They Profit from Your Data – Shouldn’t You? Inside the Fight for Data Ownership
Share
(Exploring the Legal, Ethical, and Economic Implications of Data Ownership)
In today’s digital economy, data is often called the new oil — but unlike oil, it’s generated by people, not machines. Every click, swipe, or search you make produces personal data that fuels billion-dollar tech ecosystems.
This raises a critical question:
Should personal data be treated like property — something individuals can own, sell, or license?
The debate is reshaping privacy laws, influencing how businesses collect data, and challenging our understanding of ownership in the digital age.
Understanding the Core Debate
The argument over treating data as property centers around control, consent, and compensation.
| Viewpoint | Description | Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Property Model | Treats data as an individual’s asset that can be owned, traded, or sold. | Individuals could profit from their data, but privacy might become a commodity. |
| Privacy Rights Model | Views data as an extension of personal identity, protected by privacy laws. | Focuses on dignity, autonomy, and the right to be forgotten. |
| Hybrid Model | Combines both — data remains private but can be licensed under consent. | Encourages innovation while respecting personal rights. |
The Case For Treating Personal Data as Property
1. Empowering Individuals Economically
If data were property, individuals could monetize their digital footprints, similar to how creators monetize content. Platforms like Datum and Wibson already experiment with this idea, allowing users to sell anonymized data.
Example:
Imagine earning income by sharing your health or fitness data with research firms, under clear terms and direct consent.
Benefit: Shifts power away from corporations and gives people control over how their data generates value.
2. Transparency and Accountability
When data has a market value, companies must clearly disclose how they use it, potentially reducing hidden tracking and unauthorized data transfers.
Example: Under a property model, Facebook or Google would need to pay users or obtain a license to use personal data for ads.
Impact: This could transform opaque “terms of service” into real, negotiable contracts.
3. Incentivizing Ethical Data Practices
Assigning ownership rights could force organizations to handle data more responsibly. If misuse results in financial penalties or loss of rights, data protection becomes a business priority.
The Case Against Treating Data as Property
1. Risk of Inequality
If personal data becomes a commodity, wealthier individuals may protect their privacy, while lower-income users might sell theirs for short-term gain.
Result: A new kind of “data divide,” where privacy becomes a luxury.
2. Complexity of Ownership
Personal data is relational — your messages, photos, and online interactions often involve others. Who owns that data: you, the other person, or the platform?
Example: A tagged photo includes data about both you and a friend. Assigning ownership becomes legally messy.
3. Privacy Shouldn’t Be for Sale
Critics argue that treating data as property undermines human dignity. Personal information, like medical records or genetic data, isn’t just an asset — it’s part of your identity.
As Julie Cohen, a leading privacy scholar, puts it:
“Turning privacy into property risks eroding the moral foundation of personal autonomy.”
The Legal Landscape
| Region | Approach | Key Notes |
|---|---|---|
| European Union (GDPR) | Privacy-rights model | Treats personal data as a fundamental right. No “ownership,” only “control.” |
| United States | Market-driven, fragmented | Some states (like California under CPRA) push stronger individual rights. |
| Nigeria (NDPA 2023) | Rights-based approach | Emphasizes consent, transparency, and individual control. |
| China | State-dominant model | Personal data is protected but subject to national interests. |
The Economic Perspective
Data fuels a $3 trillion global digital economy, yet individuals see almost no direct compensation.
Some economists propose a “data dividend” — a system where users receive micro-payments when companies profit from their personal data.
Example:
California’s former governor Gavin Newsom once proposed a “data dividend” law that would require tech firms to share profits with users — though it remains unimplemented.
Ethical and Human Rights Considerations
- Autonomy: Individuals must control how their data is used, not just sell it once.
- Justice: Any data marketplace should prevent exploitation.
- Consent: True ownership means meaningful consent — simple, revocable, and informed.
The challenge lies in balancing human dignity and digital capitalism.
Expert Insight
Dr. Carissa Véliz, author of Privacy Is Power, argues:
“We don’t need to own our data to control it. We need laws that stop others from abusing it.”
This viewpoint highlights the importance of data stewardship over outright ownership.
What the Future Might Look Like
1. Data Cooperatives
Communities may form data trusts or cooperatives, allowing individuals to pool their data, negotiate collectively, and share profits fairly.
2. Smart Contracts for Data Use
Blockchain could enable automated data licensing, ensuring users are paid or credited whenever their data is accessed.
3. Hybrid Legal Reforms
Future laws might recognize both personal rights and economic interests, giving individuals flexible control without fully commodifying privacy.
📊 Summary Table: Should Data Be Treated as Property?
| Aspect | Property Model | Privacy Rights Model | Hybrid Model |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control | Transferable ownership | Retained by individual | Consent-based sharing |
| Economic Value | Direct monetization | Indirect benefit | Shared revenue |
| Ethical Risk | Privacy commodification | Limited compensation | Balanced |
| Best Fit | Data marketplaces | Human rights-focused systems | Emerging legal frameworks |
FAQs
1. Can people legally sell their personal data today?
Not directly in most countries. However, platforms like Brave Browser and Datum allow users to earn rewards for consenting to ads or data sharing.
2. Why is treating data as property controversial?
Because it risks turning privacy into a tradable good, undermining the idea that it’s a basic human right.
3. What’s the alternative?
A hybrid model — maintaining personal control while enabling ethical, consent-based data exchanges.
4. Will future privacy laws allow data ownership?
Possibly. With advances in blockchain and decentralized ID systems, personal data ownership could evolve within regulatory limits.
5. How should businesses prepare?
Adopt data minimization, transparency, and consent-based frameworks to adapt to evolving ownership and accountability trends.
Conclusion
The question of whether personal data should be treated as property sits at the crossroads of privacy, economics, and human rights. While ownership could empower users financially, it also risks commodifying their identity.
The future likely lies in a balanced approach — one where individuals retain control, can share data ethically, and are fairly compensated for its value.
In a world driven by data, the real goal shouldn’t just be ownership — it should be empowerment, dignity, and digital fairness.
