Text archives Help


Re: [projectvrm] Concepts | Apache Unomi


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Doc Searls < >
  • To: Guy Jarvis < >
  • Cc: Devon Loffreto < >, Adrian Gropper < >, ProjectVRM list < >
  • Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Concepts | Apache Unomi
  • Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 10:58:02 -0500




Devon,

thanks for providing a new (to me) search term, Wechat!

Interesting how China seems to get a free pass eg I don't see Soros et
al running open society initiatives and encouraging color revolution
there as has been and is being attempted in the former Soviet
satellite states or Russia for that matter.

In the wider context of VRM, I'm thinking that no one solution will
fit all globally ie we live in a multi-polar world that lacks
universality where privacy rights are concerned.

Guy

IMHO & FWIW, I don’t think we can get much good VRM development done if our default perspective remains downward toward people from within existing systems, or to build new systems that “improve the customer journey” differently for every vendor. (BTW, this is what I believe “____-centric” does. But thats another thread.)

I think we can get a lot of good—and original—development done if we look outward (not necessarily upward) from individuals.

Tools in the first place are extensions of ourselves. Think of a hammer, a screwdriver, a camera, a typewriter, a paintbrush, glasses, shoes, wallet, bike, keys and pants. All are extensions of ourselves, and we have full agency through each of them. They enlarge our capacities in the world. (Yes, institutions are involved in some cases, but these things start with individuals human bodies and minds.)

Early personal tech development, especially with PCs, was around enhancing personal agency. Your word processor, your spreadsheet, your checkbook and accounting software, your tax software, your games, your contact list, your calendar, your drawing programs—were all as much yours as the collection of coins and pens in your pockets or purse.

What happened in the early to mid 80s was not just that personal tech came into the world, but the discovery by business that people could do more with their own personal computing tools than companies could alone with their centrally controlled systems, or by controlling what individuals could do with tech. 

Similar discoveries happened with the Internet in the late ‘90s and smartphones in the late ‘00s. Companies at first fought the independence and personal agency of employees and customers. (Recall “You don’t need the Internet. We have a LAN” and later, “You con’t need an iPhone or an Android. Here’s your corporate Blackberry.”) Then, when it became clear that people could do more with personal tech than companies could (whether those companies were employers or vendors), companies embraced personal agency and the tech that made it possible.

We are on a similar cusp today. And the only way we can prove that people can do more with their own data, their own ways of controlling relationships, their own ways of expressing intentions, their own “journeys” and “experiences,” their own terms of engagement, is by providing tools and tool-like services that people can put to use easily.

It’s still uphill.

The norms we’re dealing with here go back to the industrial revolution and earlier; and defaults were set then and remain embedded deep in our cultures and our brains.

Defaults in business models are beyond significant as well. For example, not catering to marketers, which seem to have all the budget, is hard.

UI is especially hard.

But we have help right now with the GDPR, ePrivacy, the popularity of ad blocking and tracking protection and other shifting winds and tectonic shifts in the market environment. These include the rapid shift upward in consciousness among and toward women in the marketplace. Tech has been grossly remiss on that one, and I sense a flood of good sense starting to rush toward tech from no less than half the world’s population.

I’ve been working on pulling together all the development threads going on. Look for something soon on that in the ProjectVRM wiki, along with more geek recruitment at LinuxJournal. 

Scroll down...

On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 3:13 PM, Devon Loffreto < " class=""> > wrote:
Is that a real question or are you being humorous? Its going as you might
expect. Compliance is a social norm. Individual liberty is not, at mass
scale.

I have a team walking factory floors across China currently. One is
returning home after 5 years in US. Immediate reaction to seeing role of
WeChat domination was startling. From city to deep rural, cash is
disappearing. Social structure drives operational results.

People seek convenience. Individual liberty is never easy. Compliance is
always easy, until its not. State planning in China is a force w/o limit,
and alternative models are breaking w/ ease b/c "easy" wins mass-adoption.

Credit.. still optional.

Devon

I think the way we beat China’s top-down surveillance-intensive systems, and others like them, is by equipping individuals with tools for independence and engagement (reminder: what #VRM is about) that prove so good, so useful and so productive, that those systems’ gears are stripped. 

While I do have faith in that, we need the code. Lets make it.

Doc

On Feb 7, 2018 9:50 AM, "Adrian Gropper" < " class=""> > wrote:

The experiment Guy describes is already being run in China with social
credit scoring. Does anyone have an update on how that's going?

Adrian

On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Guy Jarvis < " class=""> > wrote:

At a conceptual level, what instantly occurred to me was "udontnomi"
which might be achieved through a couple of different pathways.

The first perhaps more obvious route is to (attempt to) block unomi
from gathering any personal data, the main drawback that comes to mind
is that blocking may prevent access to a desired resource

The second route is to appear to willingly accept unomi then poison it
with junk data to render unomi worthless.

In the latter case, I guess the programmatical challenge is
client-side browser coding to fool the server-side unomi, plus some
means of p2p sharing junk between clients.

Guy


On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Tom Barnett < " class=""> > wrote:
http://unomi.incubator.apache.org/versions/1.2/concepts.html

I wondered if anyone had any views on this?

'

Profiles

By processing events, Unomi progressively builds a picture of who the
user
is and how they behave. This knowledge is embedded in Profile object. A
profile is an Item with any number of properties and optional segments
and
scores. Unomi provides default properties to cover common data (name,
last
name, age, email, etc.) as well as default segments to categorize users.
Unomi users are, however, free and even encouraged to create additional
properties and segments to better suit their needs.

Contrary to other Unomi items, profiles are not part of a scope since we
want to be able to track the associated user across applications. For
this
reason, data collected for a given profile in a specific scope is still
available to any scoped item that accesses the profile information.

It is interesting to note that there is not necessarily a one to one
mapping
between users and profiles as users can be captured across applications
and
different observation contexts. As identifying information might not be
available in all contexts in which data is collected, resolving profiles
to
a single physical user can become complex because physical users are not
observed directly. Rather, their portrait is progressively patched
together
and made clearer as Unomi captures more and more traces of their
actions.
Unomi will merge related profiles as soon as collected data permits
positive
association between distinct profiles, usually as a result of the user
performing some identifying action in a context where the user hadn’t
already been positively identified.'






--

Adrian Gropper MD

PROTECT YOUR FUTURE - RESTORE Health Privacy!
HELP us fight for the right to control personal health data.
DONATE: https://patientprivacyrights.org/donate-3/






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.