I am told by the Post Office that the major cases of identity fraud on change of addresses are irate partners who are part of a messy breakup. One party gets the other party's correspondence sent to them - especially the legal instructions on who is going to get what.Partners tend to have all your personal information so it is not good enough to rely on information and "secrets".KevinOn Mon, May 20, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Drummond Reed < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
Great use case, T.Rob. It also illustrates why the identity of a physical residence and EACH of the residents of that residence must be distinct. One of them can move without the others moving.On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 8:42 PM, T.Rob < " target="_blank"> > wrote:OMG! Change of Address is a nightmare!
When my son moved out of the house he put in a postal COA order. That then
went into the National Change of Address Registry. Almost immediately, all
my magazine subscriptions, insurance, banking, utilities and general
correspondence started showing up at his house. Most of it I was able to
change back fairly quickly but the bank and a few other providers refreshed
against the NCOA registry monthly and kept resetting my address. Every
month I'd call back or march into the branch office with my statement
showing the wrong address and ask why the bank changed it - again - without
my authorization. This went on for 7 or 8 months.
Or to put it another way, someone who wasn't me and did not have my
authorization was able to *accidentally*, and without appearing in person to
any postal employee, commit identity theft by diverting all my paper
correspondence. Since the bank resets your PIN by sending it to your
physical address, a malicious person could easily have called the bank,
revoked my credit and ATM cards, requested a pin, opened new lines of
credit, etc. And I'm still missing a few months of WIRED.
The notion that I might be the authoritative source for my own address data
is freaking awesome.
-- T.Rob
> Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 6:12 PM
> To: Kevin Cox
> Cc: ProjectVRM list
> Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Why we need to escape the Land of the Silos
>
> by RSS-Really Simple Syndication-without any of us belonging to any> Yes, let's go for that then. Change of Address was one of the earliest use
cases
> explored in Project VRM and it is a lot tougher than initially meets the
eye; but I
> think the time is right now.
>
> And that's in more ways than one; i'm moving house in early June, so am
happy
> to model and track that for real, implementing the bits that are do-able
now.
>
> Cheers
>
> Iain
>
> On 19 May 2013, at 19:54, Kevin Cox < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
>
> > Self Hosting is one option and a subset of:
> >
> > The ability to move a personal cloud (or part thereof) from one place to
> another, to delete the personal cloud from where it was moved, and to
change
> all references to the old personal cloud to the new depository.
> >
> > In the spirit of lean development might I suggest working out how to do
it with
> one data item such as current place of residence. This will be
commercially
> valuable and so there is business case for it. That is, a system where a
person
> can store their current address, that they control, and give others who
want to
> access it a method of doing so. Then the ability for others who have been
> granted permission to access it - access - and a method of removing it
from the
> places where it is stored.
> >
> > Kevin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Doc Searls
> < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
> > The ability to self-host was the very opposite of a limiting factor in
the
> adoption of email, of the Web, and of many other ubiquitous graces we take
for
> granted on the Net, including the Net itself. Were it not for the ability
to self-
> host, we'd still be stuck with proprietary and closed commercial systems
for
> doing everything that made the Net ubiquitous.
> >
> > Yet these facts are less than obvious. For that reason I visited the
subject in the
> Net Pains chapter of The Intention Economy. An excerpt:
> >
> >> Back when I worked at WDNC, we were proud that our signal reached
dozens
> of counties in North Carolina and Virginia. It still does, but the station
also
> reaches the whole world over the Internet, without worrying much about
> anybody extracting tariffs or fees between the station at one end and the
> listeners at many others. Thanks to the same protocol suite, I can write a
blog
> post anywhere, put it up on a server in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and have
it
> read by countless people all over the world, many of whom have been
notified
> >> The third NEA ideal-Anybody can improve it-is what makes the Internet> publisher's managed syndicate.
> >> RSS as we know it today was designed and defined by Dave Winer, who
also
> pioneered blogging and podcasting. Today if you look up RSS on Google,
you'll
> get more than twelve billion results. One of Dave's sayings is "Ask not
what the
> Net can do for you; ask what you can do for the Net." (He sometimes
> substitutes Web for Net. Both make the same point.) The authors of other
> Internet protocols obey the same command. At this writing Wikipedia lists
forty-
> three protocols in its Internet Protocol Suite entry, and that's not
counting
> "more" in each of its four protocol categories.
> >>
> >> TCP/IP was proposed in 1974. Some protocols, such as FTP (File Transfer
> Protocol) are older. Others, such as HTTP (HyperText Transfer Protocol),
came
> along later. Most are as ownerless as a handshake or a dance move. None
are
> encumbered by intellectual property claims, even if intellectual property
is
> involved. Instead the Internet's protocols embody principles abbreviated
NEA.
> They mean,
> >>
> >> Nobody owns it
> >>
> >> Everybody can use it
> >>
> >> Anybody can improve it
> >>
> >> While one could argue that the first ideal overstates or misrepresents
facts, it
> isn't an issue. For example, it doesn't matter that somebody owns
Ethernet's
> patents. Those patent-holders decided long ago to set Ethernet free, for
zero-
> cost use and improvement by anybody (exemplifying the other two letters in
> NEA). One result is that almost nobody outside the networking world
> remembers IBM's Token Ring, which competed with Ethernet back in the days
> when both were young and hot. Even today some techies still regard Token
Ring
> as the superior technology. But IBM wanted to sell Token Ring to customers
> while Ethernet's owners (Xerox, Intel and Digital) and patent-holders
(notably
> Bob Metcalfe, widely considered the father of the protocol) wanted to give
it
> away. The difference was between two prepositions: with and because. IBM
> wanted to make money with Token Ring while Xerox, Intel and Digital wanted
to
> make money because Ethernet was free. The result was a big win for
everybody,
> including IBM, thanks to Ethernet's free and open nature.
