Do you read confidentiality agreements? Few people waste time. They all look alike, are boring, and probably don't lie. Companies, especially big ones, try to be honest about their responsibilities regarding user data if only to avoid hefty fines. And yet, something is wrong with the world's privacy protections. What if the concept of privacy itself is the problem?

Decentralized projects don't usually say “privacy”; rather, they say data is “owned by the user” (data ownership). What's the difference? I came up with a fun analogy and want to share it.

Let's take a more understandable subject - land, for example. If you own a plot of land, you have the right to get there whenever you want, build a house on it, make money with it, invite your friends to a party, and forbid anyone to enter. Ownership is the right to make decisions about some object.

From a legal point of view, it consists of three elements:

• Possession (i.e., the possibility of unrestricted access)

• Use (i.e., benefiting from the property)

• Disposition (the right to sell, gift, or destroy the object)

An owner can transfer some of his or her rights to another. For example, if you lease land, you will allow the tenant access and use, but not disposal.

This is the classic, universal understanding of ownership. There are good reasons to extend it to include information. First, data plays a role in the modern economy; in the 21st century, it has become a valuable asset with measurable value. Look at the largest companies in the world: 4 out of 10 derive a significant part of their revenues from user data. Second, thanks to decentralized architecture and asymmetric cryptography, this has become feasible in principle: data ownership can be enforced.

“Privacy” means that the data is kept secret and protected by the server. The server takes over the authentication and authorization functions to make the protection work. At its discretion, it can allow or deny someone access and use. In other words, the server owns the decisions - and so, it turns out, does the data.

Can the server block a user? It can.

Can it grant access to someone else for some reason - like a hacker? It can.

Can someone else use your data for profit? Yes, that's the whole point of free digital services.

The provider can destroy your account at will, as Google does, or take away your name, as Twitter does.

And users are used to this state of affairs. As the former owner of the Music account on the service formerly known as Twitter put it, “Ultimately, they own the account.”

As strange as it may sound, the idea of privacy on the Internet is reminiscent of medieval feudalism. In the Middle Ages, land was the main economic resource. Peasants used the land, but it belonged to the aristocracy. In return, the feudal lord was obligated to protect that land. Sound familiar? By allowing internet services to be in charge of privacy, we are adopting a feudal model: when our digital identity is protected, it is at the mercy of someone else.

That's why tech companies cling so tightly to privacy. And why privacy laws being passed around the world exacerbate digital inequality. Internet giants limit our access to our own data, calling it an advantage. The very concept of privacy masks the fact that data does not belong to us.

Let's be clear: this is not a global conspiracy theory but rather an attempt to find the root of the problem.

Here's another classic legal principle:

Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos - To whomsoever it belongs, it is his all the way to the heavens (and all the way to hell) (Latin)

I like the sound of that. This is exactly the kind of complete and unconditional ownership of one's own information made possible by decentralized, trustless networks with strong cryptography. That's why I believe Web3 is more than cryptocurrency speculation. It is the beginning of a new era of people's relationship with technology.

Do you think the analogy with the Middle Ages is clickbait? Or does it seem to be true?