Ownership is a very bad concept.It is the oldest legal concept (it's my cave...) and should be avoided at all cost when debating personal data.Instead I would suggest to use "access & usage rights".These are somewhat more flexible and distributable, and can be adapted to existing legel frameworks (for starters)L.On 25 Sep 2013, at 01:05, Kevin Cox < " target="_blank"> > wrote:I have been following UMA for many years and they are on the right track.There are some practical problems that will be addressed as people start to use the ideas.
The first practical problem is that most organisations that hold information on people believe it is not owned by the person but is owned by the organisation. My understanding is that the organisations are correct. Who owns the place where data is stored owns the data. In practice this means that the organisation has to give permission for the data to be taken from their storage area as well as requesting permission from Alice. This set of agreements and access is unlikely to occur unless there is some value through service associated with the transfer of data.The other problems with the approach are usability and scalability. The setting of permissions is too hard to understand. A simpler approach is that by allowing both the individual and the organisation to be paid for the data then the contracts around the supply of data automatically enables permissions. This means that instead of permissions both the organisation and the individual remember sales.Imagine you have 500 different places where your data is stored. Controlling the permissions is difficult - imagine the dashboard. A simpler approach is to remember what has been sold and to whom.We come back to the idea of Value for Service rather than Value for Exchange. Underlying UMA is the idea that there is value in the data and in the exchange of data. If instead we think of Value for service when the data is used then all we have to do is to keep track of when the data is sold and the setting of permissions is no longer needed. Permissions are part of the sales process and only activated when the service is performed. The value can be very small but it doesn't have to be large because its main purpose is to automatically record the permissions when and only when required.KevinOn Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Liz Coker < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
Hi Doc -
Hmmm. I get it and see the value, but it feels a bit clunky. As I
watched the video I wanted to have those features integrated into one of
my main productivity tools (contacts/email/browser).
It just felt like too many steps. Could be the demo, as I'm guessing a
user would set up most things once and leave it alone until things change
or need to be added. A good start, but could use some streamlining.
Liz
-----------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Coker
Vice President, Marketing
3PMobile
Boulder, CO USA
Improving the Mobile Web Experience
Office: 303.938.1769
Email: " target="_blank">
Web site: www.3pmobile.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files
or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain information that is
confidential or legally privileged. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution of such information is prohibited. If you are
not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by telephone or
return e-mail and delete the original transmission and its attachments and
destroy any copies thereof. Thank you.
On 9/24/13 8:47 AM, "Doc Searls" < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
><http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7J6MurcBX9s>
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Doc
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.