Article by Mike Kuiken: “…This matters beyond accounting arcana because we’re entering an era where data isn’t just valuable — it’s the essential feedstock for AI. Shouldn’t we be able to measure it?
The government dimension makes this even more urgent. Federal agencies sit on extraordinary data holdings: agricultural yields, geological surveys, anonymised health research. A valuation framework could actually strengthen privacy by forcing explicit accounting for data’s worth and clearer protocols for its protection. Right now, federal data policy is a patchwork of inconsistent practices precisely because we have no systematic way to understand what we’re protecting or why.
Assets that aren’t valued aren’t protected. The Office of Personnel Management breach in 2015 compromised the security clearance of 21.5mn Americans. We’ve solved harder problems before: governments have auctioned the electromagnetic spectrum for decades — rights to invisible frequencies that drive billions in economic value — because we decided it mattered enough to measure.
None of this requires adopting China’s approach wholesale. Beijing’s data exchanges serve state priorities. American capital markets demand more rigour. But the fact that China is experimenting while America refuses to engage with the question at all reveals something about strategic intent versus strategic indifference.
The Financial Accounting Standards Board should initiate a project to develop data asset recognition standards. The Securities and Exchange Commission should study disclosure requirements for material data holdings. Congress should mandate that federal agencies assess the value of their data assets. State and local governments should do the same…(More)”.
