Chapter 3

Data are an intangible asset; like other information-related goods, they can be reproduced and transferred at almost zero marginal costs. So in contrast to the concept of ownership of physical goods, where the owner typically has exclusive rights and control over the good—including for instance the freedom to destroy the good—this is not the case for intangibles such as data. . . . Data ownership can be a poor starting point for data governance, and can even be misleading. . . . The important question isn’t who owns the data. Ultimately, we all do. A better question is who owns the means of analysis? Because that’s how . . . you get the right information in the right place. The digital divide isn’t about who owns data—it’s about who can put that data to work.

数据是一种无形资产；与其他与信息有关的物品一样，它们可以以几乎为零的边际成本进行复制和转让。因此，与有形商品所有权的概念不同，在有形商品所有权的概念中，所有者通常对商品拥有专有权和控制权--例如包括销毁商品的自由--而数据等无形资产则不然。. . . 数据所有权可能不是数据治理的出发点，甚至会产生误导。. . . 重要的问题不是谁拥有数据。归根结底，我们都拥有数据。更好的问题是谁拥有分析手段？因为这就是......在正确的地方获取正确信息的方式。数字鸿沟不在于谁拥有数据，而在于谁能让数据发挥作用。
extractive rationalities that further justify exploitation, including 
• economic rationalities that frame the data we produce and the labor we contribute as valueless because they are generated through socialization and not paid work and therefore are available for capitalization by other parties; 
• legal rationalities that, as Julie Cohen argues, frame data as ownerless, redefining notions of privacy and property in order to establish a new moral order that justifies the appropriation of data; 
• developmental rationalities that present data colonialism as a civilizational project, carried out on behalf of underdeveloped subjects in the name of progress and safety; 
• cultural rationalities that promote “sharing” while lowering the value of privacy and raising the value of competitive self-presentation; and 
• technical rationalities that frame data appropriation as a legitimate goal of science, entrepreneurship, and human creativity.

榨取性合理性进一步证明了剥削的合理性，其中包括 
- 经济合理性：将我们生产的数据和付出的劳动视为无价之宝，因为它们是通过社会化而非有偿劳动产生的，因此可被其他方资本化； 
- 法律合理性，正如朱莉-科恩（Julie Cohen）所言，将数据视为无主之物，重新定义隐私和财产的概念，以建立一种新的道德秩序，为占有数据提供正当理由； 
- 发展理性，将数据殖民主义视为一项文明工程，以进步和安全的名义代表不发达主体实施； 
- 促进 "共享 "的文化合理性，同时降低隐私的价值，提高竞争性自我展示的价值；以及 
- 技术理性，将数据占有作为科学、创业和人类创造力的合法目标。
The Requerimientos of our times are known as end-user license agreements (EULA) or statements of rights and responsibilities (SRR). These documents spell out how newly discovered resources and their presumed owners are to be treated by colonizers.

我们这个时代的 Requerimientos 被称为最终用户许可协议（EULA）或权利与责任声明（SRR）。这些文件规定了殖民者如何对待新发现的资源及其假定的所有者。
data colonialism expands the domain of production in our capitalist society in a more fundamental way, giving way to an emerging new order, a new structuring of social relations. Individuals continue to work and sell their labor per the traditional dynamics of labor relations, but now they are implicated in capitalism in other ways that do not even require them to work for anyone. They simply need to participate in social life, as they ordinarily would, in order to generate value for the capitalist. Datafication thus meets Lawrence Crocker’s necessary and sufficient conditions for exploitation: “That there be a surplus product [data] which is under the control of a group [the social quantification sector] which does not include all the producers of that surplus [the public].”

数据殖民主义从根本上扩大了资本主义社会的生产领域，让位于一种新的秩序，一种新的社会关系结构。个人继续按照传统的劳动关系动态工作并出卖自己的劳动力，但现在他们以其他方式卷入了资本主义，甚至不需要为任何人工作。他们只需要像往常一样参与社会生活，为资本家创造价值。因此，数据化符合劳伦斯-克罗克提出的剥削的必要条件和充分条件： "有一种剩余产品（数据）处于一个群体（社会量化部门）的控制之下，而这个群体并不包括该剩余产品的所有生产者（公众）"。
exchanges are highly uneven: while flows between North America and Europe jumped from 1,000 TBps to more than 20,000 TBps between 2005 and 2014, the flow between North America and Latin America, for example, increased only from 500 TBps to 5,000 TBps during that time, and the flow between Asia and Africa (to illustrate flows between the Global South) went from less than 50 TBps to no more than 500 TBps. An overwhelming majority of all cross-border data traffic passes through the United States and is subject to whatever surveillance and collection methods that government deems necessary. Thus, the Global North still assumes the role of gatekeeper

数据交换极不均衡：2005 年至 2014 年间，北美与欧洲之间的数据流从 1000 TBps 激增至 20,000 TBps 以上，但北美与拉丁美洲之间的数据流在此期间仅从 500 TBps 增至 5,000 TBps，亚洲与非洲之间的数据流（说明全球南部之间的数据流）从不到 50 TBps 增至不超过 500 TBps。绝大多数跨境数据流量都经过美国，并受到政府认为必要的任何监控和收集方法的制约。因此，"全球北方 "仍然扮演着看门人的角色。
Steven Weber describes the economic imbalance that can result when one side (the colonized) provides the “raw” data, and the other does all the capturing, the processing, the analysis, and the creation of value-added products that the colonized cannot develop on their own and which they must buy at a disadvantage. As has been the case throughout the history of colonialism, this results in the colonizers becoming richer and more powerful, and the colonized underdeveloped and dependent.

史蒂文-韦伯（Steven Weber）描述了当一方（殖民者）提供 "原始 "数据，而另一方则进行所有捕捉、加工、分析和创造增值产品的工作时可能导致的经济失衡，而殖民者自身无法开发这些产品，他们必须以劣势购买这些产品。正如整个殖民主义历史上的情况一样，这导致殖民者变得更加富有和强大，而被殖民者则不发达和依赖。
developed countries have been pressuring developing and poor countries to open their digital borders in ways that benefit the social quantification sector. This usually means a number of lopsided trade tactics: antilocalization laws that prevent countries from demanding that data should be stored within their boundaries; fewer privacy requirements, which allows companies in the Global North to collect all sorts of information about users in the Global South; strict copyright measures to protect the intellectual property (including media content and proprietary source code) of the companies in the Global North; and tax breaks that allow consumers to buy directly from foreign platforms such as Amazon without having to pay custom duties.

发达国家一直在向发展中国家和穷国施压，要求它们以有利于社会量化行业的方式开放数字边界。这通常意味着一些片面的贸易策略：反本地化法律，阻止各国要求将数据存储在其境内；降低隐私要求，允许全球北方的公司收集全球南方用户的各种信息；严格的版权措施，保护全球北方公司的知识产权（包括媒体内容和专有源代码）；税收减免，允许消费者直接从亚马逊等外国平台购买，而无需支付关税。