Data Equality: Data for All, not Data for None
As an economist that believes society should lead economy, not vice versa, and that sees our ‘data-age’ as having potential to achieve exactly that, I find the debate on data (in)equality frustratingly non-innovative. It is a negating debate, all about restricting, reducing, restraining, as if the monstrous amount of data created by our decisions (or even mere intentions) was too large, too inhuman, and something to be contained.
I define data inequality in two ways.
Natural data inequality is when one economic agent has a significant advantage to gather, store, and analyse massive amounts of data over another. This advantage is one bestowed by this agent’s natural role in society and its unique and ideal position to be able to build this monopoly. An important characteristic of natural data inequality is that the monopolist is not in the business of restraining the ability of other agents, because it is naturally impossible for the latter to achieve comparable data power. On the other hand, we have antagonistic data inequality, where one or more types of economic agents actively prevent the others from achieving comparable data ownership, through their actions or in collusion. A quick stroll down the lane of history better clarifies this distinction.
We can break down economic agents into three institutions: the Government, Corporations, and individual citizens.
Governments paved the road to data imbalance when they began to gather data on their constituencies. For millennia, they remained the only institution with an exclusive ‘user’ database of both private citizens and corporations. In ancient times, population censuses were used for tax and military purposes. The first known tax registries were compiled more than 7,000 years ago in Mesopotamia; and in Rome, censuses — popularised by the story of Mary and Joseph traveling to Bethlehem from Nazareth to participate in the Quirinius census — were crucial for keeping track of the swelling empire and the male population that could have been mobilised for war. More recently, as with the Census Act of 1800 in Britain, they have served as the basis for the provision and pricing of public services such as schooling and healthcare, along with a plethora of other uses.
This data monopoly of governments is a perfect example of a natural data inequality. Under the guise of their ‘duty to provide services to citizens’ in the form of defense, education, etc., public administrations have long been the sole institution entitled to gather our data. Also, because of the significant amount of manpower and infrastructure needed to organise and maintain data registries over spread-out geographies and constituencies, Governments were naturally the only institution practically able to build extensive databases.
It is only very recently that this data monopoly has been challenged, as corporations began to amass unprecedented amounts of data, and to build empires on data-driven business models. The biggest enabler for this change was undoubtedly the advances in information technology which significantly lowered the cost of gathering, storing, and analysing data. The invention of magnetic storage was followed by the invention of the World Wide Web, enabling deep cuts in data collection costs. And with the exponential acceleration of computational speed, companies gained the power to mine meaningful, real-time indications of consumer habits, which in turn led to well-informed and well-calculated business decisions.
And now, as a result of the storage–web–computational power triptych, even relatively small corporations have access to huge amounts of data, and can use it strategically to improve their profitability through an increase in ROI — as data helps companies to better target their spending — and even through direct sale of the data consumers generate while using the companies’ products.
This leaves the consumers as the glaring laggard. And this new reality is an antagonistic data inequality rather than a natural duopoly of governments and corporations, as only the preservation of their data advantage guarantees their continued success, and the privileges of their position guarantees the preservation of their power.
This does not mean that individuals have zero access to data. In recent decades, the two data leaders have loosened their grip slightly. On the part of governments, there is a growing trend of allowing transparency for certain political processes. Corporations have gradually increased the amount of information available to the public in regards to their products. Think of food labelling, for instance, now a common practice in most countries.
Yet this is more an illusion of data sharing rather a true change towards restoring data equality. The generalised impression of products that I am given access to — whether for goods or for politics — is one of minimum viability, not an ample record to make decisions on spending or voting. And the information provided by corporations and governments are initiatives of these institutions, not ours. Even as social media increases the potential for coordination of individual citizens to reclaim our data, for the two data-dominant institutions, our power remains managed (by them), and their loss of data-advantage containable.
Yet, some recent widely publicised ‘mishaps’ have made this gap increasingly intolerable and the quest for data equality a screaming urgency. Things have started to move.
The European Data Directive (GDPR) creates limitations for companies in gathering and using personal data of individuals. Several startups are experimenting with solutions to equip individuals with access to platforms where they themselves can select the quality and quantity of personal data to be disclosed, and to which company, and seek opportunities to earn revenue from this deal.
But so here we are, back where we started: we perceive the quest for data equality in terms of restrictions, a ‘data for none’ scenario.
I believe that there is a better solution if we explore further the idea of ‘data for all’. Perhaps we are in need of an entirely different perspective, where we begin to seek for an additive paradigm as an alternative to revisionism. Most, if not all, attempts to overthrow a system have resulted in failure; there is no point in fighting forces. But there exists ways to use them.
