Dark data is data which is acquired through various computer network operations but not used in any manner to derive insights or for decision making. The ability of an organisation to collect data can exceed the throughput at which it can analyse the data. In some cases the organisation may not even be aware that the data is being collected. IBM estimate that roughly 90 percent of data generated by sensors and analog-to-digital conversions never get used.

In an industrial context, dark data can include information gathered by sensors and telematics.

Organizations retain dark data for a multitude of reasons, and it is estimated that most companies are only analyzing 1% of their data. Often it is stored for regulatory compliance and record keeping. Some organizations believe that dark data could be useful to them in the future, once they have acquired better analytic and business intelligence technology to process the information. Because storage is inexpensive, storing data is easy. However, storing and securing the data usually entails greater expenses (or even risk) than the potential return profit.

In academic discourse, the term dark data was essentially coined by Bryan P. Heidorn. He uses it to describe research data, especially from the long tail of science (the many, small research projects), which are not or no longer available for research because they disappear in a drawer without adequate data management. Without this, the data become dark, and further reasons for this are e.g. missing metadata annotation, missing data management plans and data curators.

The term "dark data" very often refers to data that is not amenable to computer processing. For example, a company might have a great deal of data that exists only as scanned page-images. Even the bare text in such documents is not available without something like Optical character recognition, which can vary greatly in accuracy. Even with OCR, the significance of each part of the data is unavailable. An obvious examples is whether a capitalized word is a name or not, and if so, whether it represents a person, place, organization, or even a work of art. Bibliographic and other references, data within tables (that may be labeled quite adequately for humans, but not for processing), and countless assertions represented with the full complexity and ambiguity of human language.

A lot of unused data is very valuable, and would be used if it could be; but is blocked because it is in formats that are difficult to process, categorise, identify, and analyse. Often the reason that business does not use their dark data is because of the amount of resources it would take and the difficulty of having that data analysed. In other words, the data is "dark" not because it is not used, but because it cannot (feasibly or affordably) be used, given its poor representation.

There are many data representations that can make data much more accessible for automation. However, a great deal of information lacks any such identification of information items or relationships; and much more loses it during "downhill" conversion such as saving to page-oriented representations, printing, scanning, or faxing. The journey back "uphill" can be costly.

According to Computer Weekly, 60% of organisations believe that their own business intelligence reporting capability is "inadequate" and 65% say that they have "somewhat disorganised content management approaches".