Re: [DG-IDoT] IDoT DG asks - Privacy and Public Policy WG
Hi Andre, Thank you for have a look at the problem. Best Ingo From: Andre Boysen [mailto:amboysen@gmail.com] Sent: Montag, 25. November 2013 20:04 To: Friese, Ingo Subject: Re: [DG-IDoT] IDoT DG asks - Privacy and Public Policy WG The idea is right, but it will get lost in the details of the service the "owner" user signed up for. All of these devices are only useful as part of a service that provides summary and insight for what the device is doing. Invariably the data is the real goal of the device, not the device itself. Almost all of the IoT devices business models are constructed to sell you back the data from the device you have purchased. Nest, fitbit, your car, etc. Also built in to those agreements is a trade - you give up the data in a freemium trade for summary data back. Often there is an upsell to get more insightful information about your device - comparative to your own timeline or to other users of the service. In all cases, the value given to the user is very small compared to the value received by the service the user has agreed to join. This is due to the asymmetric nature of big data services - users have know idea what inferences can be drawn from the data or the monetary value to big data. On Nov 22, 2013, at 11:16 AM, Ingo.Friese@telekom.demailto:Ingo.Friese@telekom.de wrote: Dear all, I'm Ingo Friese working with "Kantara Identity of things working group". In this area we got a privacy related question. I thought of asking you privacy experts for help, opinions or guidance. Here is the use-case: A thing (e.g. a car) produces data. Sometimes even privacy relevant data. (.e.g. a car could track where it was at what time). A first (logical) attempt would be: The owner of the thing (device, car) owns the data. But especially in automotive industry we have cases where manufacturer collect data and use them for statistics or additional services they offer to the user. They act as this data were their own. I know a manufacturer of Trucks and harvesters that sell data collected in sensors of the harvester to the farmer. This sounds to me at least a bit strange. Any thoughts? Many thanks in advance! Ingo _______________________________________________ DG-IDoT mailing list DG-IDoT@kantarainitiative.orgmailto:DG-IDoT@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idot
Great points Andre. So playing around with alternative paths, might this give rise to consumer unions in the same way as credit unions? And if so it there a possibility of a public or free exchange to arise contrary to the way it has evolved asymmetrically to date? Also, I was having a conversation with my brother in law about medical implants to treat seizures, very roughly a pacemaker for the brain and of course the results of the efficacy of this microshocks have value both in the research phase and afterward. Reselling what takes place in the brain an IDoT context. Happy holidays, Sal From: dg-idot-bounces@kantarainitiative.org [mailto:dg-idot-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Ingo.Friese@telekom.de Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 10:02 AM To: amboysen@gmail.com Cc: dg-idot@kantarainitiative.org Subject: Re: [DG-IDoT] IDoT DG asks - Privacy and Public Policy WG Hi Andre, Thank you for have a look at the problem. Best Ingo From: Andre Boysen [mailto:amboysen@gmail.com] Sent: Montag, 25. November 2013 20:04 To: Friese, Ingo Subject: Re: [DG-IDoT] IDoT DG asks - Privacy and Public Policy WG The idea is right, but it will get lost in the details of the service the "owner" user signed up for. All of these devices are only useful as part of a service that provides summary and insight for what the device is doing. Invariably the data is the real goal of the device, not the device itself. Almost all of the IoT devices business models are constructed to sell you back the data from the device you have purchased. Nest, fitbit, your car, etc. Also built in to those agreements is a trade - you give up the data in a freemium trade for summary data back. Often there is an upsell to get more insightful information about your device - comparative to your own timeline or to other users of the service. In all cases, the value given to the user is very small compared to the value received by the service the user has agreed to join. This is due to the asymmetric nature of big data services - users have know idea what inferences can be drawn from the data or the monetary value to big data. On Nov 22, 2013, at 11:16 AM, Ingo.Friese@telekom.de wrote: Dear all, I'm Ingo Friese working with "Kantara Identity of things working group". In this area we got a privacy related question. I thought of asking you privacy experts for help, opinions or guidance. Here is the use-case: A thing (e.g. a car) produces data. Sometimes even privacy relevant data. (.e.g. a car could track where it was at what time). A first (logical) attempt would be: The owner of the thing (device, car) owns the data. But especially in automotive industry we have cases where manufacturer collect data and use them for statistics or additional services they offer to the user. They act as this data were their own. I know a manufacturer of Trucks and harvesters that sell data collected in sensors of the harvester to the farmer. This sounds to me at least a bit strange. Any thoughts? Many thanks in advance! Ingo _______________________________________________ DG-IDoT mailing list mailto:DG-IDoT@kantarainitiative.org DG-IDoT@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idot http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idot
participants (2)
-
Ingo.Friese＠telekom.de -
Salvatore D'Agostino