> >>
> >> Back in the late 1980s, when Craig Burton was still at Novell, I found
out from
> a friend who worked at National Semiconductor that Novell was actually the
> world's largest maker of Ethernet interface boards. This was when nearly
> everybody in business used PC clones, few of which came with Ethernet
> installed. That left open a market for Ethernet interface cards. Those
cards then
> cost about a thousand dollars apiece. It was widely assumed at the time
that
> 3Com was the king of Ethernet cards, but here I was learning that Novell
was
> the real title-holder. So I asked Craig why Novell didn't make a big deal
about its
> position in the Ethernet interface card market. He replied, "Because it's
going to
> be a zero-dollar business. In a few years, Ethernet will be a standard
jack on the
> back of every computer." And so it was, and still is.
> >>
> >> Today Craig says the same thing about Internet service. The first cost
of the
> Net is like the first cost of Ethernet. It's $0, or close enough. Yes,
Internet
> Service Providers (ISPs) are good to have, but their model should be
roads,
> electric service or water distribution, not telephony or cable television.
> (Although they should be free to sell those services.) Your road
department
> doesn't say whether your driveway should be concrete or gravel. Your water
> department is not also your "plumbing service provider." Yes, there are
> understandings about how and where you connect what's yours to what's
> theirs. But few if any of those say what you can do on your side of the
> relationship.
> >>
> >> What we need here is what JP Rangaswami (Chief Scientist at Salesforce)
and
> I call "because effects," and economists call positive externalities. JP
and I
> coined "because effects" because they are easy to explain this way: You
make
> money because of them, rather than with them. The total "because effect"
of
> the Internet is incalculable. The Net has become a rising tide of capacity
for
> connection that lifts all boats - economic, social and otherwise. That
capacity
> rises as the inverse of the Net's own movement toward zero in the ease and
> cost of connectivity.
> >>
> such an adaptive form of infrastructure. It is also why the Net constantly
> improves as a marketplace, becoming more and more useful and efficient for
> everybody and everything that relies on it. So, while the Net can support
seller-
> built inconveniences that limit customer choices, it can also provide
customers
> with ways of working around those limitations.
> >>
> > Some more fodder...
> > . The VRM perspective
> > . Own Your Identity: Important Principles
> > . Personal Clouds as General Purpose Computers
> > . From Personal Computers to Personal Clouds: The Advent of the
> CloudOS
> > . Where does the CloudOS run?
> > . When Services Die
> > Doc
> >
> > On May 19, 2013, at 4:12 AM, Bill Nelson < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for the clarification, Drummond. Won't the self hosting aspect
make
> this by its very nature a limiting factor in the adoption of personal
clouds? It
> does require some level of technology knowledge even to install network
> storage at home.
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >>
> >> On May 18, 2013, at 8:49 PM, Drummond Reed < " target="_blank"> >
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Bill, it's a fair question since a personal cloud is by definition
something you
> control, even if it's hosted by a third-party service provider (actually,
in VRM
> terms, I believe that would be a "fourth-party service provider").
> >>>
> >>> Anyway, the simple layman's definition I would offer of "self-hosting"
a
> personal cloud is when the owner is running it on hardware he/she
personally
> physically controls, e.g., on their own home network.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Bill Nelson < " target="_blank"> >
> wrote:
> >>> I am coming into this conversation late and I am sure that this was
discussed
> at the IIW, but what are you referring to when you say 'self host'?
Does a
> person need to have their own storage array at home? Or are you
referring to
> people having their own Dropbox (or other cloud storage) account?
> >>>
> >>> Please enlighten this unintelligent haggard.
> >>>
> >>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>
> >>> On May 18, 2013, at 7:48 PM, Drummond Reed < " target="_blank"> >
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> +1. I think it's this simple: if you don't have the option to
self-host it, it's
> not really a personal cloud.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Doc Searls
> < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
> >>>> The key is to make personal clouds that are truly personal - in the
sense
> that nobody else can hack into them. If we want to put our clouds in
services
> that are not ours, that's fine - and I am sure will be a good business.
But the
> ability to self-host needs to be a prime requirement.
> >>>>
> >>>> Doc
> >>>>
> >>>> On May 18, 2013, at 8:40 PM, Drummond Reed
> < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Dan, great stake in the ground. The issues you describe become
> magnified x10 when it comes to personal clouds, so as an industry we need
to
> drive an even bigger stake in the ground on this topic -- one that will
restrain
> governments all around the world, not just the U.S.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Dan Blum < " target="_blank"> >
> wrote:
> >>>>> I've sniffed a whiff of the same stench from here in the land of the
free.
> Some time ago I heard about an Air Force RFP for software to create
artificial
> "friends" for use on Facebook, probably for background investigation
purposes.
> With friends like these...in the electronic age, we've lost much of the
freedom
> we once had.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please see my blog entry The Constitution and the Cloud in which I
> explore these issues.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks!
> >>>>> Dan
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Doc Searls
> < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
> >>>>> ... especially the ones that allow news like this to happen:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <http://www.thoughtcrime.org/blog/saudi-surveillance/>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
> >
>
>
> e-mail: " target="_blank">
> blog: www.iainhenderson.info
> twitter: @iainh1
>
> This email and any attachment contains information which is private and
> confidential and is intended for the addressee only. If you are not an
addressee,
> you are not authorised to read, copy or use the e-mail or any attachment.
If you
> have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by return
e-mail and
> then destroy it.
>
> <a href=""http://miicard.me/b0F1Jsy5">Identity assured by miiCard : Click
to
> Verify</a>
>
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.