Whose data is it?

According to Greek mythology, Achilles was the son of Peleus, a Greek king, and Thetis, a sea nymph or goddess.   Thetis gives birth to Achilles who, unlike her, is mortal. She attempts to make the baby Achilles immortal, by dipping him in the River Styx, while holding him by his heel. The one part of his body left untouched by the waters becomes his only point of weakness, hence the phrase 'Achilles heel'.

Turning the attention now to modern day sports.  About two plus years ago, hundreds of professional footballers threatened legal action against major gaming, betting, and sports data companies over allegedly unlawful use of players’ statistics.  Code named “Project Red Card” the players argued that leading companies were profiting from their personal data.  

Diehard fans of cricket know that the game is replete with statistics.  The battle over fair usage and control of players’ performance data is gaining traction.   Last year, the Professional Cricketers’ Association (PCA), which champions the interests of professional cricketers in England and Wales joined “Project Red Card.”  Depending on how this succeeds, one could expect sportspeople from other disciplines too to become involved. 

While it may seem like it is about megabucks lawsuits, and damages, the underlying fact is that the data is attached to an identifiable individual or entity.  The intent seems clear; to control and monetize the data being collected about players and their performances.  It may also be to ensure that data that is going out is accurate and correct, and a fair reflection of the individual.  

In the late 1970s, movie studios in the US sued Sony Corp over its Betamax VCR (Video Cassette Recorder), arguing that it would allow people to illegally copy movies and television shows. Ultimately, the US Supreme Court found that making these copies for personal viewing was fair use under the law.

In December 2023, the New York Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement.  NYT argued that it has lost billions of dollars, did not ask for a specific amount for damages; but sought an injunction to stop the alleged unlawful conduct from continuing.  The jury is not out, yet.  It is with clever lawyers and in the court system.  This case seems to be the beginning of such intense legal battles over unauthorized use of “creative work” to train AI models by tech and platform companies.

Artists, writers, composers, and other such creative minds are increasingly worried that companies and researchers are using their work to create new technology without their consent and without providing compensation.

Technologies related to today’s “Data is Everything” and “AI for Everything” era, raise moral, legal, and social concerns. Newer legal challenges are therefore emerging.  While cases are being battled in the ambit of the legal system, many countries are adopting legislation to regulate data privacy and the design, deployment, and use of AI technologies.

If one looks at military organizations, data is influencing decision making on the battlefield.  The US Department of Defense (DoD) aims to have its leaders responsible to treat data on par with weapon systems and manage, secure, and use data for operational effect.

From cases like the above, when one looks at organizations, the matter primarily hinges on one thing: clearly determining who owns the data. 

An organization’s ability to derive value from its data determines its maturity, and that is hard.  It is also aggravated by a lack of a clear understanding and definition of data ownership.  Confusion (and many times, ignorance) prevails in many organizations over who should mandate and govern data initiatives.  

A hybrid shared model of data ownership between Business and IT Functions works best, perhaps as a unified Data Governance Council.  The structure, strategy, and operations of such a Data Governance Council can draw relevant parallels from unified combatant commands or integrated theatre commands, successfully adopted by the military of powerful nations.  For instance, in stewarding data throughout its lifecycle.

The following is an excerpt on the principle of “Collective Data Stewardship” from the 2020 Data Strategy of the US DoD: “To exploit data fully for decision-making, DoD is defining roles and responsibilities for data stewardship. DoD will assign data stewards, data custodians, and a set of functional data managers to achieve accountability throughout the entire data lifecycle. Data stewards establish policies governing data access, use, protection, quality, and dissemination. Data custodians are responsible for promoting the value of data and enforcing policies, and functional data managers implement the policies and manage day-to-day quality.”

Data ownership includes the owner’s right to decide the fate of their data, who can access the data, what it is used for, and how it is used, as well as the right to deletion and correction.  It is also about clarity of accountability, efficient decision making for successfully running and growing an organization in a sustainable manner.

It is half the battle won for organizations that have cracked the data ownership conundrum. For everyone else, data ownership will continue to be an Achilles heel.