Day 7 Thoughts - Revision history

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1265097600

2013-11-12T20:33:16Z

UTurn to 1265097600

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-wE2g7q Extremely easy by words but in reality�, a lot of things don`t correspond. Not everything is so rosy..!!
+==ReputationDefender==
-PAUrFK Thanks for the article! I hope the author does not mind if I use it for my course work!...
+:I agree with the distaste with having to pay protection money, but it seems better to have the option than not to.  Regulation would be ideal, but would likely run up against powerful commercial interests.  See the power of the insurance industry in the health care debate.  Add advertisers and you're looking for trouble.
 ==Opt-Out Programs==
@@ Line 18: / Line 29: @@
 It is worth noting that the icon-in-the-browser-to-signal-privacy already exists in one form today--the "lock" you see when performing credit card transactions over SSL.  It'd be interesting to examine the origin of this convention.  I'd argue that in this case there *was* an actual problem to solve (and that users probably would not submit credit card information without the lock, so that users and businesses had a strong incentive to come up with a convention--adding the lock increases conversion rates).

109.99.78.154: /* Resources */

2012-12-23T19:43:17Z

Resources

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:43, 23 December 2012
Line 22:		Line 22:
	*[http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=25352 Wikipedia Timeline]		*[http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=25352 Wikipedia Timeline]
	*[http://mywikibiz.com/Wikipedia_scandals Wikipedia Scandals]		*[http://mywikibiz.com/Wikipedia_scandals Wikipedia Scandals]
	*[http://www.piesedindezmembrari.ro/ Dezmembrari auto]
	*[http://www.jocnou.info Jocuri]
	*[http://www.websitelooker.com/ website value]		*[http://www.websitelooker.com/ website value]
	*[http://www.smilo.ro/ Usi garaj]

Fistick21 at 09:05, 16 July 2012

2012-07-16T09:05:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:05, 16 July 2012
Line 23:		Line 23:
	*[http://mywikibiz.com/Wikipedia_scandals Wikipedia Scandals]		*[http://mywikibiz.com/Wikipedia_scandals Wikipedia Scandals]
	*[http://www.piesedindezmembrari.ro/ Dezmembrari auto]		*[http://www.piesedindezmembrari.ro/ Dezmembrari auto]
	*[http://www.~~jocurionline247~~.~~net/~~ Jocuri ~~Online~~]		*[http://www.jocnou.info Jocuri]
	*[http://www.websitelooker.com/ website value]		*[http://www.websitelooker.com/ website value]
	*[http://www.smilo.ro/ Usi garaj]		*[http://www.smilo.ro/ Usi garaj]

62.84.59.45: PAUrFK Thanks for the article! I hope the author does not mind if I use it for my course work!...

2012-02-18T18:16:52Z

PAUrFK Thanks for the article! I hope the author does not mind if I use it for my course work!...

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:16, 18 February 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	wE2g7q Extremely easy by words but in reality�, a lot of things don`t correspond. Not everything is so rosy..!!		wE2g7q Extremely easy by words but in reality�, a lot of things don`t correspond. Not everything is so rosy..!!

	~~==Lifelock==~~		PAUrFK Thanks for the article! I hope the author does not mind if I use it for my course work!...

	~~LifeLock is another consumer "reputation protection" company (more focused on identity fraud) with a pretty interesting business/marketing model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LifeLock~~
	~~: However LifeLock has had many many problems, discussed in this~~ article ~~from [http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2008/06/securitymatters_0612 Wired Magazine] including one of~~ the ~~[http://phoenix.bizjournals~~.~~com/phoenix/stories/2007/06/11/daily15~~.~~html co-founders] having been an identity thief himself, the CEO's identity has been stolen successfully a [http://www~~.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=lifelock+suit number of times], and there is currently a [http://www.forbes.com/2008/02/21/experian-lifelock-update-markets-equity-cx_md_0221-markets32.html pending suit] against the company claiming its business model isn't legal.

	~~: Yeah, LifeLock is definitely controversial. Didn't mean to imply that it was "good", just "interesting" :)~~

	==Opt-Out Programs==		==Opt-Out Programs==

193.105.210.170: wE2g7q Extremely easy by words but in reality�, a lot of things don`t correspond. Not everything is so rosy..!!

2012-01-27T01:47:06Z

wE2g7q Extremely easy by words but in reality�, a lot of things don`t correspond. Not everything is so rosy..!!

