Re: [projectvrm] Microsoft's default DNT setting in IE10

[Doc Searls < >]

On Jun 9, 2012, at 1:32 PM, Don Marti wrote:

> Before we get all the lawyers and regulators involved,
> why not fix the relatively simple underlying privacy
> issues in browsers?
> 
> Common sense from Cory Doctorow:
>  
> http://www.technologyreview.com/news/428045/the-curious-case-of-internet-privacy/

That's a pure VRM piece. Dig the closing lines:

>  Right now, the users and the analytics people are in a shooting war, but 
> only the analytics people are armed. There's a business opportunity for a 
> company that wants to supply arms to the rebels instead of the empire.

Not just companies, though. Lots of dev projects aren't companies.

>  There's still room for improvement—and profit—in
>  code. A great deal of Internet-data harvesting
>  is the result of permissive defaults on how our
>  browsers handle cookies, those bits of code used to
>  track us. Right now, there are two ways to browse
>  the Web: turn cookies off altogether and live with
>  the fact that many sites won't work; or turn on all
>  cookies and accept the wholesale extraction of your
>  Internet use habits.
> 
>  Browser vendors could take a stab at the
>  problem. For a precedent, recall what happened to
>  pop-up ads. When the Web was young, pop-ups were
>  everywhere. They'd appear in tiny windows that
>  re-spawned when you closed them. They ran away from
>  your cursor and auto-played music. Because pop-ups
>  were the only way to command a decent rate from
>  advertisers, the conventional wisdom was that no
>  browser vendor could afford to block pop-ups by
>  default, even though users hated them.
> 
>  The deadlock was broken by Mozilla  ...
> 
> Read the whole thing.
> 
> IMHO, the reason everyone is skipping over the obvious
> "fix the privacy bugs" step is that we've been talking
> about the problem the wrong way.  HTTP actually works
> backwards from the direction that most people describe
> it when talking about privacy problems.  More:
>  http://zgp.org/~dmarti/freedom/framing-privacy/

Really important points. Read through both those posts.

Doc

> 
> begin Mark Lizar quotation of Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 03:40:19PM +0100:
>> 
>> 
>> Katherine,
>> 
>> I think there is a strong legal case for Microsoft to pursue. 
>> 
>> On 8 Jun 2012, at 13:24, Katherine Warman Kern wrote:
>> 
>>> But this case is the reverse.  The status quo is opt out.  There is no 
>>> "Web Browser Protection Act" requiring opt-in.  
>>> 
>>> So who would take this to the Supreme Court and what law would the case 
>>> rest on?  
>> 
>> if advertisers go around their default setting, Microsoft could take the 
>> issue to the supreme court and win as  the supreme court has set a 
>> precedence of deciding for default 'opt-in' policy.
>> 
>> Of course these are different  circumstances, the salient point here is 
>> that default control of personal info (VRM) won't be illegal and it will 
>> likely be enforceable.
>> 
>> It appears to me that Microsoft, is moving to more VRMy based on their 
>> next releases, but this does not mean it is VRM in the sense of personal 
>> control over data.  Its a cloud strategy across global jurisdictions. 
>> 
>> I think DNT is a part of a bigger strategy which is fundamentally about 
>> big data.  
>> 
>> Found this quote from an article;  Danah Boyd displaying the Microsoft 
>> perspective.  
>> 
>> 
>> On 6-Jun-12, at 10:39 PM, ama-gi ISPI wrote:
>> 
>>> Microsoft's Danah Boyd assumes the solution will be regulation.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> "Technologists need to re-engage with regulators. We need to get to a 
>>> model
>>> where we really understand [social media] usage." I'm sure she's right --
>>> but there's a part that needs to be played by individuals, too.
>>> 
>>> We need to understand that we are now living in the glare of big-data, and
>>> that we can no longer vanish into the crowd. Analytics will become ever 
>>> more
>>> adept at extracting useful intelligence from our lives. Unwelcome though 
>>> it
>>> may be, we will be driven to consider how best to live in this endless
>>> digital daylight.
>> 
>> 
>> Regulation by itself, (without VRM) is too slow for next gen tech, it is a 
>> blunt instrument, but clearly not the complete answer,  
>> 
>> The-  'our privacy and security is lost,  big data is inevitable' is bad 
>> propaganda.  This type of dogma I would be extra weary of as its Microsoft 
>> policy, they are operating on the premise of creating this digital 
>> daylight.  --> It appears that Do not Track is a surface issue of deeper 
>> market design for personal cloud services.  AKA Big Data
>> 
>> VRM, I would say, is different when it comes down to the way consent and 
>> control infrastructure has been viewed.   It's is about how money is made. 
>> 
>> Microsoft has been working on the identity problem for a long time and 
>> bottom line makes a platform for the OS user, who pays for the product.  
>> The difference between chrome and IE is that Google's  user doesnt pay for 
>> the product. (Google is your Data pimp)
>> 
>> Microsoft knows that information control for their OS (not necessarily for 
>> people) is critical to their OS success.  Which is still client server.  
>> Just like Google.  All of this requires trust in order to make the best 
>> products.  
>> 
>> Bottom line personal information is cybercrack for companies. Microsoft 
>> wants the cybercrack infrastructure. 
>> 
>> DNT is a clear public policy move that sends a message to the advertising 
>> and regulatory industry, but is also a coy move intended to set a public 
>> policy standard for ad based web industry. Attacking the Google/Facebook 
>> revenue model)
>> 
>> This is the new (personal) product. "Microsoft Private Cloud Solutions"
>> 
>> With some predictions.
>> 
>> 'Personal Cloud' to Replace PC by 2014, Says Gartner | Cloudline ...
>> www.wired.com/cloudline/2012/03/personal-cloud-2014/
>> 
>> 
>>  Microsoft has spent enough money in legal fees to learn a lesson or two.  
>> Make no mistake DNT default is a business decision;   They also know its 
>> going to take more than 'do not track' for the default setting to really 
>> mean something for the security of personal information. 
>> 
>> Hence The Microsoft Personal Device Cloud (does this sound familiar? e.g. 
>> personal data store)  Its an identity management ecosystem built to be a 
>> data store for identity.   The personal device cloud goes much further 
>> than do not track by (its a data minimization ecosystem for IDentity. ) 
>> But will it take off? And why? Who really benefits in the end? We will 
>> have to see. 
>> That being said,  Incorporating data locker (VRM PDS) thinking into the 
>> device id-architecture so that it works peer to peer. Definitely a step in 
>> the right direction.
>> 
>> - Mark
>> www.identity-trust.com
>> 
>> PS>  DNT by default is a obvious privacy by design and is what is 
>> recommended to the industry.  The ad industry setting public policy to a 
>> standard default as opt-in. (which is an evil precedent) is ludicrous.  I 
>> am very disappointed with this wired article , (probably because wired is 
>> my favourite magazine) and this article seems like it was paid and written 
>> by the advertising industry lobby.  
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Don Marti                    
> http://zgp.org/~dmarti/
>