As business leaders, we are often faced with the frustration of managing assets we legally own but can’t easily access. In the SaaS-driven world we live in, where cloud-based tools are the norm, file management and ownership have become unnecessarily complicated. Why is it that we, as owners of the companies and projects, have to request permission to access the very artifacts we’ve paid for? This isn’t how ownership works in the real world, yet it’s a reality with most modern SaaS tools.
The Disconnect Between Digital and Real-World Ownership
In my experience, managing two companies—Prospus and Kaamfu—I find myself constantly reminding new employees and contractors to share files with me across platforms. I have two corporate profiles open simultaneously, and every time a new person joins, I spend days reminding them to grant access to files across various platforms I should automatically own. This is not just inefficient but goes against the fundamental premise of ownership.
When organizations pay for labor, they are legally entitled to everything that comes from that labor. Yet, most SaaS file management systems require owners to request access to their own assets. This is a gross misalignment between the way businesses are run and how digital file-sharing systems work.
Ownership Should Mean Access—No Questions Asked
In the real world, ownership confers rights. When you purchase a product, you own it. When you pay for labor, you own the output. It is high time digital systems reflect this reality. Management should not only have access to all artifacts but also control over how those artifacts are managed, shared, and stored.
For those who argue privacy concerns, we can—and should—evaluate legitimate risks. For instance, if private data is mistakenly stored or recorded, AI monitoring can help flag and remove it. However, this opens another important question: Why would employees or contractors be handling personal matters on company time using company resources?
The fact remains that management has the legal responsibility to their stakeholders, and if certain organizations want to block access to sensitive information, they should be able to adjust their settings accordingly. But for those willing to assert their rights—despite opposition—they should have full access and control over the data they pay for.
Privacy Advocates: Where Are the Real Concerns?
Over the years, privacy advocates and activists have gained significant ground in shaping corporate policies around data sharing and employee privacy. But where are the real, concrete examples of unreasonable violations? So often, these groups cite “privacy concerns” without providing hard examples that can withstand scrutiny. It’s time for an open, honest dialogue: What are the actual concerns? Are they valid? Or have we simply ceded ground to fear and pressure from activists?
For businesses like mine, the legal rights are clear. When we pay for labor, we own the results. And while I acknowledge the need to allay genuine privacy concerns, burdensome regulations and restrictions ultimately harm the very countries and regions that enforce them. The availability of international labor is growing, and as more organizations seek talent in countries with fewer regulatory burdens, those who adopt excessive regulations will inevitably find themselves at a competitive disadvantage.
Let’s Have the Hard Conversation
The solution isn’t to shy away from this conversation. We need to open the floor for a discussion with concrete examples. Let’s ask privacy advocates for specific scenarios where the concerns they raise are truly unreasonable from a business perspective. Until we can have these hard conversations, we will continue to lose ground to fearmongering and misinformation.
Ultimately, ownership and access should go hand in hand. Businesses deserve control over the artifacts they pay for, and the digital tools we use should reflect this fundamental principle.
…