
Andrew Yang proposes that your digital data be considered personal property - jonbaer
https://www.fastcompany.com/90411540/andrew-yang-proposes-that-your-digital-data-be-considered-personal-property
======
chillacy
Andrew Yang has been one of my favorite things about this election cycle. Very
focused on issues instead of politics-as-usual, able to explain the impact of
automation on the economy in a mainstream way, and presenting proposals that
(even if seem strange at first) have rationale behind them.

Even if he doesn't make it to the end, he's already moving the Overton Window.

~~~
ende
Yang isn’t moving the overton window, he’s breaking it.

------
Swivekth18
This is something that absolutely has to happen in today's ever increasing
digital world. Companies are making billions from our data and digital
footprints, it's time we got a slice of that and a say in how it's used.

~~~
GaurVimen
Exactly there shouldn’t be a difference between texts and a hand written
letter

Or a photo on my phone or a physical photo.

It’s mine I own it.

------
jeisc
All the people should be paid who are using Facebook and the other similar
platforms as content providers. The better the individual's audience the more
the payment should be. This should be the next killer app.

~~~
laughingbovine
Should be? Sure. Will be? Never. Nobody will run a social media site that pays
users when a social media site that does not is making money hand-over-fist.

------
alexfromapex
There also needs to be laws that let people own imagery or content created in
their likeness to prevent things like deep fakes and extortion

~~~
gremlinsinc
I think it's odd, I believe copyrights are owned by the photographer. I think
they should have specific claim to the copyright, but at any time should be
required to take down and destroy pictures when a person in said picture
decides they don't want to be in it. Though w/ digital-ness that may be nigh
impossible, maybe they could make a DRM image that if you delete the master
all images across the web cease to work. That would definitely be an
interesting technology.

~~~
RealStickman
Not sure if implementing DRMs is a good thing.

------
100011
Impossible to enforce.

~~~
diffeomorphism
The headline maybe, the actual proposal seems quite reasonable to enforce:

\- The right to be informed as to what data will be collected, and how it will
be used

\- The right to opt out of data collection or sharing

\- The right to be told if a website has data on you, and what that data is

\- The right to be forgotten; to have all data related to you deleted upon
request

\- The right to be informed if ownership of your data changes hands

\- The right to be informed of any data breaches including your information in
a timely manner

\- The right to download all data in a standardized format to port to another
platform

Speaking as European this just seems to be "let's copy that legislation".

~~~
ianai
That would just become another ok dialog before the content. Edit-I stand
corrected, see below.

People need actual property rights to charge a fee for their data. The
monetary value companies obtain from users through advertisers or other
consumers is a measure of this value.

It’s an entire market that does exist but is being taken from the producers.

~~~
diffeomorphism
> That would just become another ok dialog before the content.

No, explicitly not. That is in my opinion one of the great points of the GDPR
legislation. Mandatory consent is not consent at all and hence void and
websites have to accept "no" as the default answer.

~~~
ianai
Ok so everything you said, and endow people with property rights over their
data. They should be able to lease access to this data to websites in turn for
goods and services. They should also be able to sue for misappropriation of
this property like all other property. Etc etc.

~~~
diffeomorphism
> They should be able to lease access to this data to websites in turn for
> goods and services.

Should they? Then you get back to same problem as before: "Allow us to spy on
you or pay $$$".

Instead privacy is treated as right and you can simply say "no, neither of
those". Note that this does not say anything about ads. It is still perfectly
legal to show ads, just the whole privacy invasion on top of it is excluded.

------
Thermolabile
We need something like a new bill of rights for the electronic age

\- Ensure Fourth Amendment protections apply to all digital communications

\- Restrict electronic public surveillance and retention of data by the
government obtained by electronic means in public.

\- Restrict government access to public electronic surveillance data created
by private entities based on Fourth Amendment limits: by warrant only

If the Founders could have anticipated the way we communicate today they would
certainly have included electronic data in "papers and effects."

And they also could not have anticipated the ease with which government can
now collect data electronically and through public surveillance on millions
and millions of people, cost-effectively. While there can be no expectation of
privacy in a public space, there is something fundamentally different about
your activities in public being recorded, and stored for an indefinite period,
without any suspicion of wrongdoing. That should be addressed in law.

~~~
ende
I’d go a step further and create amendments that self-amend based on
developments in technology.

~~~
ianai
I fear lawyers would both love and destroy such an amendment.

