The saying is that data is the new oil.
It stands to reason that this concept would not be lost on an automobile manufacturer.
The other day, we see this under the headline of an article:
Mercedes-Benz’ parent company has partnered with Ocean Protocol to use blockchain technology to privately collect and package data for monetization.
The maker of Mercedes-Benz will use the decentralized data exchange protocol for its data collection and monetization of sad data.
On the surface, this seems like a step in the right direction, but is it?
Companies that are seeking to monetize their private data take a risk. With all the security breaches and hacks over the years, the liability is often too great. This is especially true when giving 3rd parties access to the data as shown in the Cambridge Analytica situation with Facebook.
Ocean Protocol sought to solve this problem with the release of its Compute-to-Data release (v2). Under this approach, a company can provide access to the data for computation purposes without actually relesing the information.
It essentially works like this. If a company wanted to use Daimler's private data, it would build a model using Compute-to-Data that would run on Daimler's servers. Hence, the data never leaves its possession and the privacy is ensured.
We obviously are in a time when data security is being scrutinized. With regulators around the world taking a closer look at things, companies are going to have to be cautious with whom they provide access.
Of course, sharing of data is a benefit to society. There are many reasons for data sharing including research in medical and technological fields. Training of AI systems requires lots of data, something that smaller companies do not have in-house.
Thus, in an effort to keep things moving away from a few mega-companies, data sharing needs to occur to feed smaller and open AI systems.
Ocean Protocol might have the answer to this problem. As with most things in the technological arena, more tech is usually the solution as opposed to regulation. Perhaps we are seeing the next level where data can be shared while privacy protected.
For more about this, here is an article that explains the software:
https://blog.oceanprotocol.com/v2-ocean-compute-to-data-guide-9a3491034b64
Which brings us back to the crux of the article: this is still Web 2.0.
It is a great step forward that Daimler is taking. Increased security by turning to decentralized solutions is something that many of us applaud. This is allowing the company to monetize the data it collects to further the advancement of AI training for other companies.
So far, I am good with all this.
However, there is one vital component missing from all of this. It shows the mindset of companies today and epitomizes the Web 2.0 thinking. Hence, why I make the claim this is not Web 3.0.
Daimler is selling the data it owns. Unfortunately, it is data that it collected without payment. The vehicles owners who provided the data receive nothing for the use of the data.
This is an ongoing problem. Companies believe the data is actually theirs to sell. They feel they are entitled to it since they create a product along with software that captures the data. Nowhere in the equation do they consider the concept that perhaps the data belongs to the one who generates it. In this instance, since the vehicle is the one generating the data, it would stand to reason that the owner of the vehicle has the claim to the data.
As we know, this is not how it works.
I made this point a couple of weeks ago in an article about Tesla. If I was hired on to train some of that companies personnel, it would pay me for my service. They would willing pay that money on the belief that the knowledge garnered by those I was training would enhance the development of their products or the service the company provided.
Yet, this same logic does not apply to Tesla's training of its autonomous vehicle software. Here, it is a Tesla owner's car that is doing the training, an asset they paid money to acquire. However, as we know, there is no payment by the company to the owner for the data.
Daimler is following the same line of thinking. Twitter, Google, and Facebook are also companies that greatly benefited from this system.
In my mind, this is the basis of the entire debate between Web 2.0 and 3.0. Under the existing iteration of the Internet, companies feel entitled to all the data that is generated on their platform. This is how we evolved into the premise of "Surveillance Capitalism".
Many believe this needs to change. If my ability to train someone belongs to me, thus if you want that service, you have to pay me, then the same should hold true for my devices. This is especially true for something that I paid for such as a vehicle or an appliance. Perhaps a case could be made that data is the swap for a free piece of software. However, when an asset is purchased, all that goes with it including data generation should belong to the owner.
It is a point that needs to be driven home.
Of course, companies will fight this until the cows come how. It is a major financial windfall for most companies. Thus, the move towards a new governance model and business structure is required. Here we also see a central tenet of Web 3.0. Redesigning the existing system is vital since the present players are incentivized to keep the status quo.
Nevertheless, we did see Daimler taking a step forward, something that other companies are sure to follow. Ocean Protocol does have the tenets of open and decentralized at its core. It is one of the leading members of the Decentralized AI Association and does a lot of work with SingularityNet, the decentralized (and tokenized) AI platform developed by Ben Goertzel.
Maybe, over time, Daimler and some of the other companies will develop a token to reward their own customers for the data that is acquired from them.
It is something we are going to have to demand of these companies if they want us to keep doing business with them. Hopefully, down the road, there will be alternatives for people to choose from. Hence, those companies that try to hold onto the old model will find themselves going out of business.
If you found this article informative, please give an upvote and rehive.
gif by @doze
