Re: [projectvrm] News from Bizarro World (Planet Earth)

[Peter Cranstone < >]

Exactly!

The reason why they should do it will only happen when we validate the Value. So far no one has validated it so that’s why we keep hearing that kind of response.

Peter

From: Dan Miller < "> >
Date: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 at 10:58 AM
To: "T.Rob" < "> >
Cc: ProjectVRM list < "> >
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] News from Bizarro World (Planet Earth)

Peter, Drummond and T.Rob:

Thanks for the comments. You've brought some clarity to my thinking on what's going on and what individuals can expect in this privacy-aware world.

Clearly a lot more money is being invested by businesses in technologies that coarse through exposed (could be "published") personal data in the name of personalized services. Meanwhile individuals only have an inkling of what this data is truly worth, but they are willing to pay someone to protect it or put it in a safe place? For a long time, I had been trying to get the enterprises to invest in technologies that recognize an individual's right to take charge of his or her personal data. The response was along the lines of: "We're arms merchants to companies. Why would we want to sell bullet proof vests to the other side."

That put it in another light for me.

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 5:26 AM, T.Rob < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

Hi Dan,

 

> people who want to get paid for their info, on one island, and those that pay to protect their info on another island. Is there an opportunity for the people who pay to turn around and charge others for the info they are protecting?

 

These are the same and different people. 

 

Those wanting to get paid and those wanting privacy are the same people.
Those who want to get paid for their info need a way to keep that info a scarce resource.  Without some measure of privacy, their info is worthless because those to whom they would like to sell it either have it or can get it from multiple sources and they find themselves competing to provide their own info.  The firms currently selling the individual's resource currently enjoy the scarce resource of the ability to harvest the info.  They do not have natural access to it but have a privileged position in the individual's browser/wallet/phone and it is this position plus the technical capability which is being exploited.  The individual has *much* better access to their own information but lacks the technology or the market in which to sell it.  Assuming they obtain both of those things, they now compete with 3^rd parties to sell that information.  But they lack insight and analytics that come from having a larger sample size.  So they compete on scarcity of the data itself.  They have more of it, at finer grained detail and can attest to its accuracy.  Without some measure of privacy, their market advantage disappears.

 

Those wanting to get paid and those wanting privacy are the different people.

Or at least when they are the same people they are talking about different data.  For example, I might wish to sell my intent but keep my transaction history private.  That transaction history might be my prescription purchases, books I've purchased or borrowed, grocery line-item purchases, presence detection and power usage of devices in my home, etc.  In many cases these people want privacy but aren't paying for it directly.  They may pay more to shop where there are no loyalty cards but not nearly so much as shopping at a store which uses one and declining to participate.  They may pay a bit more for a Lifx bulb over a Philips Hue but not much.  In this case, the market is for the bulb and not the privacy.  However, the vendor whose product includes privacy features will get the market share from individuals who seek a way to keep their data to themselves.  When they do share it, that will often not be for money.  If I have all the functionality that I need to operate my Lifx bulbs on my internal network, I won't open the router to let them phone home.  But I *might* open the router to participate in a social application in which I compete on greenness by allowing my bulbs to participate in load abatement schemes.  In this example, the individual truly wants "to protect their info on another island" but doesn't expect to pay directly for that.  Today they might pay a premium on a device or service but that price differential would be expected to disappear as privacy features become commonplace.

 

-- T.Rob

 

 

 

 

From: Dan Miller [mailto: " target="_blank"> ]
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 14:11 PM
To: ProjectVRM list

Subject: [projectvrm] News from Bizarro World (Planet Earth)

 

While we talk about getting paid for our info. Here's a recent article describing how much people say they would pay to keep their privacy.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2013/12/12/smartphone-users-would-pay-to-keep.html

Conclusions like these always depend on how you ask the questions. But, given the success of companies like LifeLock and other privacy protection services, They may have a point.

I'm having trouble forming a mental map that includes the people who want to get paid for their info, on one island, and those that pay to protect their info on another island. Is there an opportunity for the people who pay to turn around and charge others for the info they are protecting? How about some personal info arbitrage? We can create a new derivative.