If you're meeting her for the first time, Kaliya's the founder of the Personal Data Ecosystem Consortium, a coalition of entrepreneurs and companies looking to radically reinvent the online personal data trade as we know it. As we rely more and more on the digital world, we're increasingly trading pieces of ourselves for basic online services—but how do we make sure that trade is fair, transparent, and ethical? How do we put control of that information back into the individual's hands?

Hi Sydney! and everyone watching.

There is data we volunteer - our name address, tweets, photos we post. Data that is implicitly generated - by our actions on services - what we click on, our geolocation logs from our phones. Data that is inferred - where does our geolocation on Sunday morning tell us about a person's religion - we never told them that but the phone company can infer from where we are if we are Jewish or Muslim or Mormon or Buddhist or Christian.

For starters we need to stop using the word "privacy" as if it means something - we need to be clear about what we are expecting and use more precise language - a good place to go for that is Daniel Solove's paper A Taxonomy of Privacy.

Do we mean that I have a right to use a pseudonym where some facts about myself are "different" to shield msyelf from invasive practices as outlined below.

Well, let's assume that "privacy" means a certain level of comfort with how data is being bartered and sold. My question is: How can that trade of personal data impact our lives directly? Another one of our readers, Take Five, asks that, too.

When "privacy laws" and frameworks like the OECD Fair Information Practices were developed it was the 1970's. No one had computers and no one could really imagine 40 years later we would all have computers in our pockets. We didn't think about how people could have their own data banks/stores, a hub they control that collected all the digital breadcrumbs they leave at all the places they interact with and puts them at the center of their own data lives.

It isn't really about "worst stuff happening", it is about human dignity and control. How are we being human and not creepy? How are we treating people who are marginal in the society in ways that don't make them more marginalized by collecting data about them and making them worse off?

Following up on what Kaliya just said, Dr. Latanya Sweeney, Chief Technologist at the FTC, has been trying to track where all of our "digital breadcrumbs" go. Just to get an idea of where your data goes, say, after you're hospitalized, she created a "Data Map" to show us some of the links in the chain.

As you can see, patient discharge data can move from hospitals all the way to big banks, to websites, to real estate companies, and hell, to law firms. These organizations buy up bundles of this "anonymized" data about us. But let's move onto what rights we do have. Kaliya, as a consumer, what kind of rights about my data should I have?

We need to both address creating tools - how can I collect and see/manage all the data I generate. AND talk about the rights and responsibilities the businesses I interact with (directly) have.

Then we also need to rethink how all the businesses that have data about me - that I never interact with directly behave. The White House privacy recommendations from about a year ago talk about mandating the right to see and change the data that third parties have about us.

Can you describe what a "data bank" is? How might personal data banks allow us to wrest control of our data away from these organizations that are just taking without asking?

I think we help the "old way" of stalking us on the web die not by beating it with regulation but by creating new more profitable/efficient and more ethical ways that they can get what they want - relevant potential customers.

As far as the current services offering "Protection" they are kind of all saying STOP ALL BUSINESS AS WE KNOW IT! and blocking and "fighting" the advertising world. Companies in our consortium are thinking how do we make a business a service that creates value for people, works in their best interest AND can interact with a market that wants to connect to potential consumers (the business in between also needs to make $) They are thinking more like organic farmers or non-sweatshopped produced clothing. They believe they can make money AND be good - they are not mutually exclusive.

So the Personal Data Ecosystem Consortium is coming up with a variety of alternatives to reshape the market. But what about the establishment? As a follow up, I'm going to post a question from reader IdentityGirl.

Here's a question from reader IDgitize.

You know Google and Facebook have on interest in new models. They have created a web model where they ARE between people and all businesses who might want to interact with them - If you were them would you want to change that. I often say we don't have one bank in the world why would have one (or two) social networks. All companies that are not Google and Facebook have an incentive to create more dynamics in the market place that empower people and create a competitive market.

We're running out of time, so I think that's the last question we'll take. If you want to follow Kaliya for updates on new businesses adopting this mindset, follow her on Twitter @IdentityWoman. You can also check out her website at www.identitywoman.net.

Thank you, Kaliya. This was awesome.