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:47, 27 January 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~==ReputationDefender==~~		wE2g7q Extremely easy by words but in reality�, a lot of things don`t correspond. Not everything is so rosy..!!
	~~While I think some of the things ReputationDefender has done are admirable, I was troubled~~ by the disclosure that the company has signed revenue-share agreements with information aggregators. These companies are often quite controversial (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelius for example). It seems like these revenue share deals could potentially set up the wrong incentives (even if signed with the best intentions), where ReputationDefender's profits are now aligned with profits of information <span class="plainlinks">[http://sakeena.net/ <span style="color:black;font-weight:normal; text-decoration:none!important; background:none!important; text-decoration:none;">waptrick</span>] <span class="plainlinks">[http://www.chenkrahman.com/ <span style="color:black;font-weight:normal; text-decoration:none!important; background:none!important; text-decoration:none;">smadav</span>] <span class="plainlinks">[http://www.zianka.net/ <span style="color:black;font-weight:normal; text-decoration:none!important; background:none!important; text-decoration:none;">busana muslim</span>] <span class="plainlinks">[http://www.anggabatik.com/ <span style="color:black;font-weight:normal; text-decoration:none!important; background:none!important; text-decoration:none;">baju batik</span>] <span class="plainlinks">[http://63cell.blogspot.com/ <span style="color:black;font-weight:normal; text-decoration:none!important; background:none!important; text-decoration:none;">harga hp</span>] <span class="plainlinks">[http://www.indoterbaru.com/ <span style="color:black;font-weight:normal; text-decoration:none!important; background:none!important; text-decoration:none;">indo terbaru</span>] aggregators. I could envision a future where everyone needs to pay "protection money" to companies like Intelius (or intermediaries, like ReputationDefender) in order to preserve their privacy, and that seems like the wrong state to be in. I can't help but wonder whether the solution here is more stringent regulation of ~~information aggregators (mainly just requiring free and easy one-stop opt-out). Consumers~~ don't ~~need to pay to sign up for the national do not call registry, and one could imagine a similar opt-out process for information aggregators~~. ~~It seems kind of perverse if people feel compelled to pay to opt out of things that they did not sign up for to begin with.~~
	~~:I also wonder how sustainable this~~ is as a business model. Reputation Defender can aggregate money from its clients and share that revenue with information aggregators, but wouldn't insurance companies be able to out spend them? It seems as if the primary purchasers of such information aggregation may be in better financial positions than any aggregator [http://goo.gl/7SD55 nokia] [http://goo.gl/1jDDX blackberry] [http://goo.gl/zecti samsung] [http://goo.gl/rR21f sony ericsson] [http://goo.gl/WDIRU iphone] [http://goo.gl/SJ12t lg] [http://goo.gl/GBtSn nexian] [http://goo.gl/4nUFE cross] [http://goo.gl/Vh6t6 mito] [http://goo.gl/303Vh htc] of individual concern about such things. Is it possible that ReputationDefender's market will one day compete with insurance companies and the like for annual revenue? Or, what if a big player like Google (or a Google spin off) decides to enter this space and crush ReputationDefender before it even gets off the runway?

	:I agree with the distaste with having to pay protection money, but it seems better to have the option than not to. Regulation would be ideal, but would likely run up against powerful commercial interests. See the power of the insurance industry in the health care debate. Add advertisers and you're looking for trouble.

	~~:I wonder if there are legal issues (antitrust?) with the protection money payments~~.

