+1000000000
On February 25, 2015 at 1:51:53 PM, Philip Browning (
">
) wrote:
+1. VRM based approaches will be adopted when:
1) the threshold for adoption is low (requires minimal change from
the status quo).
2) they are demonstrably more efficient than the status quo and
give better outcomes.
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To
change something, build a new model that makes the existing model
obsolete." - Buckminster Fuller
From: Kevin Cox [mailto:
]
Sent: Thursday, 26 February 2015 5:39 AM
To: Guy Higgins
Cc: Devon M T Loffreto; Doc Searls; Julian Ranger;
ProjectVRM list
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Definition of Digital
Privacy
Personal Sovereignty was the starting point
for my involvement and has driven all my work. It is the idea
to which I turn when I face choices.
I work on the boiling frog principle but in
the opposite direction.
When business and government look at
WelcomeAboard they see something that is so simple and familiar
that they say "that is just form filling and it is nothing special
because we are already doing it". The pitch is not that it
gives sovereignty or that it is private. The pitch is that it is
cheaper, easier and does not require existing corporate and
government systems to change. There is no need for any
legislation. There is no need to change existing business
models. It just makes existing systems work better.
However, the underlying connection has been
changed from client server to peer to peer. Peer to peer with
distributed control is more efficient for large complex networks
and so peer to peer will prevail and propagate.
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 2:42 AM, Guy Higgins
<
" target="_blank">
> wrote:
I
agree.
It
may sound like one or other type thinking, but there is definite
nuance.
I
myself am building solutions that do not lead with personal
Sovereignty... how can they... socially, there is barely enough
awareness for "privacy" pundits, let alone actual leverage
construction that is personal in origin.
That
said... I am working on, and will embed "Sovereignty" as a data
structure... in my case led by the definition I have put forth of
"parent Sovereignty" within educational context.
From
developer standpoint... I dont build/market to "privacy" though...
thats the rathole where false assurances will be constructed and
required by political-facing Institutional efforts.
Thats
the safe perspective... every rule has an exception... but why
waste time thinking some connected entity is going to preserve your
privacy? Until when?
The
more important fight revolves around Human-centric systems versus
the automated AI that is dominating imaginations, investment
cycles, bureaucratic notions of administrative empowerment,
etc.
Non-participation
might be the root of VRM... its a force of nature that has a
personal origin of authority and has been used to bring empires to
their knees before. It would be nice if we could cooperate our way
to an advanced sense of personal empowerment in Society... but
while we hope for best, Id be prepared for worst.
VRM
must have value at scale of You/1... with a network
effect.
If
you can not build that and fund that you can not achieve
VRM.
Non-participation
is a very nimble concept and it does not mean non-presence,
non-active... its not anti-vaxxer in nature, does not fall victim
to conspiracy thinking and is immune to marketing bs.
Its
not for everyone. Neither is VRM.
On
Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Doc Searls <
" target="_blank">
>
wrote:
This
is a tough one.
While
I say +1 to all you say here — personal sovereignty matters
fundamentally — I also see work being done by VRM developers that
doesn’t start with sovereignty but is also not frog
boiling.
Rather
than insist that all developers start with personal sovereignty,
I’d rather encourage developers who care about personal sovereignty
to step in. We need them.
Simple
messages and simple steps to me means we need not fight the major
Sovereignty issue as step 1, but make something simple for
consumers today which gives them a better experience then they
otherwise have – then they will come.
If
I am building a consumer/customer-facing business I think you are
on the money with this.
If
I am concerned that building incremental tolerance in a populace
means the long term degradation of sensitivity to the underlying
cause of Institutional capture, and the lack of people-based
mechanisms to generate change for themselves, then I say "frogs in
a boiling pot".
The
business of delivering "privacy" respecting tools and the
structural impetus for building Human-centric systems as we head
into this automated age of administrative intelligence might not
have anything to do with one another.
