During the pandemic, one interesting phenomenon was that traffic apps, such as Waze, became less accurate because they were being shorn of user data during the lockdowns. This was a visible example of how valuable public data was, both for the companies and even for the public itself.

Of course, that’s not to say that such a relationship is a clear one. Indeed, at a recent lecture on autonomous vehicles from the Turing Institute, the argument was made that it would benefit everyone if car companies, such as Tesla and Waymo, shared their data in an open commons, but that this is unlikely to happen as that data is also the source of those company’s competitive advantage.

Lack of nuance

A paper from the Kellogg School argues that, thus far, governments haven’t really managed to strike the balance. They believe that the EU’s GDPR regulation excessively limits the control businesses have over data, while in the U.S., too much control and freedom is given to tech firms.

The researchers developed a model that allowed them to manipulate various dimensions of our relationship with data and how we share it. This framework allowed them to explore new ways of thinking around the control given to users or businesses depending on the potential discomfort among users or the public benefits we wish to see.

The process revealed that we’re more comfortable sharing some types of information, in some circumstances, than in others. Indeed, there isn’t even uniformity in how users will respond.

Who gets control?

The researchers then attempted to determine whether businesses or users should get control over data based upon the various types of differences that were most relevant. For instance, whereas apps like Waze collect pretty similar data on location and route from all users, Facebook collects very specific information about each of us that we’re likely to be far more sensitive to.

“You may care more about Facebook analyzing your photos and knowing who you are interacting with than Facebook following which ads you click on,” the researchers explain. “A given platform will involve both kinds of heterogeneities—across users or data items,” she continues. “But one of those heterogeneities is going to be dominant.”

The researchers also took account of the level of public benefit from an app, which they believe has important regulatory implications. So, for instance, apps like Waze tend to be viewed more favorably than those like Facebook or Twitter. They believe this approach of viewing data through the lens of both public benefit and discomfort allowed them to better understand when control of data should rest with users and when with businesses.

Data trade-offs

For instance, if the benefits are high and discomfort is highly variable between users and data items, it tends to be most beneficial to give businesses control over the data as that ensures the biggest collective benefit.

However, if discomfort is much more variable around particular data items, such as with Facebook, then it’s better that users have more control over their data.

“They have to consider the trade-offs involved,” the researchers conclude. “Sometimes if you take control over data away from users, the users will feel their privacy is being invaded. But at the same time, it may be creating way more public benefit that outweighs those costs.”