Big Data

[RushesToo]

Not sure if this deserves a thread of its own. The value in the company may well be in the data not the product:
https://techcrunch.com/2016/07/06/the-land-grab-for-farm-data/

 

[D14]

Not sure if this deserves a thread of its own. The value in the company may well be in the data not the product:
https://techcrunch.com/2016/07/06/the-land-grab-for-farm-data/

Exactly why we give nothing out and won't use any cloud based program. We buy inputs from various companies so not to create big sales accounts with one.
If they want to buy my data then it's £180-200/ac as that's what our input spend is, so if they want that info against final yield and specification then they can pay for it.

 

[Clive]

Exactly why we give nothing out and won't use any cloud based program. We buy inputs from various companies so not to create big sales accounts with one.
If they want to buy my data then it's £180-200/ac as that's what our input spend is, so if they want that info against final yield and specification then they can pay for it.

Not that its even something I thought about with monitor and manage there is no doubt there is a big future in "big data"

I'm not sure its always a bad thing either really for us as farmers as long as we are getting something useful back and the info is not used against us but instead is used to increase efficiency throughout our industry from manufacture thru supply right through to field. We already collect a lot a data as farmers every day, mostly without realising we do so and finding something useful to do with that information could benefit us ultimately. doing nothing with it is a wasted opportunity for farmers and associated industries to find ways to improve and increase efficiency

Probably does need a separate thread but the TFF benchmarking we are about to launch is a good example - I wanted to do what members have asked for and create a way we can compare our farms in a relevant way, to do that well is quite complex and costly so we I had to find a commercial partner to help us. As a result, to get what we want we all have to give up a bit of information which in turn might help various support industries do a better job and become more efficient which benefits them but also maybe ultimately their customers (us). An example being a chemical manufacture planning production months in advance - the more accurate they can predict demand the less chance of shortage when we want the product or less chance of creating waste product that ultimately we (as well as the environment)
pay for

John Deere connected farm is another example (and there are many examples) - most don't realise they are submitting big data but these services, which are without doubt useful to farmers, are also constantly generating huge amount of data about many aspects of farm operation and product use

We have to be grown up about all this and understand we will never get something that is off any value to us for nothing, the key is making sure the people that control this (TFF in the case of the benchmarking) can be trusted to put the farmer first (as I have in all our negotiation about this) . Frankly if we don't do it, other that are probably less wise to trust will do !

I think its something we get to hung up over, (certainly I have in the past) It's not to be feared as I once felt it was, its more to be embraced as something that can help us run better business, if it also helps others run better and more efficient business along the way why should that matter ?

 

[Alistair Nelson]

Can't remember the full story as don't use it myself but wasn't there a thread on here last year about gatekeeper up to something like this and basically claiming the right to use s farmers data?

 

[Clive]

Can't remember the full story as don't use it myself but wasn't there a thread on here last year about gatekeeper up to something like this and basically claiming the right to use s farmers data?

yes - they created a situation where users by default opted in (which i'm not sure is ok under the data protection act) and also there was nothing at the time to suggest there was anything in it for farmers - ie you paid (lots) to use software and then they sold the data

This highlights what I'm saying above about there needing to be something in it for the farmer or why should we bother or let others have this info

If the info is going to be useful to my business, my customers or environment then I think its a good thing, if its not then its a bad thing - there is a distinct and important difference there I reckon

 

[RushesToo]

@Clive The data is probably not covered by the DPA as it is not related to you, just where the equipment is and what it records.

When you sign up to google, they don't provide billions of server farms and internet access for free, what they buy is data about you in return for a service. Apply this model to farming and at least you should agree to sell the data, hold a copy yourself with an agreement to share it with whomever you wish.

The NFU might be more respected and have a long term future if this was one of the things they were campaigning on. This is seriously one of the most valuable pieces of industrial information available, particularly if your sprayer is on the same network / software. Think of the cost that this would be if Monsanto had to collect it themselves rather than buy if from a supplier that is charging famers.