Declaring
yourself in anyway meaningful, starts with self-possession and
extends through a social respect of self-possession. The
degradation of both prevents many important outcomes... and as we
all likely experience and witness for ourselves, people are all too
willing to make poor choices when convenience and easy-living are
at stake, or under threat of __________ (enter any
fear).
The
notion of Sovereignty that gets bantered about in these
conversations is a line in the sand. You either care about it or
you dont. In either case, its not a marketing slogan/campaign...
its the line where fact meets bullshit. As a Nation, as regional
contingencies, as parents, as Individuals... structure yields
results... and when companies sell you a service you should be able
to evaluate it in actual terms... not marketing hyperbole. When the
State of the Union is on TV, you should know what kind of country
you are part of and where the authority originates and resolves for
all these "decisions" we make in Union.
The
conflict for all of us, presumably here because we care about the
integrity of people-centered interactions, whether in business
transactions, health care, government, education, etc... is to
weigh our short-term business development decisions against our
long term Society development influences. Customers who consciously
empower these paths should no longer allow themselves to
structurally function as "customers"... they are market-defining
and influencing entities... self-possession matters and contains
leverage... but only after a structural shift in personal
Terms.
No
one can tell you what is right or wrong until the outcomes of your
actions are in motion. Then we can all evaluate for ourselves, and
negotiate the social implications of living beside Facebook
engineers and NSA W2's that are functionally impressive, if not
intrinsically problematic - all for a paycheck.
On
Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:49 AM, Julian Ranger <
" target="_blank">
>
wrote:
Thanks for the various response to my attempted
definition. As you probably know my business, digi.me, is very consumer facing today (we’ve over 250K
users and growing) and there is a need to get any language we use
very simple to get the message across to the “average
consumer”. I am of Kevin’s opinion below that to effect
change we have to start small and grow from there, thinking about
the process – yes, we have a grand vision ahead, but its baby steps
to get there. Simple messages and simple steps to me means we
need not fight the major Sovereignty issue as step 1, but make
something simple for consumers today which gives them a better
experience then they otherwise have – then they will come. To
that end we’re just trying to say that privacy doesn’t mean not
sharing, it means being in control of sharing. Then our simple app
can move towards sharing, which the user controls, whilst still
being about privacy.
I would add that it also means we don’t have to
fight big business, the advertising systems et al, but instead we
can co-opt them bit by bit. By showing that going to the
individual gives businesses access to richer data than they can
otherwise get from the more privacy invading methods used today,
businesses get to see they can be more engaging for their users and
hence can achieve better results. Again this means we have to
define privacy as including sharing.
Jules
From: Devon M T Loffreto [mailto:
" target="_blank">
]
Sent: 23 February 2015 18:25
To: Kevin Cox
Cc: Julian Ranger; ProjectVRM list
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Definition of Digital
Privacy
Ecosystem analogies
are abundant and perhaps inspiring, but its important to take note
of our present configuration, which is all industrial design. The
"tree of cooperation" has been aspired to by many, and for a long
time. Tools and leverage get jobs done, and in this case must
create value at the scale of you/1 across a network.
John is right... the
privacy debate is a rathole. But, there are clear winners from that
reality.
Non-participation is a
tool of privacy. It is also prescriptive when seeking to change
operational injustice.
Human fortitude is
variable.
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015
at 1:03 PM, Kevin Cox <
" target="_blank">
> wrote:
Devon,
"A bridge can not be
built until it has a solid foundation.... the structure of the
foundation is critical" and "VRM runs into the cart ahead of the
horse problem"
"Trees grow from small
beginnings" and "VRM systems grow by evolving new branches on
the tree of cooperation"
If we think of VRM
development as genetic engineering rather than civil engineering
then we concentrate on the process rather than the overall final
design. With genetic engineering we don't know what will be
the result of our tinkering but if it works the way we want we
propagate it. We want privacy and personal sovereignty and
if our VRM plants do not achieve those results we should kill them
off.
