perspective that there will be some data collected, and I think it’s at that point that the individual has to decide that that’s okay, and there should be a facility there either through a disclaimer or through policy that covers that and reminds the individual that they are being tracked and that data is potentially going to be used for marketing purposes. Adding a potential additional bonus on top; if there’s a financial gain then that might be an incentive actually for a lot of people; it gives them a little bit more power back. It’s not the whole solution, but I think it’s an option definitely.

 

36:45 Shilpi:

I think we are still beating around the bush here – let’s go with a yes or a no!

 

36:47 Sam:

Yes, I think it’s a good idea.

 

36:50 Susanna:

No. Whether it’s a third party, the retailer themselves or whatever it is, why not go with a model where I pay for their services? If, say Facebook goes into that model where they let me take a monthly subscription of $5 or $10, I’m okay with that.

 

 

 

37:13 Shilpi:

That’s where the research comes in – if that happens, they will make a fraction, a very small fraction of what they’re making today; they will first of all lose a lot of their users, and they are making billions out of the information from targeting ads to us – that they cannot do.

 

37:47 Susanna:

This also comes down to the poverty line, and that people in different countries don’t have the same economic opportunities, so they cannot afford five dollars a month to go on Facebook – they have other priorities for that money. Maybe it’s better for all of us to move in that direction.

 

38:20 Shilpi:

There is a lot of value in these services – I’m half way across the world from where I’m from, I’ve left that world for almost half my life, but I’ve been able to connect with my friends there. When I go back to my native land and I get together with them, that’s a wonderful feeling, to be able to reconnect with your loved ones, your friends and family all across the globe. With subscription… who knows?

 

 

 

39:00 Michael:

I agree with both of you because… assume for the moment that third party, whomever it is, says they’re going to manage it; you all now have to pay five dollars or whatever the amount is – but I would push them and say that’s nice but why don’t you pay me? Every time I use your service I’m giving you a piece of my location; my time – how much time was he on, how many times did he speak to his friend in India? They’re getting data from me, so rather than me have to pay a subscription I would have them pay me, because they need me more than I can do without them. We have something here called a telephone, you may not have heard of it, but I can talk to anyone  and I pay a telephone bill for that. So while we become accustomed to Zoom, I really believe it needs to be that the individual has the choice and that they could be compensated by vendors and third parties for that opportunity to use their services, because then they do collect data on us anyway.

40:28 Shilpi:

The third party is saying that it’s not a one-time thing – so every week they will pay you based on how much information they have collected – that is my understanding of what I read without signing up on their platform as a user. So it’s something similar to what you’re saying. I think this is a very fascinating discussion, and we could keep discussing this on and on and there wouldn’t be any conclusion to it! I think for me, I feel like even the third parties are not reliable in some ways – what we should have is the model that they have chosen, but I think the middle path – the Buddha’s path! – would be that Facebook decides to pay us, but keeping everything that these third parties are doing, it tells us transparency wise: this is the information I collected on you this week; that is worth five dollars to me; do you want me to sell this information or not – if you want you can delete any information on yourself at any point in time, and I’m okay with doing that.

Not just because once you’ve submitted something or shared something I will hold it forever and use it as I will; I think the middle path would be instead of us paying for subscription to Facebook and lose the connectivity of so many people, Facebook and Google and all the data lakes should be the ones to adopt the model of the third party platforms. I think that is the best way to move forward with this. Instead of us coming up with the platform; instead of the consumers coming up with the number; instead of the third party coming up with the number. And it should always be incremental and the amount should be subjective every year or every month based on what activity you did; how much data was collected; what it’s worth. The transparency and the trust will only be there when we move forward in this direction. What do you think?

43:02 Sam:

That’s a good point. Incrementally you review the data that’s stored, you agree to that and if there’s an option for you to then benefit from that as a consumer then that would be a move forward towards trust and transparency, I think. Consent is obviously the key thing too.

 

43:32 Shilpi:

And then ‘do not sell’ is an option – do not sell, delete my information; all of those, we should have the choice. So I think this is a middle path of all of us – Susanna said it’s my data, tell me what you have, give me the right to delete it; Sam wanted a third party – so I think with all of our views, I feel like this would be a really good way. At least with Google and Facebook. Sam you mentioned that if you are browsing, then they are going to collect some data on us – that is what is bothering me;

 

Shilpi: We have come to the point in society where we feel like this is the norm, this is how it’s going to happen – if you’re going to browse on the internet, information is going to be collected on you, and that is okay, that is normal.

 

I think that is what we have to now change; we have to say that no, that is not normal – I do not want my browsing history to be tracked with a cookie, or if you are going to track, show me what you tracked, and let me be the decision maker of whether I wanted it to be stored, deleted, or paid for. With that, I’m going to wrap up today’s discussion, I think we really hit some good points, food for thought really for ethics-first-minded leaders; leaders who have ethics in their DNA and who are always trying to make the world a better place. We are going to take a two week break for the holidays, so thank you for tuning in and happy holidays from the DataEthics4All entire team. Thank you Michael for joining us today, thank you Sam and Susanna, not just for today but your support for throughout the year, and Michael you too, you are an active community member and you’ve made DataEthics4All what it is today, thank you everyone. Happy holidays!