The NFU [and sometimes farmers] are so C20th and looking back to the C19th.

 

[Clive]

@Clive The data is probably not covered by the DPA as it is not related to you, just where the equipment is and what it records.

When you sign up to google, they don't provide billions of server farms and internet access for free, what they buy is data about you in return for a service. Apply this model to farming and at least you should agree to sell the data, hold a copy yourself with an agreement to share it with whomever you wish.

The NFU might be more respected and have a long term future if this was one of the things they were campaigning on. This is seriously one of the most valuable pieces of industrial information available, particularly if your sprayer is on the same network / software. Think of the cost that this would be if Monsanto had to collect it themselves rather than buy if from a supplier that is charging famers.

The NFU [and sometimes farmers] are so C20th and looking back to the C19th.

There is a big difference when signing up to google than what happened with gatekeeper - when you create a google account or download chrome etc you opt in by ticking a box that accepts the terms. What Gatekeeper did was say everyone is in and if you don't want to be then you must phone or write to tell us - Thats a BIG difference and the rules on how users should accept t&c's are well covered by the DPA. If Google could make users accept T&C's without having to actually say yes don't you think they would do ?

It is my understanding is that all 3rd party data held by a company is subject to the DPA - not just your name and address, I'm no lawyer though !

In defence of the NFU (I know that's rare from me !) I'm not sure that big data is a bad thing for farmers, it has the potential to help us increase our efficiency as businesses and help associated industries better understand what we need and when we need it, this save them money that maybe reflected i better prices to us and in the case of stuff like ag chems might improve environmental credentials

We are all doing this already, many of us fill in surveys, use crop recording software, buy products, use GPS, join organisations etc . I fully expect the NFU already sell big data about their members already

It's natural for us to have concerns and I was the biggest sceptic of them all on this subject ! But the more I understand this though the more I see it as positive as long as there is something in it for us - thats surely the 20th century attitude towards this ?

 

[RushesToo]

There is a big difference when signing up to google than what happened with gatekeeper - when you create a google account or download chrome etc you opt in by ticking a box that accepts the terms. What Gatekeeper did was say everyone is in and if you don't want to be then you must phone or write to tell us - Thats a BIG difference and the rules on how users should accept t&c's are well covered by the DPA. If Google could make users accept T&C's without having to actually say yes don't you think they would do ?

Is it covered by the DPA, if the company that uses the data knows that you, as an individual are the owner then they must ask permission. If they don't know who your are but could extrapolate then they do need to ask.

I would see this meaning that an individual using it for their purposes should be asked but a trading entity would not.

 

[RushesToo]

....
In defence of the NFU (I know that's rare from me !) I'm not sure that big data is a bad thing for farmers, it has the potential to help us increase our efficiency as businesses and help associated industries better understand what we need and when we need it, this save them money that maybe reflected i better prices to us and in the case of stuff like ag chems might improve environmental credentials

We are all doing this already, many of us fill in surveys, use crop recording software, buy products, use GPS, join organisations etc . I fully expect the NFU already sell big data about their members already

It's natural for us to have concerns and I was the biggest sceptic of them all on this subject ! But the more I understand this though the more I see it as positive as long as there is something in it for us - thats surely the 20th century attitude towards this ?

I agree here, if the use is for the benefit of the provider of the data this is a good thing. There are some proviso's:

• The value of the data is a benefit that should be shared by the data owner with the data provider in the form of reduced costs - shared with the companies shareholders naturally, I would like to believe that this is the case.

• I would also like to see the provider of the data [the farmer] to have access to their data if they wished and be allowed to trade this where they wish. So were Rothamsted wanting to do a study on the effectiveness of a chemical, farmers would be able to donate / sell their data. I like the idea of some kind of oversight on the companies. If a chemical were meant to control blackgrass turned out to have a detrimental effect on profitability I think this should be known by more than the company that has the data.

