Q. What’s the
Data Dictate (n)?
A. The data
dictate (v).
You
would be correct to deduce from this imperial diktat that what we do at work,
home, place and everywhere else is influenced by data. That whom we interact
with and how are influenced by data.
For
better and for worse, we are tagged from cradle to grave. And we have been thus
from time immemorial. The need to collect and codify data on and about us right
down to the nanomolecular level did not start with Uncle Sam. Or the Internet.
This enterprise traces its origin back to Lucy, at that exact moment when she
was unable to share with Lucian, Lucien and Lucienne what she saw in their
absence by utterances, gestures and gesticulations. Borne of that frustration was data, rendered first
time ever as markings, perhaps on the floor and later on the wall of their cave
dwellings.
So
yes, we can state that the genesis of language is data. And throughout the
trajectory of our evolution, from Lucy “Low-Hands” to Lindsay Lohan, data
continue to dictate the birth, growth and inescapable Shumpeterian demise of
thing(s) and one(s) every, many and none: Politics. Society. Culture. Commerce.
Particularly
commerce. Convincing arguments abound that the origin and growth of codified
language is commerce. When the hunter-gather became the dweller, he wanted to
patent a potent symbol of his power and prestige; his domesticated animals. But
two things must be achieved for that to happen: A mark unique to him, which he
stamps on his properties and which his co-dwellers must recognize and agree not
to imitate. And a way to count and keep count of—in his presence as well as
absence, near and far—his cattle as it multiplies by birth, purchase and wars
won, and as it reduces by death, sale and wars lost.
And
so did data beget commerce, which begat numbers, which begat codes, which begat
the need for authenticity, which begat authentication, which begat
verification, which begat power, which begat control, which begat censuses writ
large in our history. This desire to collect, count and code has invariably
been central to our civilization. There is no shortage of evidence of this in
religious texts (e.g. the Book of Numbers in the Old Testament) and various and
varying historical narratives of any given civilization (e.g. the Doomsday
Book).
This
data management exercise has been for the best for this our homo sapiens civilization; it gave birth
to the social security number, credit reference bureaus (e.g. Equifax, Experian
and TransUnion) credit ratings agencies (e.g. Fitch, Moody’s and S&P), the
media audience measurement industry (e.g. Nielsen, Arbitron and Audit Circulation
Bureau), Skype, Google, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, NSA….
This
data management exercise has also been for the worst for this our homo sapiens civilization; it gave birth
to the social security number, credit reference bureaus (e.g. Equifax, Experian
and TransUnion) credit ratings agencies (e.g. Fitch, Moody’s and S&P), the
media audience measurement industry (e.g. Nielsen, Arbitron and Audit
Circulation Bureau), Skype, Google, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, NSA….
The Data Dictate asserts that data dictate.
You
would indeed be correct to deduce from this imperial diktat that what we do at
work, home, place and everywhere else is influenced by data. That whom we
interact with and how we interact with them are influenced by data.
You
would be correct, yes. But not entirely. What the Data Dictate states unequivocally
is that we are data. Who we are, what
we are, what we do, with whom, where, when and how. With or without our knowledge, consent
or support, without our ability to opt in or opt out, without our ability to
prevent it, we are rendered into bits and bytes. Not from cradle to grave, nor
from ejaculation to resurrection, but from preconception to reincarnation. And
beyond.
So
it would be more accurate to state that Data is more than divine emperor with
absolute power. Data is God. And to God
omniscient, omnipotent, who at Her whim and caprice could be omnibenevolent or
omnimalevolent, we are nothing, we Her genuflecting minions, but bits and
bytes. Whatever we say, do, how, when, where, why, with whom, through what media
and with what language, we are rendered ones and zeros, the code that is the
word by which we live and die.
Data is code is word.
And in the beginning was the word.
And the word was with God.
And the word was God.
Do I hear you say “word!”?
Data
is God is word is code. Code. A noun,
a verb. A concept so pregnant with meaning that it demands a whole sanctuary of
its own to permit us to unravel its ambivalence and ambiguities enough for
deliverance and entry into what I call the Global Data Management Enterprise.
More on this anon. Code denotes and
connotes mystery and revelation; mysticism and rationalism; order and chaos;
acceptance and rejection; pleasure and pain; power and bondage; good and evil; war
and peace; construction and destruction; beginning and end…
But
if data is code is word is God, what has become of Uncle Sam, given his power,
ingenuity and productivity of and with the code? Nothing? Something? Really alive?
Really dead? Really powerful? Really powerless?
Good
news. Uncle Sam is still alive and kicking. Really. And still powerful. Very
powerful. Very, very powerful. More good
news. When it comes to the code, Uncle Sam is god. In fact, in the earlier
stages of the development of Data Olympiad, Uncle Sam was Zeus. He still is.
