Text archives Help


Re: [projectvrm] Sweden Bans Google Cloud Services Over Privacy Concerns


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Mary Hodder < >
  • To: Peter Cranstone < >
  • Cc: ProjectVRM list < >
  • Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Sweden Bans Google Cloud Services Over Privacy Concerns
  • Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:44:17 -0500
Hi Peter,

I didn't mean that what you constructed *was* a form.. i meant below that it was in a structured data form that held meaning.  I get it's a signal.  And i get it will come out of something, a browser, a wallet.. but most likely i believe eventually it will come out of a personal cloud app with apps inside (maybe a wallet there) that submits my intent and receptivity.

I also get that we know, here at Project VRM in this discussion, that this all has value. But does the other side know that? Really? In a measurable way, and see that it's more value than they have now? I don't think it's enough for us to assert there that this has significantly higher value.. we need to strategically and tactically show it to them.  Then it will be a waterfall or change.

I do have ideas about who might be great for a strategic demo or two.. but given that there aren't many personal cloud users yet, and not a lot of apps.. I think it might be better to wait until there are some numbers that matter to those on the other side.. like a million personal cloud users, with a significant apps use.. that would make a demonstration something big to pay attention to... I don't think that's far off.. but it's not today.

Mary



On Jun 13, 2013, at 6:10 PM, Peter Cranstone wrote:

Mary:

RE: I get there is high value in the intent and receptivity structure data.. and the form you submit below. 

It's not a form – it's a signal that the browser sends to the vendor that his current infrastructure can read. Here's how it works – attached to your browser you have a 'wallet' (just like the one in your handbag) Unlike other 'vendor controlled wallet' this one you can put anything you want to share electronically in. And most importantly you can decide 'Who' you share it with.

Lets say you've turned on those two checkbox fields in your wallet. Now you navigate in your browser to a VRM vendor. He 'reads' the incoming electronic signals and elevates you to 'preferred experience' status (red carpet). As you return over and over again and the trust levels build your 'value' to him goes up. Then one day you find out he did something stupid with your data and sold it to another party. So what do you do? Simply turn off the controls in the wallet that send the vendor that data. Now he's back to cookies and other nonsense which has Katherine indicated in an earlier email is worth considerably less.

RE: My concern is many of them will go to the next level of spy ware, rather than take the metadata we give them and make better use of it.

Think 'value'. You can steal my data, you can steal my car, but you can't steal my integrity. Integrity and trust go hand in hand. Big Data is worth considerably less without trust and integrity behind it. You're only lending them your metadata while they prove worthy. Its about trust. The second they abuse it – like a restaurant which treats you badly you simply move on and remove their ability to read that signal.

RE: So your structure is good.. but I think we need to work with a couple of key partners who want to innovate and do the right thing, to help them implement their side of this. Then, we and they report publicly on how *much better* it is for *them* when they take that structured intent and receptivity and make something of value with it.

Great. Do you have someone in mind who wants to do this now? The technology to support it is already built and there's nothing new required on the server side other than a script that knows how to read the data coming from the 'wallet' (Perl, PHP can do it). Implementation shouldn't take more than a few minutes. 

The time will be spent on figuring out exactly how they can leverage this new data into value. That's a marketing function v. a technical issue.



Peter
_________________________
Peter J. Cranstone
CEO.  3PMobile

From: Mary Hodder < "> >
Date: Thursday, June 13, 2013 4:08 PM
To: "Peter J. Cranstone" < "> >
Cc: ProjectVRM list < "> >
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Sweden Bans Google Cloud Services Over Privacy Concerns

Pete,

I get there is high value in the intent and receptivity structure data.. and the form you submit below. 

I wonder though.. if the receiving parties will ignore it or use it.

My hope is that they do use it productivelly, but the alternative, which most big data collectors have taken, is to amp up the arms race and route around whatever we do..
in 2007 browsers added the feature to delete cookies, and by 2008 or 09, to block 3rd party cookies.. or cookies generally.. so those "best and brightest of our society working on advertising" decided to invent flash cookies, beacons and machine fingerprinting.  Now we have DNT.. and they are further working on getting around it.