	==Lifelock==		==Lifelock==

Chenkrahman at 00:12, 16 December 2011

2011-12-16T00:12:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:12, 16 December 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==ReputationDefender==		==ReputationDefender==
	While I think some of the things ReputationDefender has done are admirable, I was troubled by the disclosure that the company has signed revenue-share agreements with information aggregators. These companies are often quite controversial (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelius for example). It seems like these revenue share deals could potentially set up the wrong incentives (even if signed with the best intentions), where ReputationDefender's profits are now aligned with profits of information aggregators. I could envision a future where everyone needs to pay "protection money" to companies like Intelius (or intermediaries, like ReputationDefender) in order to preserve their privacy, and that seems like the wrong state to be in. I can't help but wonder whether the solution here is more stringent regulation of information aggregators (mainly just requiring free and easy one-stop opt-out). Consumers don't need to pay to sign up for the national do not call registry, and one could imagine a similar opt-out process for information aggregators. It seems kind of perverse if people feel compelled to pay to opt out of things that they did not sign up for to begin with.		While I think some of the things ReputationDefender has done are admirable, I was troubled by the disclosure that the company has signed revenue-share agreements with information aggregators. These companies are often quite controversial (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelius for example). It seems like these revenue share deals could potentially set up the wrong incentives (even if signed with the best intentions), where ReputationDefender's profits are now aligned with profits of information <span class="plainlinks">[http://sakeena.net/ <span style="color:black;font-weight:normal; text-decoration:none!important; background:none!important; text-decoration:none;">waptrick</span>] <span class="plainlinks">[http://www.chenkrahman.com/ <span style="color:black;font-weight:normal; text-decoration:none!important; background:none!important; text-decoration:none;">smadav</span>] <span class="plainlinks">[http://www.zianka.net/ <span style="color:black;font-weight:normal; text-decoration:none!important; background:none!important; text-decoration:none;">busana muslim</span>] <span class="plainlinks">[http://www.anggabatik.com/ <span style="color:black;font-weight:normal; text-decoration:none!important; background:none!important; text-decoration:none;">baju batik</span>] <span class="plainlinks">[http://63cell.blogspot.com/ <span style="color:black;font-weight:normal; text-decoration:none!important; background:none!important; text-decoration:none;">harga hp</span>] <span class="plainlinks">[http://www.indoterbaru.com/ <span style="color:black;font-weight:normal; text-decoration:none!important; background:none!important; text-decoration:none;">indo terbaru</span>] aggregators. I could envision a future where everyone needs to pay "protection money" to companies like Intelius (or intermediaries, like ReputationDefender) in order to preserve their privacy, and that seems like the wrong state to be in. I can't help but wonder whether the solution here is more stringent regulation of information aggregators (mainly just requiring free and easy one-stop opt-out). Consumers don't need to pay to sign up for the national do not call registry, and one could imagine a similar opt-out process for information aggregators. It seems kind of perverse if people feel compelled to pay to opt out of things that they did not sign up for to begin with.
	:I also wonder how sustainable this is as a business model. Reputation Defender can aggregate money from its clients and share that revenue with information aggregators, but wouldn't insurance companies be able to out spend them? It seems as if the primary purchasers of such information aggregation may be in better financial positions than any aggregator of individual concern about such things. Is it possible that ReputationDefender's market will one day compete with insurance companies and the like for annual revenue? Or, what if a big player like Google (or a Google spin off) decides to enter this space and crush ReputationDefender before it even gets off the runway?		:I also wonder how sustainable this is as a business model. Reputation Defender can aggregate money from its clients and share that revenue with information aggregators, but wouldn't insurance companies be able to out spend them? It seems as if the primary purchasers of such information aggregation may be in better financial positions than any aggregator [http://goo.gl/7SD55 nokia] [http://goo.gl/1jDDX blackberry] [http://goo.gl/zecti samsung] [http://goo.gl/rR21f sony ericsson] [http://goo.gl/WDIRU iphone] [http://goo.gl/SJ12t lg] [http://goo.gl/GBtSn nexian] [http://goo.gl/4nUFE cross] [http://goo.gl/Vh6t6 mito] [http://goo.gl/303Vh htc] of individual concern about such things. Is it possible that ReputationDefender's market will one day compete with insurance companies and the like for annual revenue? Or, what if a big player like Google (or a Google spin off) decides to enter this space and crush ReputationDefender before it even gets off the runway?

	:I agree with the distaste with having to pay protection money, but it seems better to have the option than not to. Regulation would be ideal, but would likely run up against powerful commercial interests. See the power of the insurance industry in the health care debate. Add advertisers and you're looking for trouble.		:I agree with the distaste with having to pay protection money, but it seems better to have the option than not to. Regulation would be ideal, but would likely run up against powerful commercial interests. See the power of the insurance industry in the health care debate. Add advertisers and you're looking for trouble.

188.24.4.105: /* Resources */

2011-11-21T15:05:27Z

Resources

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:05, 21 November 2011
Line 31:		Line 31:

	==Resources==		==Resources==
			*[http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=25352 Wikipedia Timeline]
			*[http://mywikibiz.com/Wikipedia_scandals Wikipedia Scandals]
	*[http://www.piesedindezmembrari.ro/ Dezmembrari auto]		*[http://www.piesedindezmembrari.ro/ Dezmembrari auto]
	*[http://www.jocurionline247.net/ Jocuri Online]		*[http://www.jocurionline247.net/ Jocuri Online]
	*[http://www.websitelooker.com/ website value]		*[http://www.websitelooker.com/ website value]
	*[http://www.smilo.ro/ Usi garaj]		*[http://www.smilo.ro/ Usi garaj]

188.24.4.105: /* Mozilla Privacy Icons */

2011-11-21T15:04:35Z

Mozilla Privacy Icons

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:04, 21 November 2011
Line 29:		Line 29:

	It is worth noting that the icon-in-the-browser-to-signal-privacy already exists in one form today--the "lock" you see when performing credit card transactions over SSL. It'd be interesting to examine the origin of this convention. I'd argue that in this case there was an actual problem to solve (and that users probably would not submit credit card information without the lock, so that users and businesses had a strong incentive to come up with a convention--adding the lock increases conversion rates).		It is worth noting that the icon-in-the-browser-to-signal-privacy already exists in one form today--the "lock" you see when performing credit card transactions over SSL. It'd be interesting to examine the origin of this convention. I'd argue that in this case there was an actual problem to solve (and that users probably would not submit credit card information without the lock, so that users and businesses had a strong incentive to come up with a convention--adding the lock increases conversion rates).

