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 19:01:17 -0500
Peter,

I think a use case is a great idea.. or a series.. we could put them at the Project VRM wiki and send those folks to ask them to join in a demo of this new way of thinking.

I like the data model you suggest below. I would add particulars for a specific demo, for example requirements the user might have around their desire.

So maybe:

6.    VRM_REQUIREMENTS=["LOCATION","TIME","PREFERENCES","COMMUNICATION_METHOD"]
This might refer less to the specific sector or product and more about the user's requirements for the item or service.  These would probably partly be defaults in a wallet, but also changed depending (I need a car in the next two months and to communicate through my wallet on my laptop, I want dinner tonight and let's do this on my phone but I'm traveling so my location is different from where I'll buy the car, for example -- that might be internal to the app in a way, but vendors will likely need some specifics in order to get their side of this right). 

And yes.. then mapping the sector specifics would be next.

essentially making the use cases and microformat would be super cool.. i LURV it.

mary

On Jun 13, 2013, at 6:34 PM, Peter Cranstone wrote:

Mary:

How about a 'gedanken (thought) experiment'. 

Why don't we build via email a use case that can value intent and receptivity from what is currently 'unstructured Web data' (cookies and other nonsense). If you were a vendor offering a service what kinds of structured data would you want to know about in real time to drive more value to that customer?

What about using the following data as part of your 'Web wallet'? You can add anything you want to the list, you can change the values of what's already there – literally anything that works for you.

2.    VRM_RECEPTIVITY_TO SALE="HIGH"
3.    VRM_SHARE_MY_INTENTION="YES"
4.    VRM_CURIOSITY="HIGH"
5.    VRM_ENGAGEMENT="HIGH"

Next you pick the service that you're familiar with and we can map out what kind of extra data that the vendor could value and leverage as 'long as he has your permission'. The thing to bear in mind here is that what has to happen with the Intention economy is the following. It must be cost effective to extend 'existing profitable business models' to ALL devices and you have to be able to capture real ($$$) value by taking on the this new approach – so it MUST be easy for users/consumers to use. 

To me this is the underpinnings of the semantic Web – the ability to put context and value (integrity) around unstructured data. 




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.