It has been warned that the more AI acquires dominance, the more people lose control over their personal data, despite watchdogs’ efforts to ensure data sovereignty compliance, which bids the question: who really owns our data?
Tech companies collect and utilize personal data without consent, therefore data ownership and control over personal data are more important than ever. This increasing worry is an issue in the digital era.
While individuals think their data is private, the majority of the power rests with large corporations.
Dr. Paulius Jurčys of Vilnius University, a data privacy and ethics expert, describes how personal data commodification is creating a gap between perceived rights and actual power.
Who Owns Our World in Data?
Data is collected everywhere without our full knowledge, and Jurčys cites an example of how a car is now a moving data collector, but most drivers don’t know that their driving routes and patterns are reported to corporate databases.
This concern comes to social media as well.
In 2024, LinkedIn modified its terms to utilize user posts and profiles to enhance AI without apparent consent, which raised controversy regarding the commodification of individual data.
“This case clearly shows that users are excluded from decisions that affect their own privacy,” Jurčys said.
Actress Scarlett Johansson also faulted OpenAI for utilizing a voice very close to hers in a ChatGPT feature without authorization, raising concerns about personal data control. These are some examples of ways in which tech giants are controllers of data and consider humans as raw material rather than owners, signaling a rising threat.
Data Sovereignty vs Data Residency
A factor of data sovereignty compliance is the determination of the difference between data sovereignty and data residency. Data residency is the data being present in a specific location, at times required by law, while data sovereignty goes further, with focus laid on whoever is in control of the data, regardless of where they are located.
Jurčys’ argument is that data sovereignty needs to put individuals in control of their own information as part of their data rights. It is a crucial distinction because AI and cross-border platforms disrupt traditional data rules, and individuals’ control of data is now in the forefront. Jurčys sees a new world where people’s data is private by default and owned by individuals.
“What if all data truly belonged to us?” Jurčys asks.
In this imaginary, users decide who gets to see their information and how it’s being used, reclaiming power from companies. Every individual might have a “digital vault” holding social media, apps, finance, health, and device data.
AI might assist users in making sense of this information, for instance, detecting issues with their health early or spending money more wisely. This would turn the existing commodification of personal data concept into its head.
The call is for shifting from opt-out to opt-in data sharing – or no data sharing at all without direct consent from users – and this kind of privacy is the type of model that supports strong data sovereignty compliance, and which could lead to fairer, distinguished digital services.
Final Thoughts
AI increasingly relies on vast amounts of personal data to learn and operate; the importance of data ownership and control cannot be overstated. To protect privacy and ensure data is being used decently involves rethinking how we own our digital identities.
The absence of strict data sovereignty observance and serious personal data control, AI systems will continue treating our information as dispensable assets for corporate gains. New frameworks need to be created to give people the freedom to control, guaranteeing their rights and dignity in an AI-driven world.
Inside Telecom provides you with an extensive list of content covering all aspects of the tech industry. Keep an eye on our Tech sections to stay informed and up-to-date with our daily articles.