In a few cases, it is perhaps possible to discuss the 'value' of personal data in itself, e.g. data sets to train and validate ML models.
In many cases, however, the value an organization can extract from data depends on its capacity to directly or indirectly apply it to people.
In many cases, however, the value an organization can extract from data depends on its capacity to directly or indirectly apply it to people.
I think, the value an organization can extract from personal data depends on its direct or indirect control over a sociotechnical system's capacity to *act on* individuals and groups, to decide about how to treat people, target them, mediate their choices or behaviors etc.
The most direct form of such a capacity to act on people based on personal data is the 'customer relationship', e.g. with loyalty program members, magazine subscribers, bank customers ...or users who registered at an online service, downloaded an app or bought a networked device.
The capacity to act on people depends on the scope and depth of those customer/user relationships, and the kind of 'transactions' they facilitate.
Google, for example, has constant control over many digital and physical environments in many areas of life.
Google, for example, has constant control over many digital and physical environments in many areas of life.
An insurer may have the capacity to make huge decisions on people, but only on rare occasions.
An online streaming service may have the capacity to act on people every day to make them return more often, upsell them to a paid account or sell the capacity to better sell to them.
An online streaming service may have the capacity to act on people every day to make them return more often, upsell them to a paid account or sell the capacity to better sell to them.
There are many indirect forms of providing the capacity to act on people based on personal data to others.
For example, credit reporting firms provide data to organizations with direct customer relationships, including the capability to link the provided data to those customers.
For example, credit reporting firms provide data to organizations with direct customer relationships, including the capability to link the provided data to those customers.
I think, in many cases discussing the 'value' that organizations can extract from personal data cannot just address the data itself, but must also address their organizational/relational/etc capacity to directly or indirectly apply it to individuals and groups.
Conversely, direct or indirect control over the capacity to act on people also facilitates *access* to personal data.
In the best case, from an organization's perspective, this allows it to operate closed feedback loops, from data collection to acting on people, and so on.
In the best case, from an organization's perspective, this allows it to operate closed feedback loops, from data collection to acting on people, and so on.
The capacity to act on people can also be facilitated in very indirect and opaque ways, for example, through synchronizing and matching pseudonymous identifiers across contexts throughout today's surveillance advertising supply chain.
Employer vs. worker data?
Value = data + capacity to apply it to workers, e.g. to get rid of 'low-performers' or make them work more efficiently.
Or, as @WiseTenderSnob put it in a reply to my thread, the 'value' of data depends on its ability to impact people and environments.
Value = data + capacity to apply it to workers, e.g. to get rid of 'low-performers' or make them work more efficiently.
Or, as @WiseTenderSnob put it in a reply to my thread, the 'value' of data depends on its ability to impact people and environments.
Instead of the economic term 'value' we could perhaps also use the term 'data power'.
...just some ad-hoc thoughts. I admit, my theory has still some weaknesses 🤖 #tobecontinued
...just some ad-hoc thoughts. I admit, my theory has still some weaknesses 🤖 #tobecontinued
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
