All those things used to be true of Web sites as well. Hosting companies sprang up to solve them. Initially they were expensive, even $100’s per month. (BTW, I built and ran ATT Small Business Hosting, so I’m familiar with this). Now it’s $2-3/month for pretty good hosting. It won’t be free but it will be affordable.
I’m not sure why you think any of this has anything to do with VRM. VRM is a concept. If you had said:
Personal clouds [are] an awesome idea - but without a clear understanding of the cost and profit structure getting traction will remain difficult.
I’d have understood, but nothing you’re saying is an argument about VRM.
On January 23, 2014 at 12:05:08 PM, Peter Cranstone (
">
) wrote:
Phil,
You’re now see the magnitude of the issues facing
VRM.
Lets forget trillions for a moment and just go with 100
million. In all likelihood you’re going to need to run these
database inside a well managed cloud infrastructure, staffed by
responsible knowledgable people (= cost). You’re going to need
legal docs to explain the privacy policies and processes in place
to manage the inevitable breech. All this data will have to be
backed up all the time with full fault tolerance and always on. (=
more cost)
And that’s just to run the cloud - now for the fun part. How
do you get users to type in all that data and then provide all the
signaling mechanisms plus server side ‘enterprise’ ready tools to
integrate with the vendors. (= lots of cost).
Can it done = Yes. Can it be done for free = No
And that’s the monster hiding under the bed here. Everybody
keeps talking about Open Source like it’s the cure for
cancer. It’s not - you need staff, marketing dollars, cloud
infrastructure etc. With no discernible business model that
generates revenue to support that cost there’s very little
likelihood of a ‘sustainable’ (operative word here) solution being
around for long. Lets face it - the customers data (pCloud) is
currently on the vendors servers where they maintain it and get
value from it. Moving it somewhere else might be fine until the
second they can’t close a transaction due to downtime.
VRM is an awesome idea - but without a clear understanding of
the cost and profit structure getting traction will remain
difficult.
Peter
_________________________
Peter J. Cranstone
303.809.7342
On Jan 23, 2014, at 11:06 AM, Phil Windley <
">
> wrote:
I think a more apt
question is “what operating system are those clouds running?”
I think there are
plenty of hardware/operating solutions that could host personal
clouds and the techniques for locking them down, self- hosting,
etc. are well understood. That doesn’t mean it’s easy to do, but I
don’t think that’s the central question.
The key question is
does each personal cloud present as a representative of a single
entity and can we assure that that entity’s data is
secure.
I think it’s
unlikely that every personal cloud will run on dedicated hardware.
They will be on shared hardware. We’re not going to solve the
security problem by going to dedicated hardware for most things and
people. The problem is there’s going to be trillions of personal
clouds (yeah, with a T) and the only way that’s possible is by
running them in some kind of container on shared
hardware.
One key idea that
makes me believe doing this securely is possible is that there’s
no technical reason for the container to have access to the
data. You could architect it so that the container that is hosting
multiple clouds can’t get any more access than other cloud
connections.
On January 23, 2014 at 8:43:17
AM, Peter Cranstone (
">
)
wrote:
Katherine,
Another follow up - and this time a general question for
everyone on this list. Here’s a picture from Respect Networks web
site
In it there are multiple clouds. So here’s the questions...
- What operating system and hardware are those clouds
running on
- What are the security policies - need legal docs here -
regarding those clouds
And perhaps the most important question of
all…
- How many people’s data is stored on those cloud
servers?
Here’s what i’m getting at - imagine you have a million
members, all there data is stored in one place - anyone hacks that
one place they get access to an incredible array of data - much
more so that Target.
Hackers can target an individuals device - but the
rewards are so much less than the servers that store multiple users
data.
Peter
_________________________
Peter J. Cranstone
303.809.7342
On Jan 23, 2014, at 8:26 AM, Peter Cranstone <
">
>
wrote:
Correction.
You can build a VRM solution on ANY platform - what you have
to understand is the limitations of that platform/OS from a
security standpoint. You can then accept (or not) those limitations
and build a suitable defense in depth strategy via either
additional hardware, software and or legal policies.
It all comes down to ‘risk mitigation’. Understand the
business risks and make a decision. Target new the risks and
accepted them - once hacked they sprang into action and limited the
downside. This is just the cost of doing business these
days.
Also notice that Nieman Marcus got hacked as well - they made
a ‘business decision’ not to tell anyone about it until after the
holidays. They didn’t want to hurt the brand and have since applied
the appropriate resources to mitigate additional risks.
In this day and age there’s no such thing as perfect security
unless you have an unlimited budget. You just make a business
decision on how to manage the fallout. Customers are used to it
now.
