[MyData & Open Data] distinctions between personal and open

[Iain Henderson]

In that categorisation that would premium account would be Our data, i.e. co-created and accessible to both. The standard account data would be 'your data', i.e. FitBit Co. It is specifically not My Data, even though I generated it. If I could hack into the Fitbit and extract it, that extracted bit would be My Data (albeit technically gathered in breach of contract).

There are choices that can be made around some edge cases, but they way I see it the defining characteristic that aids categorisations is 'whose terms and conditions does it live behind?'

Make sense?

Iain



On 3 Jul 2013, at 01:23, Puneet Kishor <punk.kish at gmail.com> wrote:

> What about my data that *I* collected but *they* helped collect? 
> 
> For example, the fitbit on my hip is owned by me, powered by me, and logs undeniably only information about me. But, the only way I can see that data is through a fitbit owned app  provided to me, the said app uploading that data to fitbit's web site, and that data available to me to download only if I sign up for a premium account. What category would that data be?
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Puneet Kishor
> Policy Coordinator for Science and Data
> Creative Commons
> 
> On Jul 2, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Iain Henderson <iainhenderson at mac.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Sam, one approach that has worked for me before is to set out 5 types of data that exist around an individual in simple terms that people can engage with, and point to the more detailed articulation for those that want it.
>> 
>> The simple version is:
>> 
>> My data - undeniable mine, I create it and manage it
>> 
>> Your data - your data about me ('you' typically equalling a supplier, but also applies to peers)
>> 
>> Our data - the data we co-create (and both technically have rights to and a copy of)
>> 
>> Their data - entities that have data about me without having a relationship with me (credit bureau, ad networks etc)
>> 
>> Everybody's data - what would typically be seen as 'open data'.
>> 
>> The more detailed version is here. That's a few years old and could use an update but I think the core logic remains correct.
>> 
>> Of course BIS and ODI have confused that logic using the term 'midata' for what I would describe as 'our data'. No matter, it's a well meaning effort.
>> 
>> Hope that helps.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> Iain
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 2 Jul 2013, at 20:32, Sam Smith <s at msmith.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hey all,
>>> 
>>> Has anyone seen a good discussion on how to talk about personal data (midata esque) at an open data type event, in a way which doesn't confuse the audience into believing that the speaker is suggesting that personal data should be OGL licensed...
>>> 
>>> 
>>> It's a hard problem. Even HSCIC (talking about every person's GP health records) and ODI have got this wrong...
>>> 
>> 
>> 


e-mail: iainhenderson at mac.com
blog: www.iainhenderson.info
twitter: @iainh1

This email and any attachment contains information which is private and confidential and is intended for the addressee only. If you are not an addressee, you are not authorised to read, copy or use the e-mail or any attachment. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and then destroy it.

<a href="http://miicard.me/b0F1Jsy5">Identity assured by miiCard : Click to Verify</a>