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

[Luk Vervenne < >]

Indeed, at least in the EU the thinking and the upcoming EU privacy regulation tends towards it being not worthwhile to chasing personal data if not explicitely consented.

Consent includes persmissions and obligaitons of sharing and usage.

What stands in the way - and so where ore effort is needed, is the lack of technology, support and thinking of how business can discover end-uses that indiciated thet are findable, propose to them. 
This is nothing less than an opportuntity for advertisers that are converted to "the new way'.

Consumers need advertisers to change camp and use their knowledge to help consumers attract the right (choice of) products and services. 

So nobody looses.

If this could go hand in hand with doing business more effective and more efficient, then the individual finally might become the accepted ethical integration point of personal data. 

We just have to go tough & painfull global market transition. :-)

The benefit will be the econimic liberation of persona data which will be a boost if only by the shere volume and quality of services.

However, service providers wil have to solely survive on QoS and agile cerativity, but that's not necessarly a bad thing. 

In the end an annual 800 billion euro market will change direction / hands,  but... also multiply. 

We all win.

So what's the ******* problem.

L.

On 10 Jun 2012, at 20:33, Mark Lizar wrote:

I like where you are going with this Jim, I have been working on an effort called identity trust which is aimed towards thinking about just this sort of thing. 

But, I would like to challenge the notion that once personal data is shared it is lost and un controllable.  I know Crosbie's view of natural law in this regard, although, with contract law, legal regulations and the like one can have a mechanism for data to be deleted - etc.  I dont propose it as a right or any of that sort of malarky, but on a technical and service orientated level there are valid paths to explore.

As well, Microsoft is putting a lot of effort into making data only useful and accessible under particular conditions. 

I think there is a missing VRM discourse in this area. A discourse that would lead to some very important issues of policy and technology about how, and in what way, people can control services that manage their information. 

Mark

On 10-Jun-12, at 2:33 PM, Jim Bursch wrote:

-- This "freedom of speech" thingy is jolly accommodating.

My senses behold a bit of sarcasm from across the pond.

But his point is a good one. "Personal data" that is not under the lock and key is lost and there is no getting it back. Personal data, to be of any value, has to be shared, and once it is shared, it is lost. 

A good VRM tool will facilitate the user-controlled sharing of data, and include functions that will degrade the quality of the shared data after the transaction. It would also be useful to obfuscate personal data lost in the wild by broadcasting false and misleading personal data, corrupting the big data databases with unreliable data. That will then make the person the most reliable source of information about the person.

Hackers who are creating false profiles on FB in order to manufacture "likes" are doing us a favor in this regard.  We should all do our part by purposely registering with false data as much as possible.

But, the flip side is that we need a tool for the real authentication of our true selves, under our control.

I operate an online service (MyMindshare) that is dependent on people being their authentic selves, and false profiles are a problem for me, yet here I am advocating the broadcasting of false profiles. As the operator of an online service, I desperately need my users to have a good, reliable VRM system so that both me and my users can confidently and securely be our authentic selves and create authentic value.

Jim Bursch
310-869-5340

 
 ">
 

Headspace.info: Video Arts and Entertainment Directory
http://headspace.info

Producer
NoHo20 presents: "Critic's Dilemma"
http://noho20.com

On 6/10/2012 12:10 AM, Crosbie Fitch wrote:

" type="cite">

From: Drummond Reed
Just as "freedom of speech", under the U.S. Constitution, 
is the baseline for free _expression_, "my personal data 
will not be used without my permission" should be the 
baseline for the personal data ecosystem.

How about "Neither my intellectual work nor my personal data may be used
without my permission?"

People would still have all the freedom they need - they obviously don't
need the freedom to use anyone else's intellectual work or personal data.

Just as the 1790 US Copyright act didn't abridge "freedom of speech" no
doubt the granting of a new privilege to prohibit unauthorised utilisation
or dissemination of personal data will also be recognised not to abridge
"freedom of speech".

This "freedom of speech" thingy is jolly accommodating.


-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2178 / Virus Database: 2433/5059 - Release Date: 06/09/12