 

[Clive]

Is it covered by the DPA, if the company that uses the data knows that you, as an individual are the owner then they must ask permission. If they don't know who your are but could extrapolate then they do need to ask.

I would see this meaning that an individual using it for their purposes should be asked but a trading entity would not.

As I said I'm no lawyer but my understanding was ALL 3rd party data was subject to the act and you needed permission to share it

When you join TFF the NFU etc or download google etc you accept T&C's if they changed we would have to ask you to accept them again in their new format. We can't simple change things and say "please let us know if you don't like that"

 

[Clive]

I agree here, if the use is for the benefit of the provider of the data this is a good thing. There are some proviso's:

• The value of the data is a benefit that should be shared by the data owner with the data provider in the form of reduced costs - shared with the companies shareholders naturally, I would like to believe that this is the case.

• I would also like to see the provider of the data [the farmer] to have access to their data if they wished and be allowed to trade this where they wish. So were Rothamsted wanting to do a study on the effectiveness of a chemical, farmers would be able to donate / sell their data. I like the idea of some kind of oversight on the companies. If a chemical were meant to control blackgrass turned out to have a detrimental effect on profitability I think this should be known by more than the company that has the data.

Agree totally - I really hope the above is what TFF benchmarking that will be launched tonight might achieve

I have tried to get something that will benifit members and if it benefits others then why does that matter as long as we all get the info back that we want ?

I hope everyone gives it a go and we all make it a success that gives us useful info back but I also understand why some would feel cautious. As always on TFF if members don't use it or like it then we won't do it beyond the pilot

 

[RushesToo]

As I said I'm no lawyer but my understanding was ALL 3rd party data was subject to the act and you needed permission to share it

The data protection act covers personal data, Hence an individual being covered but a trading entity not. Technically the company should ask for your permission if you are an individual. For large corporations such as Google there are opt outs for giving more information than you are comfortable with. I am a bit of a DPA nerd, less good on the wider aspects of law. What I next say may not hold true.

If a company makes a contract with you that has unfair terms in the contract then it is void. Extrapolating this to Google, they probably allow you to opt out so that they don't get in a mess with unfair contracts. However as the contract is made with no money changing hands directly then I am not sure that there is any contract to contest.

If the farmer is the owner of the equipment then they have a right to ask for it for the payment of a small fee. Nonetheless even if the data is not personal, In terms of fairness I believe that farmers should have access to their data.

 

[Pheasant Surprise]

Exactly why we give nothing out and won't use any cloud based program. We buy inputs from various companies so not to create big sales accounts with one.
If they want to buy my data then it's £180-200/ac as that's what our input spend is, so if they want that info against final yield and specification then they can pay for it.

You're using cloud based platforms all the time. You just don't know it.

The question is not whether something is hosted on your desk, in a traditional or virtualised data centre, but who owns the data and whom you legally give access to it. Not where it resides.

 

[D14]

You're using cloud based platforms all the time. You just don't know it.

The question is not whether something is hosted on your desk, in a traditional or virtualised data centre, but who owns the data and whom you legally give access to it. Not where it resides.

How exactly? The PC used for accounts is not connected to the net. It's backed up to 2 usb sticks. The same computer runs the crop recording program which is not connected to the accounts package. That is the only machine that has all the info for what we are doing.

Another computer is used for viewing yield maps and yes for all I know the combine manufacturer could receive a copy although there is no paid SIM card in the combine so they do not know where the combine is for example so I am not sure how they could get copies of the yield data as they are our data cards which are formatted each time the info is downloaded.

Clearly our phones use cloud based services which isn't ideal but that's life. However from our business's point of view we don't use any cloud services.

 

[capfits]

Just look at the data available on this forum. It's public and I would have thought relatively easy to data "farm"
I can imagine those wee scamps that are land agents are doing it all the time and then wedging others for "their" knowledge.
Not a DPA act nerd but always tell any service provider that I do not want my details passed to third parties, but I am pretty sure there is leakage. Proving whodunnit is trickier......