			==Resources==
			*[http://www.piesedindezmembrari.ro/ Dezmembrari auto]
			*[http://www.jocurionline247.net/ Jocuri Online]
			*[http://www.websitelooker.com/ website value]
			*[http://www.smilo.ro/ Usi garaj]

Rnagarajan: /* ReputationDefender */

2010-01-14T02:01:20Z

ReputationDefender

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:01, 14 January 2010
Line 4:		Line 4:

	:I agree with the distaste with having to pay protection money, but it seems better to have the option than not to. Regulation would be ideal, but would likely run up against powerful commercial interests. See the power of the insurance industry in the health care debate. Add advertisers and you're looking for trouble.		:I agree with the distaste with having to pay protection money, but it seems better to have the option than not to. Regulation would be ideal, but would likely run up against powerful commercial interests. See the power of the insurance industry in the health care debate. Add advertisers and you're looking for trouble.

			:I wonder if there are legal issues (antitrust?) with the protection money payments.

	==Lifelock==		==Lifelock==

Style at 01:10, 14 January 2010

2010-01-14T01:10:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:10, 14 January 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==ReputationDefender==		==ReputationDefender==
	While I think some of the things ReputationDefender has done are admirable, I was troubled by the disclosure that the company has signed revenue-share agreements with information aggregators. These companies are often quite controversial (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelius for example). It seems like these revenue share deals could potentially set up the wrong incentives (even if signed with the best intentions), where ReputationDefender's profits are now aligned with profits of information aggregators. I could envision a future where everyone needs to pay "protection money" to companies like Intelius (or intermediaries, like ReputationDefender) in order to preserve their privacy, and that seems like the wrong state to be in. I can't help but wonder whether the solution here is more stringent regulation of information aggregators (mainly just requiring free and easy one-stop opt-out). Consumers don't need to pay to sign up for the national do not call registry, and one could imagine a similar opt-out process for information aggregators. It seems kind of perverse if people feel compelled to pay to opt out of things that they did not sign up for to begin with.		While I think some of the things ReputationDefender has done are admirable, I was troubled by the disclosure that the company has signed revenue-share agreements with information aggregators. These companies are often quite controversial (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelius for example). It seems like these revenue share deals could potentially set up the wrong incentives (even if signed with the best intentions), where ReputationDefender's profits are now aligned with profits of information aggregators. I could envision a future where everyone needs to pay "protection money" to companies like Intelius (or intermediaries, like ReputationDefender) in order to preserve their privacy, and that seems like the wrong state to be in. I can't help but wonder whether the solution here is more stringent regulation of information aggregators (mainly just requiring free and easy one-stop opt-out). Consumers don't need to pay to sign up for the national do not call registry, and one could imagine a similar opt-out process for information aggregators. It seems kind of perverse if people feel compelled to pay to opt out of things that they did not sign up for to begin with.
	:I also wonder how sustainable this is as a business model. Reputation Defender can aggregate money from its clients and share that revenue with information aggregators, but wouldn't insurance companies be able to out spend them? It seems as if the primary purchasers of such information aggregation may be in better financial positions than any aggregator of individual concern about such things. Is it possible that ReputationDefender's market will one day compete with insurance companies and the like for annual revenue?		:I also wonder how sustainable this is as a business model. Reputation Defender can aggregate money from its clients and share that revenue with information aggregators, but wouldn't insurance companies be able to out spend them? It seems as if the primary purchasers of such information aggregation may be in better financial positions than any aggregator of individual concern about such things. Is it possible that ReputationDefender's market will one day compete with insurance companies and the like for annual revenue? Or, what if a big player like Google (or a Google spin off) decides to enter this space and crush ReputationDefender before it even gets off the runway?

	:I agree with the distaste with having to pay protection money, but it seems better to have the option than not to. Regulation would be ideal, but would likely run up against powerful commercial interests. See the power of the insurance industry in the health care debate. Add advertisers and you're looking for trouble.		:I agree with the distaste with having to pay protection money, but it seems better to have the option than not to. Regulation would be ideal, but would likely run up against powerful commercial interests. See the power of the insurance industry in the health care debate. Add advertisers and you're looking for trouble.