Of course it can. Ownership is a social construct.
It’s more accurate to say data resists being controlled. But honestly, so do e.g. air and mineral rights and the “ownership” of catalytic converters in cars parked on the street.
Why not? I sing song. You sing song. I beat you with stick because that’s my song. You stop singing song.
The operator isn't even called Anna, just in case that wasn't already obvious to literally everyone.
Yes. I kill you. Stealing was usually punishable by death in ancient cultures.
> You don't even know where I am
This isn’t a thing in early human societies.
Like, yes, you could theoretically get away. Lots of thieves of physical property actually get away. That doesn’t make said property indefensible in principle.
There's legal title. And then there's possession.
AA clearly possesses this data. It's not incorrect for them to refer to it as "their" data, until and unless it is removed from their possession.
Totally agree.
Plenty of data becomes stale almost immediately. Plenty of data sources can be owned, but they also tend to be people.
We desperately need better social contracts which help us deal with data-about-me and data-i-created, but neither of those align very well with property.
I think it’s fair to argue this makes data something that should not be able to be owned. But saying it can’t be owned is plain wrong.
But regarding the particular implementation as codified in US law (and I think elsewhere also), property rights do not extend to data.
Maybe not in general, though I’m curious for a source. Practically speaking, what separates data and information is a necessarily subjective exercise. And information absolutely can be property.
