Two things in particular stand out: first, not needing to reinvent the wheel. What was negotiated concluded as satisfactory in Cedar Rapids and Lancaster? These are first-rate counterparties (as is Google).
Second, you spell out everything that has to be kept in mind. There is not a recipe, but there is a process. I was not surprised to read at the end that your context was a conference for regulators.
The content is both practical and comprehensive. It is excellent. It strongly aligns with my 20 years of experience in siting energy projects in communities.
Lynne, I think you missed the most important aspect I think Coase would recognize. Who holds the right to the data? It is an unassigned right. I did a video explaining this titled Theft Without A Thief. And that cost falls on everyone whose data was taken from them. Which is everyone.
I would not want another data center built until there was acknowledgment and compensation for the data stolen, otherwise I would consider that aiding and abetting the theft.
Just so I can form accurate expectations of whether/how much we'll agree on this point: what is your general opinion of intellectual property? Are you OK with the concept, do you think it's an essential protection of ideas, or do you agree with Boldrin & Levine in Against Intellectual Monopoly?
My argument is not one of intellectual property. But, wrt state-granted monopolies, I am against all of them. I am also against the state itself. I share Spooner's opinion: I never voluntarily entered into that contract. But as long as the state monopolizes enforcement, it is the only instrument available, and my complaint is that it uses that monopoly for the custodian.
My point is about possession. A terms-of-service click is not a bill of sale. There has been no conveyance of property. Is it a gift? A gift requires intent to give and delivery of title. No user expressed either. It is an act of conversion by the custodian. It represents expropriation and extraction. It is theft.
And I believe, not trying to be insensitive, it is an act of rape. Data rape. That term might offend, but I believe it is accurate. It is not only theft of our property but a violation of our personhood. I am sure many who read this, if anyone does, will be offended by my choice of words and label them insensitive and vulgar. I think they are accurate. It is a violation of our personhood, not just some inventory of likes, dislikes, interests, etc.
Snowden once described platforms as surveillance companies masquerading as social media companies. The AI companies and their insatiable appetite have significantly increased the scale.
The government has not refused to assign our property rights. It has assigned them, by default, to the custodian. Since it will not assign and protect them to the owner, the tool we are left with is to stop the building of the data centers that enable the theft. Not bargain over them. Refuse.
A town cannot consent on behalf of the people whose data the building will process, and no payment to the town compensates them. Refusal is the acknowledgment of our property rights claims.
Lynne. this is really, really, really good stuff.
Two things in particular stand out: first, not needing to reinvent the wheel. What was negotiated concluded as satisfactory in Cedar Rapids and Lancaster? These are first-rate counterparties (as is Google).
Second, you spell out everything that has to be kept in mind. There is not a recipe, but there is a process. I was not surprised to read at the end that your context was a conference for regulators.
The content is both practical and comprehensive. It is excellent. It strongly aligns with my 20 years of experience in siting energy projects in communities.
Thank you for sharing.
Lynne, I think you missed the most important aspect I think Coase would recognize. Who holds the right to the data? It is an unassigned right. I did a video explaining this titled Theft Without A Thief. And that cost falls on everyone whose data was taken from them. Which is everyone.
I think that's a separate question from the CBA rights bargaining, and one I might write about after watching your video!
I would not want another data center built until there was acknowledgment and compensation for the data stolen, otherwise I would consider that aiding and abetting the theft.
Just so I can form accurate expectations of whether/how much we'll agree on this point: what is your general opinion of intellectual property? Are you OK with the concept, do you think it's an essential protection of ideas, or do you agree with Boldrin & Levine in Against Intellectual Monopoly?
My argument is not one of intellectual property. But, wrt state-granted monopolies, I am against all of them. I am also against the state itself. I share Spooner's opinion: I never voluntarily entered into that contract. But as long as the state monopolizes enforcement, it is the only instrument available, and my complaint is that it uses that monopoly for the custodian.
My point is about possession. A terms-of-service click is not a bill of sale. There has been no conveyance of property. Is it a gift? A gift requires intent to give and delivery of title. No user expressed either. It is an act of conversion by the custodian. It represents expropriation and extraction. It is theft.
And I believe, not trying to be insensitive, it is an act of rape. Data rape. That term might offend, but I believe it is accurate. It is not only theft of our property but a violation of our personhood. I am sure many who read this, if anyone does, will be offended by my choice of words and label them insensitive and vulgar. I think they are accurate. It is a violation of our personhood, not just some inventory of likes, dislikes, interests, etc.
Snowden once described platforms as surveillance companies masquerading as social media companies. The AI companies and their insatiable appetite have significantly increased the scale.
The government has not refused to assign our property rights. It has assigned them, by default, to the custodian. Since it will not assign and protect them to the owner, the tool we are left with is to stop the building of the data centers that enable the theft. Not bargain over them. Refuse.
A town cannot consent on behalf of the people whose data the building will process, and no payment to the town compensates them. Refusal is the acknowledgment of our property rights claims.