Re: [projectvrm] Fourth-party business models (was: RE: Bynamite in the NY Times)

[Joe Andrieu < >]

On 7/19/2010 1:46 AM, Crosbie Fitch wrote:

" type="cite">

From: Drummond Reed
  

As Doc says, their starting point has to be that the fourth party 
has zero capability to do anything with the user's data without the 
user's permission.
    

Such a starting point removes the legs from the horse, and the wheels from
the cart.

P1: "Dear 4th party I'm in the market for an X with a Y"

P4: "Dear 1st party, unfortunately, we are unable to proceed without your
permission since the very act of expressing an interest in your criteria
reveals your criteria. Moreover, to remain viable we have to exploit the
economies of scale obtainable through melding your criteria with that of
others, and this exploitative melding of your data also requires your
permission. Therefore, please agree to this permission waiver in order that
we can actually do anything."
  

That is exactly what is happening now, but it doesn't have to be that way. Companies demand a blank check because they don't have a credible alternative. Even those companies that are trying to be more open and respectful of the individual get flayed alive by folks like us who demand perfection. We haven't figured out how to do this yet.

The route out of this mess is simplicity and clarity. Very much the same way that Creative Commons created simpilicity and clarity in sharing media traditionally managed by copyright.

" type="cite">

It's like banking.
    

No, it's not. I ask the bank to look after five sacks of corn, or five gold
coins, whatever. It's a matter of record they have that and owe it back to
me. Interest, investment, and anything else is another product - icing on
the top.

Information is not money. Do you really think it's analogous to deposit 'my
favourite colour is blue' and ask for it back in a year's time? Perhaps with
a tadette of interest? 'and I'm a bit partial to turquoise'
  

I agree banking is a flawed metaphor, but I disagree with your argument. Banks only owe you as long as they are solvent. The "interest" they pay is in exchange for the right to place your deposit at risk. So, you've given them permission to risk it. It really is no longer yours. That interest, or perhaps the raw value of having a place for your money (in those free non-interest bearing accounts), is at the core of the business proposition. It is /not/ another product. The product you seem to be describing is a safe deposit box, which is yours and is /not/ subject to risk and, frankly, is not really the deal most people sign up for, because people would rather get that interest than pay the fees.

I do, however, think it is quite possible to deposit a statement like "my favorite color is blue" along with permission to use that for product development and advertising and to "ask for that back" after a year by withdrawing your permission.

This is exactly the opt-in model that drives many email based newsletters. Perhaps not at the granularity that you are suggesting, but it is how companies like MediaPost deliver real value to folks who have interests aligned with any one of the many MediaPost newsletter publications. Or even Google Alerts for a more granular approach based on keyword matching. Furthermore, I also think it's totally reasonable to deposit that information not just with an expectation that it will improve the media, products, and advertising in your world, but because you'll get some "interest" paid back to you based on how much value that actually creates. There are lots of loyalty programs that offer these kinds of consumer kickbacks in exchange for permission to send targeted messages. It's not the ideal, individual-driven VRM world, but it is treating information exactly as you dismiss.

" type="cite">

From: Joe Andrieu
  

The missing link in today's datasphere is that data is given without 
any permissions attached, and the recipients pretty much do whatever
they want with it. We need to move from the age of information to 
the age of permission.
    

Well, actually we are moving from the permission culture of the 18th century
to the 'information wants to be free' culture of the 21st, though that's
more a case of 'people want to be free (to communicate information)'.
  

I'm all for "permission culture" despite your dismissal of it as 18th century. I'm not a fan of rape and theft, two crimes  defined by a lack of permission. Society is a construct formed by individuals who choose to sacrifice certain "natural freedoms" in order to enjoy a better quality of life. The terms of that social contract, the sacrifices and the supposed "better quality" they enable change over time as society evolves, but the core truth is the same: we choose to limit our behaviors to avoid the brutality and suffering of the natural state of existence. Many of those limits include requiring permission before engaging in certain behavior. And that's a fine thing.

As Hobbes put it, the natural condition of mankind is a state of war of every man against every man, and that life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". Hobbes describes the Commonwealth as the "introduction of restraint upon [ourselves]..." in order to get out of that miserable state of war. See Leviathan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book)

What we are struggling with here is how to move from the digital equivalent of Hobbe's state of war into one of Commonwealth, where we have some social decorum and consequence to moderate the nasty, brutish nature of the uncivilized man.  In other words, how do we stop the damn spam, abusive data mining, and intrusive  behavior?

" type="cite">

There must be some kind of genetic instinct in Homo Sapiens that abhors a
lack of control, so much so that even that which cannot be controlled simply
inspires ever greater folly in a pursuit to the contrary. "If only we could
control information the world would be a much nicer place. The task of
developing such mechanisms of control has thus fallen to us, the fellowship
of the Canute."
  

The desire for control is simply the will to power. We all have it. The question is whether or not we resolve the inevitable conflicts of will through "natural" means of violence and force or "social" means of discourse and law.

" type="cite">

Why on earth does one need to aspire to this impossible control of
information (or the control of the dissemination/use of that information by
those it's imparted it to) in order that '4th parties' can get the 1st what
they want?
  

The control is no more impossible than our ability to "control" murder and rape. A reasonable society cannot force the sociopath to behave, but it can allow for the society to protect itself from those who choose to live outside its covenants. The question for us is what are the digital covenants that will provide for a good life?

" type="cite">

The problem is a market sorely lacking in 4th parties and VRM facilities
able to get people what they want.

  

That's simply a matter of maturity. We're still in the early days of the digital world.

" type="cite">

That lack is not caused by the fact that mankind hasn't yet developed a
means of controlling the dissemination/use of information.

On the contrary, it is precisely the advent of the age of information and
publicly available, inexpensive, uncontrolled instantaneous diffusion
mechanisms that enables customers to begin communicating/bargaining/relating
with vendors on an equal footing. 
  

Actually, the age of information doesn't give us that freedom. Not yet. Vendors still have more resources to invest in more sophisticated systems to control that communications/bargaining/relating than individuals have. Until individuals can coherently express demands about how they must be treated in this digital context, we're essentially digital serfs living in the kingdoms of digital lords such as Apple and Google, Microsoft and Verizon.

Presenting volunteered personal information--shared information--alongside permissions and limits on use is perhaps the most cogent way to present those demands, and thereby open up an entirely new fabric for relationships with vendor organizations... and other individuals and public sector agencies for that matter. This is precisely how Creative Commons opened up a whole new avenue for properly re-using digital media.

You're right that we cannot control the sociopathic organizations who don't give a damn about a new social covenant. But we can provide a framework for companies who do want to participate in a new way of relating to individuals. When we demonstrate that this new framework is more profitable, more sustainable, and less risky than historical models of command & control information silos, then we will grow a new digital society where socialized companies respect those permissions and engage with individuals on a respected, mutually beneficial basis.

That's what VRM is about.

-j

Joe Andrieu

 
 ">
 
+1 (805) 705-8651
http://www.switchbook.com