They just expect a little more humility from the vendor that’s
all.
Peter
_________________________
Peter J. Cranstone
303.809.7342
On Jan 23, 2014, at 7:48 AM, Peter Cranstone <
">
>
wrote:
The problem is wickedly simple: How do you build a VRMy product on
this foundation?
You can’t. I’ve built a secure OS - the only way it can be done is
with both hardware and software, ‘Root Trust’, plus multiple
‘Rings’ along with Protection ID and compartmentalization for
secure passwords. Itanium is the only architecture i know that can
support this level of security unless you have a custom chip.
VRM cannot be made perfectly secure - you need a ‘defense in
depth’ strategy i.e. insurance policies.
Anything can be hacked - all you need is time or the Patriot
Act.
Peter
_________________________
Peter J. Cranstone
303.809.7342
On Jan 23, 2014, at 5:36 AM, Katherine Kern <
">
>
wrote:
Wicked Shit.
The wicked thrive in complexity. The more complex, the more
opportunities to adapt to turning stuff into shit – sometimes just
because they can.
Been too busy building our space and website for the Creative
Professional Community to contribute here lately.
But I have to chime in with one thought:
Imagine when TARGET was choosing a third party system for
their POS system. The written agreement had all sorts of
legal mumbo jumbo about waiving any liability for anything.
BUT the sales rep reassured “our system is bullet proof – the
lawyers and insurance company make us put that stuff in there.”
That is the real world – business people who want to serve
their customers with convenient, secure transaction systems.
Third parties who want to provide it but can not.
Lawyers trying to protect entrepreneurs from losing their
house. Customers who can only adapt to a new normal that gets
lower by the day.
The problem is wickedly simple: How do you build a VRMy
product on this foundation?
The business case is obvious: secure financial
transactions.
Governments have formed alliances to maintain a safe Space
Station. How was this accomplished?
Happy New Year,
From: Doc Searls <
">
>
Date: Monday, January 20, 2014 at
9:39 PM
To: David Brin <
">
>
Cc: William Dyson <
">
>,
Peter Cranstone <
">
>,
Guy Higgins <
">
>,
Tom Crowl <
">
>,
ProjectVRM list <
">
>,
Andy Oram <
">
>, "Grant, Frank
(Perkins Coie)" <
">
>
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Wicked
problems vs. tame ones
Somehow this also reminds me of what George Carlin said in "A
place for my stuff"...
"Ever notice that your shit is stuff and other people's stuff
is shit?" A fused spine corollary, perhaps. :-)
Doc
On Jan 20, 2014, at 11:09 AM, David Brin <
">
>
wrote:
I find fascinating the human propensity to suffer from
the political equivalent of fused-spine…the ability to notice
threats in only one direction.
Americans - especially - are raised by art and films and
songs that celebrate Suspicion of Authority (SoA). Moreover, we are
each of us encouraged to think "I invented SoA!" Admit it,
you relish the delusion that you are the only one (maybe with a few
friends... and some helpful folks in mass media) who notices what
is REALLY going on! The rest of your neighbors are mostly bleating
sheep. Only… it's funny how those "sheep" look at you the same way.
The
SoA reflex is fundamental in America. Liberals see Big
Brother trying to arise out of conniving oligarchs and faceless corporations. Conservatives
perceive Big Brother emerging from snooty academics and meddling bureaucrats. Both fears are
well-founded! But when we focus in one direction, we tend to
ignore the looming elites who are "on our side."
And
those elites will encourage this tunnel vision. "Look over there!"
they scream. "Keep staring over there!"
Hence the fused spine effect. And hence culture war.
No, make that phase three of the American Civil War.
Undermining the American genius at vigorous, can-do problem solving
pragmatism. A genius that always involved using an agile mix of
methods, from individual initiative to market solutions to
consensus-chosen joint projects paid for via government of the
people, by the people.
We are now being talked into HATING elements of that
mixed suite of tools. Gee, I wonder who would benefit from
that? (Hint. Ever look at the list of top owners of cable
news outlets?)
Me? I consider myself a child of Adam Smith and Robert
Heinlein. I'd be a "libertarian" except that once-noble word
was hijacked by cult-followers of a mad Russian woman sci fi
author. I do want market solutions!|
I am also able to admit that, across
6000 years, 99% of societies saw their markets and freedom crushed
by private owner-lord-oligarchs, the great failure mode that
destroyed human progress for 60 centuries. And failure to
admit -- or even look at -- that basic fact is blatant proof that
half our citizens… and some of you bright fellows -- suffer from
political fused-spine syndrome.