We are unlikely to be
successful if we design our VRM systems using existing structures
as the blueprints.
Changing the analogy
will change the process.
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015
at 2:44 AM, Devon M T Loffreto <
" target="_blank">
> wrote:
Privacy is privilege
as deployed. People are "asking" for it. Legislation is debating
whether it should be given/accommodated under certain
constraints.
Conversely, personal
Sovereignty exists prior to permissioning or the granting of
privileges. It does not ask...it declares, with force when
necessary. This is the source of National Sovereign integrity in
America. A nation such as America could not exist, and will not
continue to exist, without it. The current mis-education of America
capitalizes on fear to administer outcomes that are not going to
hold water for long.
The "privacy is dead"
line is accurate in so much as personal Sovereignty is dead too.
National Sovereignty via administrative capture/enslavement
vanquishes it in observational terms. That said, it is
restorable... no matter how tarnished. But people have to
fight for it in the manner they are always required
to.
Employees (customers
of work) are not going to do that for anyone. They have priorities
that undercut the nature of authority required to stand personal
Sovereign Rights up. No mercenary force can ever compete with
people who fight for personal blood Sovereignty.
Personally Sovereign
data authority requires pre-administrative integrity, at the point
of identity origination. Without that, privacy is a privilege and a
belief akin to Santa Claus. Sure, it shows up on schedule... until
it doesn't, then you realize it is lie propagated by the adults in
the room with the self-assumed privilege to construct such an
illusion.
VRM runs into the cart
ahead of the horse problem... customers of anything... services,
Rights, products, etc... do not create capability, they empower it
with the aggregate choices of the group based on demand-driven
values.
Changing the structure
of empowerment in the market to one that is VRM in flow requires a
re-structuring of participatory roles. The default condition can
not be customer... it goes no where.
A bridge can not be
built until it has a solid foundation... the structure of the
foundation is critical.
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015
at 5:01 AM, Julian Ranger <
" target="_blank">
> wrote:
A lot of Personal Data and VRM discussions veer
into discussing Privacy, but to do so in a meaningful sense I
think we need to define what it is in the digital
domain.
Specifically , being private doesn’t mean not
sharing anything - it means being in control of what you share, to
whom and when. For example, I am a private person, but I share sex
with my wife, I share family issues within my family group, I share
my finances with my financial advisor, I am happy for my
supermarket to know what I buy. The point is that in the physical
world I am largely (but never completely) in control of my privacy
and that includes what I share and with whom.
So privacy does NOT mean no sharing. This is
important as sharing is the grease to the future economy -
combining different data sets that I share will enable radically
new services and experiences that I have yet to even think
of. Privacy equates to controlled sharing. There is a
spectrum of sharing for data items: from items I keep solely to
myself, to items I share with one or a few people and ask not to be
shared further, to data I may share more widely and allow to be
reshared, to data which I share with the world (either as me or in
anonymised form).
I'd like to include "for what purpose" in the
above definition of what privacy implies re control and to most
people they would. If I disclose to a close friend a secret so I
can get feedback for example, I do not expect that secret to be
disclosed to others - it was only for the purpose of our
conversation. However, I can't control my friend directly and he
may tell others. In which case of course he has lost trust and I
probably won't share with him again - or at least will share more
carefully. This is of course the same in the digital world. If I
share with you for a purpose and you use for another purpose then I
am unlikely to want to share with you again.
So, I propose we define Digital Privacy as the
"Ability to control your personal data, inc. who you share it with,
when and for what purpose"
· (Note: the dictionary
defines Privacy as the "condition of being secret". In my digital
privacy definition I propose this is equivalent to "being in
control of who is in on the secret".)
Any other
suggestions?
Thanks,
Jules
Julian Ranger
Founder & Chairman, digi.me (formerly SocialSafe)
" target="_blank">
http://digi.me – It’s your life
Mobile: +44 7802 207470
No virus found
in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4299/9177 - Release Date:
02/25/15
|