|
New Evaluation Tool May Make Data Collection More Transparent
SARA WYANT
WASHINGTON, D.C.
How many times have you allowed some technology company to collect your data, but not been exactly sure about how it’s going to be used? Or how often have you wondered whether or not the terms governing use and privacy have changed since you updated your latest version of software?
A new “transparency evaluator” tool may soon be available to help you more easily wade through the legal documentation and make comparisons between products from various agricultural technology providers (ATP).
The concept is fairly straightforward: Develop an evaluation tool that allows simple “yes” or “no” questions about basic data collection. Include links to the actual language in a company’s privacy policy which enable viewers to drill down for more detailed information. Sample questions could include:
• Does the ATP agreement address what happens to my data if the ATP is sold to another company?
• Does the ATP agreement address ownership of my data after my data is transferred?
• Are there other companies that work with the ATP (and may have access to my data) bound by the same privacy terms I agreed to with the ATP?
However, getting to this point has been anything but simple for members of the Transparency Evaluator (TE) Working Group. It’s the product of months of discussions that were first originated in 2014 by the American Farm Bureau Federation and included representatives from the American Soybean Association, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Farmers Union, the National Cotton Council, USA Rice and six agricultural technology providers (ATPs) like Deere, Dow and Beck’s Hybrids.
This group worked for several months to develop 13 principles on privacy and security. Now, 35 groups have endorsed those basic principles.
“When we completed the principles document, some of us decided we needed a tool to make it easier for farmers to evaluate how those they were considering doing business with fared on those principles,” says the American Farm Bureau’s Mary Kay Thatcher. “That’s when we latched onto the idea of a ‘Transparency Evaluator’.”
How it works:
Each ATP would initially complete the “Evaluator” and the TE Administrator would then certify that he agrees with the documentation. Then the agricultural business would receive notice that they are eligible for the “Transparency Evaluator” (TE) seal of approval and would be free to communicate this accomplishment to their farmer customers.
“This type of ATP self-certification at the beginning of the process has two advantages,” explained Missouri Farm Bureau President Blake Hurst during congressional testimony on this subject last fall. “It requires the ATP to engage in the process and, in the long term, we hope the evaluation will shape the privacy policies and other legal documents the ATPs attempt to certify”
The TE will be product-based rather than company-based, recognizing that equipment companies like John Deere have multiple farm data products available to their customers. Therefore, the TE will evaluate each product separately.
“In its simplest form, I would describe the “Evaluator” as a combination of a Consumer Reports review and a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval,” noted Hurst.
The Working Group also believed there should be a requirement for some level of adherence to their “Privacy and Security Principles for Farm Data” in exchange for awarding the seal of approval. So In order for a seal to be awarded, each ATP would also have to certify that they met a basic set of questions similar to the following:
• Does the ATPs agreement address ownership of my data after my data is transferred?
• Will the ATP notify me whenever its agreements change?
• Will the ATP obtain my consent before providing other companies with access to my data?
• Will the ATP notify me if a breach of data security occurs that causes disclosure of my data to an outside party?
The groups involved with this project have also established a more formal organizational structure and funding mechanism. Each of the 23 groups and ATP that fund the initial formation of the nonprofit TE group is eligible for membership and a seat on the Advisory Board. Going forward, the board will develop and revise the transparency questions for future years. If the TE is profitable, the groups agreed that any profits will be used for education, outreach and marketing. ∆
SARA WYANT: Editor of Agri-Pulse, a weekly e-newsletter covering farm and rural policy. To contact her, go to: http://www.agri-pulse.com/
|
|