But today Uncle Sam is no longer Big Brother, even though he is still watching (and
eavesdropping on) us. At some point in the growth of Data Olympiad, Uncle Sam’s
protégés became so powerful that they engineered a de facto palace coup. As
Zeus is to Jesus, so is Uncle Sam to his nephews and nieces; Microsoft, Experian, Adobe,
Google, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, AT&T, PLA Unit 61398, KPA’s Unit 121,
Anonymous, ransomwarers…...and on, and on, and on. More on that anon. Uncle Sam
is still watching us. But not without the consent (and oftentimes dissent and
obstruction) of his nephews and nieces (among whom are the saintly, good, bad
and ugly) who have morphed into Big Mama.
So what’s the coda to all this blog’s blague and blather?
It
is with great joy and great grief that I announce the death of Information
Society. He is survived by his daughter, Data Society, otherwise known as
Global Data Management Enterprise, otherwise known as Big Mama.
And
to survive and thrive in Data Society, I softly recommend the following:
1. Our
understanding of Data is long overdue for an overhaul.
Data is. Period. It is more than a
tool to help eradicate or achieve something. It is more than a medium through
which we create a platform, product or service, be it for business, aid, activism,
governance good and bad, destruction big and small…and on, and on, and on. More
on this anon.
·
This means we need to reconsider
conceptual (de)limitations of terms such as “ICT/Open Data for [insert who/what you are/do here]” and their impact on the
design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of (the success or failure
of) your program; on the feasibility or viability of your proposed program,
product or service. …and on, and on, and on. More on this anon.
·
This also means that actors big and
small in the global community of social change and development must demolish
the silos and borders we built and build between and among us if we want to be
more agile and efficient in order to increase our chances for success. In other
words if you are dealing with data in your venture, it should matter little or
not at all what your discipline, field, profession, passion, program, product
or service is. This should free your mind and your assets will follow to enable
you to partner with anyone anywhere. Handles for this concept are "interdisciplinarity", "transdisciplinarity" and on, and on, and on.... More on this
anon.
2. Data
deserves way more respect than is currently accorded.
There appears to be a glaring disparity and dissonance in the valuation of data
among and between actors in the global community of social change and
development. In developed countries, anything relating to data management is
regarded as highly valuable commodity and valued and protected as such. Take
for example any social media product or service of your choice and find out how
much it is worth, and the plethora of patents, trademarks and copyrights it has
and zealously protects, including all your content in it. In fact, you and what
you do on/with Facebook and YouTube are exponentially more valuable to
Zuckerman and Brin & Page respectively than all their codes combined!
But when citizens in developing countries are the
intended beneficiaries of products, programs or services, two views dominate:
That of the for-profiters and that of the rest of us. The for-profiters intuitively recognize the
value, which is often significantly more than the same intended for those in
developed countries---the classic supply-demand principle at work here. They
therefore feverishly gobble up all data (open, shared, closed and otherwise)
they can find on developing countries, add them to theirs (which were
arguably paltry before), obtain and protect various IP rights for
them and then package and sell them, often to program funders or implementing
partners who provided the data free of charge in the first place.
For the rest of us, valuation of the data generated
by implementing partners and/or their sponsors rarely go beyond contractual
obligations of delimited access and sharing, or of Creative Commons licensing. This
view is myopic and misguided. I ardently applaud and support the ingenuity of
the data for-profiters targeting developing countries. In fact they play a
critical role in the new paradigm of development that I hope to advocate soon. It
is understandable and no fault of theirs that they are taking advantage of and
profiteering beautifully from the data rush to the new frontier.
But the rest of us, especially big program sponsors
such as World Bank, USAID, DFID, UNDP and UNESCO, need a whole new and
effective game plan to play or referee well in this new frontier. We are in dire
need of an equitable global data valuation system that includes data subjects
in developing countries. I cite two among the innumerable benefits such
valuation system would generate:
First, it would be a potential cash-cow for
program sponsors and implementing partners. Just because we are non-profit does
not mean all that we generate should be free, especially when used by
for-profiters. If done right, this ever-replenishing revenue reservoir will
help fund the creation of a global data management development index and of data
management ministries/secretariats in developing countries (see below).
Secondly, it would support the growth
and prosperity of local innovators and entrepreneurs in the nascent data
management economy in developing countries. This group plays a crucial role in
sustainable development and good governance.
Without this new valuation system, we unwittingly support what I call the Second Coming phenomenon: The recolonization of old empires, this time for the exploitation of their data resources.
In
forthcoming entries, I will share my thoughts and details on key elements of
the global data valuation system. I will advocate among other things:
·
The creation of a robust development
index that ranks the growth and development of countries according to their
data management efficacy, equitability and productivity.
·
The elevation of data management in
developing countries to ministerial/secretariat level.
I bid you bonne mine to this
mindmeld.
********************************************************************
Join the debate at Facebook or @DataDictate.
Post your comments to this entry below or directly to us.
No comments:
Post a Comment