Janzen, T. (2018). Questions about data ownership – and why it matters. Future Farming, October 3. Retrieved from www.futurefarming.com/Tools-data/Articles/2018/10/Data-ownership-questions–and-why-theyre-important-340743E/ on October 20, 2019. Fleming, A., Jakku, E., Lim-Camacho, L., Taylor, B., &Thorburn, P. (2018). Is big data for big business agriculture or for everyone? Perceptions in the Australian grain industry. Agronomy for sustainable development,38, 24. Reflections on contracts, informed consent and trust provide reasons to approach digital innovation in a contextual way.
Rather, trust in digital technologies takes hold when it is introduced in contexts of already established relationships and cooperations, or when innovators devote a lot of time and effort to promoting trustworthy social relationships before introducing their technologies. These relationships require ongoing care and care. If such relations did not exist in the first place, it was doubtful whether a treaty alone could build confidence. In more abstract relationships, it might be advisable to expand the code of conduct and give the partners, in this unequal power relationship, a richer range of topics for reflection and speech, in order to develop broader conditions for their mutual engagement. Codes of conduct developed for other groups of professionals (such as engineers, researchers or physicians (Davis 1991) generally contain informed consent in a broader menu of requirements covering a broader range of principles. In the biomedical field, for example, the requirement to respect the autonomy of subjects and patients (which is done with informed consent) is alongside principles that require doing good (charity), not harming (non-malefiz) and being just (Beauchamp and Childress 2001). Sykuta, M. (2016). Big Data in Agriculture: Privacy, Property Rights and Competition in Data Services ag. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 19, 57-74. Therefore, in order to convey the information, agricultural businesses could also be asked to provide a one-sided summary of the main conditions of complex licensing agreements relating to data exchange and to make them responsible for explaining them to farmers before agreements are concluded.
These keywords should cover all the issues that farmers should consider in accordance with the checklist that is already part of the EU Code. This helps to better understand the responsibilities of technology service providers in the relationship. This is comparable to the offshoring of the load from industrial sectors such as financial contracts and mobile phone contracts. At present, the ambiguity of notions and ambiguity in the division of responsibilities as to who should provide comprehensible information could easily lead to relationships of responsibility, rather than trust, which is bad news for the farmer. . . .