Re: [projectvrm] Corporations cannot be discreet nor can they be trusted - they ar e not human beings

[Jim Bursch < >]

In which case I think it would be imperative to understand the business model of these personal data store companies, in order to understand what direction their interests might take. I tend to think that the only business model that would most ensure (guaranty?) the security of the personal data is a straight forward rental fee paid by the person. Any "other services" would create a slippery slope of conflicting business interests. And I don't buy the notion that personal data security would be assured by the "competitive advantage" of claiming complete security of personal data. I would only feel OK in this market if data portability was perfectly cheap and easy (so I can quickly and easily move from one data store to another if I don't feel secure). That sounds like a crappy business to be in. Actually, it sounds like the web hosting business. Would you like GoDaddy to be your personal data store?

This sounds like a job for the Freedom Box. Own the store, don't rent it.

Jim Bursch
310-869-5340

 
 ">
 

Headspace.info: Video Arts and Entertainment Directory
http://headspace.info

Producer
NoHo20 presents: "Critic's Dilemma"
http://noho20.com

On 9/7/2012 9:04 AM, Doc Searls wrote:

" type="cite">

FWIW, there are companies on this list that keep data for individuals, but in an encrypted form for which only the user (or customer) has the key.

But, in those cases, the companies have no interest in personal data itself, but rather only in providing other services.

Not sure this is relevant, but it is interesting, methinks.

Doc

On Sep 7, 2012, at 9:16 AM, "Crosbie Fitch" 
 
 "><
 > wrote:

Corporations cannot even keep data secret today - data that it is in their
interest to keep secret. I don't know how one can imagine that data they are
interested in sharing can be kept secret by having them tick a box saying
"Bloggs Inc. agrees not to share or disclose this data to any party aside
from its trusted parents, subsidiaries, partners, and affiliates".

Trying to create a system that prevents or even inhibits unauthorised
disclosure of personal data is a pursuit of the holy grail. Corporations and
people will communicate whatever it is in their interest to communicate.

People can be trusted to be discreet because it is in their interest to be
discreet (they are at liberty not to be discreet), but corporations cannot
be trusted, and 'discretion' is a label you can attach to their cost/benefit
analysis of non-disclosure vs discovery of disclosure.

As for systems that provide information concerning participant identity and
reputation (even reputation for discretion), I think these are eminently

feasible, worthy and useful, even indispensible.

Bear in mind that reputation becomes extremely valuable. You do not need to
pretend coercion (penalties for disobedience) by the law, nor attempt to

assure compliance via contract. Loss of reputation is quite sufficient. See
for example on eBay just how important a high reputation metric is to
vendors (though it is pretty crude).

Trade needs only identity/reputation - from which traders
(human/corporate/virtual/robot) can obtain a degree of confidence in those
they trade with (without needing to know which human or corporation they are
controlled by).

For a human being to trust an identity, they need assurance it corresponds
with a human being.

States and corporations may 'desire' that they can establish which human

beings correspond with which identities, but this isn't necessary. Though,
because they 'desire' it so strongly they will want everyone to use their
identity/reputation systems that build-in body/identity correspondence at
the outset.

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5254 - Release Date: 09/07/12