Living in the Eternal Data Present

In today’s digital world, our personal data has become one of our most valuable assets, yet it’s largely trapped in the hands of tech giants. Every time we use a smart device or app, we unknowingly surrender a piece of ourselves — our habits, preferences, even our location — to a company that often holds all the control.

But what if we reimagined this data not as something corporations own, but as a core part of our personal identity? Why is it so hard to acknowledge that we live in an eternal data present, where all our data is valuable and belongs to us?

In the age of AI-powered apps, where data collection is more pervasive than ever, it’s time to ask ourselves: who truly owns the data that defines us?

Join me in this article as I explore the urgent need to rethink how we perceive our own data and why we must demand a new social contract that puts individuals, not companies, at the center of this digital exchange.

Our Data Is Stuck In Silos

In the digital age, we, individuals generate vast amounts of personal data. We do this through the use of digital services and apps (Google Maps, Apple Pay, Spotify), smart wearable devices (Fitbit and Oura ring) and other sensorized technologies (think of your remote-controlled garage door, or a smart vacuum cleaner that knows every corner of your house).

From smart watches that track our sleep patterns and heart rates to smart garage doors monitoring when we leave and return home, these devices collect data at nearly every moment of our lives. While consumers willingly purchase these IoT devices, they often do so at the cost of surrendering their data and privacy.

The data is collected in technological silos of service-providing companies that retain significant control over how it is used, leaving individuals with little say in the matter.

On 29th of July, 2020, the U.S. House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee held a hearing on Big Tech. This hearing was quite a fascinating tour de force, because it involved the CEOs of the top five tech companies: Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft and Amazon.

At that hearing, the U.S. Representative David delivered his opening remarks, where he stated:

“When everyday Americans learn how much of their data is being mined, they can’t run away fast enough. But in many cases, there’s no escape from this surveillance because there’s no alternative. People are stuck with bad options.”

Redefining the Meaning of “Personal Data”

Interestingly, in the age of sensorized environments and digital services, the traditional notion of “historical data” — such as an individual’s medical history, social media interactions or credit card spending patterns — has fundamentally changed.

The well-established data privacy laws and regulations rest on a distinction between personal and non-personal (“deidentified”) data. Such a distinction was designed to delineate rights and interests between individual consumers and data technology companies that offer digital goods and services.

We are now entering a paradigm where the distinction between past data and present data is blurred, if not entirely erased. From an individual consumer perspective, all data about us is personal data, and all data about an individual is continuously relevant.

In this new reality, individuals live in an “eternal data present,” where data from the past, present, and even projected future co-exist simultaneously, in the sense that all this information matters now.

This “data present” state is made possible by technologies that use past data to predict future scenarios, effectively collapsing traditional boundaries of time. Individuals now inhabit a space where time, as a linear modality, loses its meaning; the concepts of past and future are overshadowed by the experience of inhabiting a continuous data-driven present.

This transformation challenges our understanding of time and existence as we move through a world defined by an omnipresent circulation or flow of personal data.

Personal Data — the Core of Our Digital Identity

As we navigate this increasingly data-driven world, the moral, economic, and legal justifications for establishing dominion our data become increasingly urgent and compelling.

Our “historical” data and the inferences drawn from it are now integral to our digital identities, forming a permanent and indelible part of who we are. Data is no longer just a record of our past; it is an intrinsic element of our present and future selves.

Yet, a growing demand for greater individual control over personal data contrasts starkly with the prevailing enterprise-centric model, where data co-created through digital services and IoT devices is sequestered in the centralized servers of app creators and service providers.

From a societal perspective, the pervasive nature of data collection highlights the pressing need for clear legal frameworks that safeguard individual dominion over personal data, ensuring that such data remains just that — truly personal.

In the world dominated by technology giants, a well-known phrase accurately captures the relationship between individual consumers and the so-called “GAFAM” companies — Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft: “If you are not paying for the product, you are the product.” This aptly describes the current dynamics, where consumers find themselves in a position akin to servitude, with terms of use dictated unilaterally by tech companies.

Recognizing the Individual Dominion Over Personal Data

It is true, that in a digital environment, the relationships between us, individuals and technology companies are incredibly complex. The intertwined nature of digital technologies makes it difficult to determine the boundaries of who is in control of what. This complex web of how digital services and products are delivered to individuals makes traditional notions of dominion and ownership deeply blurred and contingent. Identifying the owner of digital assets and recognizing ownership interests in this context can seem impossible.

Therefore, in an era increasingly defined by AI-powered assistants and agents, we need to reconsider our understanding of ownership, control, and freedom. We need to forge a new social contract with technology — one that places dominion and ownership at the front and center of the conversation.

This new social contract should be framed along the lines of liberal conception of freedom, which is understood as the absence of interference rather than as a relational or dependent condition. The concept of freedom is intimately tied to the notion of a superior power and dominion — in modern societies, the nation state — drawing a clear connection between ownership and the condition of being free.

Here, I’d like to refer to other traditions for thinking about freedom:

• Hegel’s philosophy views ownership as an expression of personal freedom and the embodiment of the individual’s will in the external world. For Hegel, property is the first step in the realization of freedom: ownership allows individuals to externalize their will and assert their autonomy in the world. Ownership, in this sense, is not just about control over objects but also about the development of self-consciousness and the recognition of others. Property rights are seen as fundamental to ethical life (Sittlichkeit) and personal freedom because they enable individuals to participate in society as free and rational members of the society..
• In liberal theory, ownership is often tied to the concept of individual rights and autonomy. Thinkers like John Locke, famously articulated the idea of property as a natural right, derived from an individual’s labor and their right to the fruits of that labor. In this context, private property as a foundation for personal freedom, economic efficiency, and societal prosperity. As such, ownership is seen as a means of ensuring individual liberty, with the market and legal systems designed to protect and facilitate these rights.

Paths Forward

In a world where personal data is constantly generated and collected by digital services and IoT devices, we must reimagine the concept of ownership. Our personal data should not be trapped in corporate silos, controlled by tech giants, but should be seen as an extension of our individual identity — an intrinsic part of who we are.

This shift requires a legal framework that prioritizes individual dominion over data, ensuring that personal data remains under the control of the individual who generates it. Moving forward, we need to advocate for a new social contract that places individual autonomy and ownership at the heart of digital interactions. Only then can we fully realize a digital future that respects both personal freedom and the human right to privacy.

🙏 Thank you for reading!

If you liked this post, please follow me!

If you’re interested in diving deeper into conversation about the “eternal data present”, please check this longer law review article here.

🔎 If you’d like to continue the discussion, feel free to DM me — or talk to Paul AI, my digital knowledge twin.

📚 Pre-order our forthcoming book “The Creativity Machine”: https://lnkd.in/gJ9USi4h