The problem with these descriptions of data commons is they don’t really distinguish a common from some of the data trusts already discussed.
For instance, the data-centric data trust would function very similarly to a data common prioritising interoperability. This is not to say these conversations are not bringing new ideas to russia rcs data the table; much in its infancy, and often the applied brains of policymakers and think tanks are racing ahead of academics such as myself who find tremendous comfort in definitions.
But I do want to draw some difference, and so I will examine a specific type of data common.
Fundamentally, talk of commons and trusts is talk of how we can change the ownership structures surrounding data. For legal scholar Lothar Determann, the limitless nature of data means no one can own data, retracing an economic argument that ownership is only necessary because of scarcity. If we’re willing to reimagine how data could be owned, we might also consider data a common resource owned by no one.
This is the position of academic Ernst Hafen, and – I suggest for this specific conversation – a good departure point between a data trust and a data common. Hafen’s model supposes each individual be afforded a new right, the so-called right to a copy (which is already enshrined in GDPR).