Who Owns Your Data? The Case for Data Sovereignty

A new era of data ownership is emerging, challenging the status quo of who controls personal information.

We have spent years giving away personal data in exchange for free online services. Now, as artificial intelligence depends on that data to make decisions, we need to ask a more fundamental question: Who should own it, and who gets to decide how it is used?

In a recent episode of the Behavioral Economics Today Podcast, I sat down with Michael Munson, CEO and founder of Daginty, to talk about surveillance capitalism, individual data ownership, and the emerging concept of data sovereignty. We discussed why people should have control over personal information, including their behavioral profiles.

Michael is developing Cluzy, a product planned for release next year that aims to help individuals see, manage, and control their personal data. Our conversation raised another important question for all of us:

What would change if we had a say in how our data was collected and used?

Surveillance Capitalism Doesn’t Work

Surveillance capitalism grew out of a simple idea: make online services free and generate revenue by collecting data about the people who use them. The model evolved from website traffic and advertising impressions to search activity, social media profiles, and now the data used to train AI models.

The problem is that people are often left out of the conversation about their own information. Companies collect, analyze, and broker data about us, while we may have little idea what personal information they hold or how it influences the services and offers we receive.

“Now, the systems operate like you’re just a passenger.”
Michael Munson - Daginty

I have seen the consequences of this approach in financial services. When I was building my own wealth management business, I often found that professional advisors made assumptions about me without really understanding my needs. I remember rejecting most of what my private bank proposed because the recommendations did not reflect what I wanted. If businesses had more accurate information about the people they serve, they could make better decisions and offer more relevant services.

On top of that, surveillance capitalism creates enormous inefficiencies. As Michael pointed out, the advertising industry can treat a response rate of around 1% as success.

Better information, shared willingly by individuals, could help businesses target their advertising more effectively while giving people a reason to participate.

Is Your Personal Data Your Personal Property?

We tend to think of personal data in terms of privacy, but who actually owns it? Michael argues that individuals should have control over their personal information, decide how it is shared, and potentially benefit from its value.

Consider your furniture. You would not expect someone to take it from your home, sell it to someone else, and keep the proceeds without your permission. Personal data deserves a similar conversation about ownership and control.

A Supreme Court case in June 2026 raised important questions about data ownership. In Chatrie v. United States, police obtained a man's Google location history to identify people who were near a bank when it was robbed. The case raised questions about whether police access to this information violated the man's Fourth Amendment rights.

Justice Neil Gorsuch argued that Chatrie had property rights in his location history, even though Google stored the data and provided it to police in response to a warrant. His argument highlights an important distinction: storing someone's personal information does not necessarily mean owning it.

The Court did not rule that all personal data legally belongs to the individual, but the case adds to the debate over whether people should have property rights in their digital information.

Read the Supreme Court Opinion

The broader opportunity is to build the infrastructure for individual data ownership now, rather than wait for the law to catch up with technology. Michael believes this could change how businesses obtain information and how individuals decide what to share.

How to Create a Sovereign Human Data Economy

Daginty’s planned product, Cluzy, is designed to put some of these ideas into practice. It aims to show people what information about them is held in online databases, including people-finder sites and marketing data brokers. Individuals would then be able to move their data into a personal data store, decide who can access it, and request deletion of information held by data collectors.

“You are going to be able to make sales more effectively when you’ve got better, more accurate information.”
Michael Munson - Daginty

The longer-term vision includes sharing selected information with businesses and potentially allowing individuals to receive value for specific pieces of data. Instead of handing over everything, a person could choose to share only what is needed for a particular purpose.

There may be benefits for organizations, too. Employers could offer data protection as an employee wellness benefit, while reducing exposure to impersonation attacks that rely on publicly available personal information. Businesses could also obtain more accurate information from customers who choose to share it, improving the services they provide.

The principle is straightforward.

People should have a meaningful say in how their information is used, and businesses should have a reason to respect that choice.

AI Is Only as Good as the Data

AI systems generate answers, make predictions, and influence decisions based on the data they receive. But what happens when that data is inaccurate, incomplete, or based on assumptions about people? The results can be misleading, even when the technology performs as designed. But how can we expect AI to understand people accurately if individuals have little control over the data used to represent them?

Tools that give people greater control over their personal information are beginning to emerge. Cluzy is one example of an effort to put that control into individuals’ hands, giving them a greater say in how their data is shared.

The question is whether we can move toward a model in which individuals choose how their data is shared, and businesses earn access by providing value in return.

This is an important conversation about human identity, trust, and the future of decision-making. We need to keep asking who owns the information, who controls its use, and whether the people behind the data receive value in return.

Your Behavioral Profile Belongs to You

At DNA Behavior, individual ownership of behavioral profiles has been a fundamental principle since the company was founded. Even when an employer, financial advisor, or another organization pays for a profile, the individual owns it and decides where it can be shared.

Our Data Sovereignty Policy reflects this commitment. A behavioral profile can help others understand how someone tends to think, make decisions, communicate, and respond to different situations. That understanding can support better relationships and more personalized services, but the individual should retain control over the profile.

I want people to understand their behavioral identity and feel comfortable sharing it in the right environments. That might mean sharing it with an employer to improve a working relationship, with a financial advisor to support more suitable recommendations, or with another professional who can use the information to provide a better service.

I think you can get to 98% personalization for 98% of the people…if people want to participate to get there.

Got a Story to Share?

I’m always interested in speaking with people who are exploring human behavior, decision-making, and the forces shaping our lives and businesses.

Have a story or perspective to share?

Apply to be our next guest!