My concern is many of them will go to the next level of spy ware, rather than take the metadata we give them and make better use of it.

So your structure is good.. but I think we need to work with a couple of key partners who want to innovate and do the right thing, to help them implement their side of this. Then, we and they report publicly on how *much better* it is for *them* when they take that structured intent and receptivity and make something of value with it.

But it's a great start.  

Thank you!
mary

On Jun 13, 2013, at 4:02 PM, Peter Cranstone wrote:

Mary:

Thanks. What happens next is the ability to transmit two things:
  1. Intent
  2. Receptivity 
Imagine that you're able to transmit the following user (controlled) information to a VRM enabled vendor in real time. Think of these as 'headers' leaving the device in a 'format' that the VRM's current infrastructure can easily read…

2.     VRM_RECEPTIVITY_TO SALE="HIGH"

Now the second the vendor sees that 'context' he knows that he has a 'live prospect on the line' and the 'quality of the experience' goes way up. In the absence of that information it's 'business as usual'. All you need to do is send the signal that you're interested, once the other side sees it then there's an incentive to deliver more value.

Think how valuable just those two pieces of Metadata would be to 'Big Data'. 

It would change everything.



Peter
_________________________
Peter J. Cranstone
CEO.  3PMobile

From: Mary Hodder < "> >
Date: Thursday, June 13, 2013 12:26 PM
To: "Peter J. Cranstone" < "> >
Cc: ProjectVRM list < "> >
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Sweden Bans Google Cloud Services Over Privacy Concerns

Peter..

That's a terrific diagram showing how things need to work so that you control your data.

I don't think the change will take that long, before we are collecting our data and putting it at our personal cloud.

Then the question is, what follows from companies on the right side of your diagram?
I hope, it's that they realize they need to provide good services, whether we pay for them, or get them free...

in order to interact with us.

mary


On Jun 13, 2013, at 12:28 PM, Peter Cranstone wrote:

Mary,

So how is "personal" or personally directed services (VRM) style different than general cloud services? And you answered the question perfectly - it's not "personal" unless the individual controls their own data, not just the use of the product  - Brilliant!

Which means for all this to work you have to control the collection, flow and use of your data from the device that you're using when you interact with the product/service. So the schematic becomes the following. You can store and control your data at one of two possible points – either directly on your device AND/OR through the Personal Cloud. They KEY though is EXACTLY as you've described it – it MUST be the user who transmits the intention behind the data and NOT the Content provider who ASSUMES the Intent.

From here it's easy to build a solution into the browser.

<304C4B61-922F-4EEB-8344-E6DAA5DC3368.png>


Peter
_________________________
Peter J. Cranstone
CEO.  3PMobile

From: Mary Hodder < "> >
Date: Thursday, June 13, 2013 9:43 AM
To: ProjectVRM list < "> >
Subject: [projectvrm] Sweden Bans Google Cloud Services Over Privacy Concerns

http://www.privacysurgeon.org/blog/incision/swedens-data-protection-authority-bans-google-apps/

"The ruling (By the Swedish Data Inspection Board) – which bans Google cloud products such as calendar services, email and data processing functions – is based on inadequacies in the Google contract. A risk assessment by the Board determined that the contract gives Google too much covert discretion over how data can be used, and that public sector customers are unable to ensure that data protection rights are protected.

"The assessment gives several examples of this deficiency, including uncertainty over how data may be mined or processed by Google and lack of knowledge about which subcontractors may be involved in the processing. The assessment also concluded that there was no certainty about if or when data would be deleted after expiration of the contract."


It's going to be a PR struggle to convince regular people that "personal" or personally directed services (VRM) style are different than general cloud services.. because I bet that Google would argue that Google apps are personally directed.. nothing happens unless the individual uses the services, from Google's perspective. But the individual's data  isn't controlled by the individual, VRM style.

So I think this will be the pivot point.. convincing the public, as well as the companies and governments, that it's not "personal" unless the individual controls their own data, not just the use of the product.  

And that struggle to be heard above the company's PR about what is VRM and what is not, what is "personal" and what is not, is key to this whole mess.

mary


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.