Is socialism dangerous? Hell
yes! I hated the USSR and I am scared of any politburo. But
to claim that Sweden is hell on Earth, or that
skyrocketing rates of US wealth and income disparity - approaching
the levels of 1789 France - aren't deadly perils to our Great
Experiment? That isn't just fused-spine. It is fused
brain.
"Class war" has always existed,
except during the brief post-FDR heyday of the American Middle
Class. Watch as that middle class returns to levels of
radicalization not seen since the 1930s, as they realize that
"class war" is always waged aggressively from above.
See a chiropractor. Learn to see
lurking Big Brothers in ALL directions. The Great Experiment
has always been about agility and flexibility. Even plants
are able to face new directions.
Try turning your head.
From: William Dyson <
">
>
To: Peter Cranstone <
">
>
Cc: Guy Higgins <
">
>;
Tom Crowl <
">
>;
Doc Searls <
">
>;
ProjectVRM list <
">
>;
Andy Oram <
">
>; "Grant, Frank
(Perkins Coie)" <
">
>;
David Brin <
">
>
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014
10:19 AM
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Wicked
problems vs. tame ones
So lets start with …. what is your
alternative version for Healthcare ?
On Jan 20, 2014, at 9:57 AM, Peter Cranstone <
">
>
wrote:
Well said.
We almost have the perfect ‘social state’. Our own laziness is
contributing to the following Govt. control. On a scale of 1
to 10 apply your own judgement to each of the following 8 criteria.
1) Healthcare
2) Poverty
3) Debt
4) Gun Control
5) Welfare
6) Education
7) Religion
8) Class Warfare
As a foreigner coming to the USA 25 years ago the number i would
have placed on the above would not have amounted to more than 10
out of 80. Now the number is climbing far closer to 80. Healthcare
is perhaps the straw that will most affect ‘we the
people’.
It’s the one thing that i can see that truly affects everyone - and
it may just be where the Govt.’s reach exceeds it’s
grasp.
We’ll see.
Peter
_________________________
Peter J. Cranstone
303.809.7342
<PastedGraphic-2.png>
On Jan 20, 2014, at 9:56 AM, Guy Higgins <
">
>
wrote:
I don’t think that government “by the poor” is any better than
government “by the rich.” We have an excellent mechanism in
place right now — democracy! The problem is that we’re too
lazy to participate and so we choose the “default option” (re-elect
the incumbents) far too often, or we don’t vote at all (the new
mayor of NYC was elected by something like 8% of the voters), or we
vote for the person who most strikes our fancy (better looking,
great sound bites, etc). None of these lead us to a good
government.
People complain (on rare occasion) about how their personal
data is being taken and used without their permission, but almost
no one (present company excepted) actually does anything about
it.
Electing the best people to govern us is the same problem
faced by VRM — we have to get enough people interested in the idea
(government or VRM) for them to invest their personal effort in
participating intelligently. I’m not holding my breath
…
Guy
From: Tom Crowl <
">
>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 08:17:46
-0800
To: Doc Searls <
">
>
Cc: Guy Higgins <
">
>,
ProjectVRM list <
">
>,
Andy Oram <
">
>, "Grant, Frank
(Perkins Coie)" <
">
>,
David Brin <
">
>
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Wicked
problems vs. tame ones
RE: " liberating
customers from systems that value holding them captive is the core
challenge of VRM"
I agree... and I'm not trying to
be political here (at least not in a Left/Right sense) but would
add that this is a reflection of the quandary that
the individual faces in relationship to large interests (both
public and private) which has existed since the birth of
agriculture...
And that its that relationship
that must be addressed.
This doesn't mean that wandering
into the weeds of political ideology can solve it... but it does
mean that stronger mechanisms for customer/citizen/user feedback to
both government and private interests may be required to secure the
customer/vendor relationship as well as others.
I don't like to be a broken
record... but both the micropayment and the core it requires are
essential to the empowerment of the individual vis-a-vis these
large sectors.
This conclusion arises out of a
recognition that excessive* wealth
and power concentration is (unfortunately)... a sort of natural
cancer which we see seems to almost inevitably arise in scaled
human societies.
I suggest this is a 'natural'
result of the altruism dilemma... which has consequences an
ideological altruism may ameliorate but not eliminate.
In fact... while I don't hold my
breath... rule by poor people (sortition?) would likely lessen this
problem... simply because the poor WANT to be rich... so overall
(and evidence supports it)...
they're fine with
some making more for others... and reward for innovation and hard
work... and would NOT demand a total leveling... or all become bums
'leaching off the state"....
However the rich
DON'T want to be poor... and this accelerates the concentration
problem which comes with the altruism dilemma... when they're in
charge.
Maybe this little
'theory' sounds silly or simplistic... but I think I'm on to
something.
Its not about
leveling the society... its about leveling the
landscape.
|