Text archives Help


Re: [projectvrm] Today, we fight back


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Doc Searls < >
  • To: Dan Blum < >
  • Cc: Tom Crowl < >, Don Marti < >, ProjectVRM list < >
  • Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Today, we fight back
  • Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:15:42 -0500
Says here (in an NYTimes Bits Blog by @NicolePerlroth) that the "fight back" was a dud, which was exactly what I had feared. (Not that it was a dud, but that it was perceived that way by a major medium.) Worse, look at the volley of accusatory tweets at that first link between Nicole (@NYTimes cybersecurity reporter) and  and  of the EFF, in which (among other things) the words "misleading" and "trolling" are thrown.

That said, it was and remains a worthy effort, and the EFF needs our support.

Doc

On Feb 13, 2014, at 7:38 AM, Dan Blum < "> > wrote:

I was engaged in some discussions about questions of trust that colleagues in other countries could have for U.S. based companies or security professionals. I remember reading a few weeks ago that Mikko Hyponnen from F-Secure had pulled out of speaking at the RSA conference - ironically his talk was titled Government Authored Malware (!) - because of RSA's relationship with the NSA. The way Mikko worded his letter to RSA (as I quote in the article below) suggested that American security pros would not care about surveillance of non-Americans. 

I hope that this February 11 campaign aka "the day we fight back" will go some small way to prove that the U.S. is not a monolithic entity but a country in which we intensely debate almost everything and, in fact, that a majority of us oppose mass surveillance. I hope to see and participate in many more such campaigns until we come to much better resolution of privacy rights in the U.S. 

In the meantime, U.S. security pros should think like global citizens and do their part to ensure that both their domestic and foreign customers' privacy is protected from abuse by anyone. It's just good business.

Dan

On Feb 12, 2014, at 10:09 PM, Tom Crowl < "> > wrote:

RE the Facebook Fraud issue...

A Speculation: 

Could an (e.g.) 1/10 cent user payment connected to the current Like button (whether it was credited to the likee or something else*) stop the Facebook Fraud problem by making them non-viable for clickfarms.. and still not seriously impact the original button's usability?

And could that level of payment be viable under either monied like button model? (I believe it can be done).

*for instance a user could designate a charity recipient for these likes



On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Don Marti < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
begin Dan Blum quotation of Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:18:31AM -0500:

> > We have to act on multiple fronts. Lobby against NSA over-reach, lobby
> against and expose PLA cyberattacks, create alternatives to creepy
> products, and work to protect the products that users and businesses depend
> on.
>
> No single avenue of effort provides a panacea and we'll never overcome
> corrupt governments, organized or disorganized cybercrime or unscrupulous
> hacktivists. But we must continue the ongoing struggle to right the balance
> in the favor of the common good.

Won't somebody please think of the developers in
other countries?

"Hi, Josef, what are you hacking on?"

"Privacy technology."

"But the Ministry of Peace and Love is there to
protect us! Privacy technology is unpatriotic!"

"I know, but this is to keep us safe from the NSA!"

"Oh, I see...right on, then!"

--
Don Marti                                 +1-510-332-1587 (mobile)
http://zgp.org/~dmarti/                   Alameda, California, USA
">
See you at SCaLE: 21-23 Feb. 2014, Los Angeles: socallinuxexpo.org

and I think petitions tend to come from weakness rather than strength, and too often tend to have zero effects. But I'll sign it."

I agree Doc! 

But what if each click came with 25 cents? And its not just the money... I believe it changes the way the 'clicker' comes to think of his own potential... as well as how the intended recipients view it.

I'd bet a politician would view $100,000 coming from 400,000 people clicking quarters... as much more important to pay attention to than either $400,000 coming from 1 rich guy... or an online petition signed by a million people... but with no money connected.

But its a hypothetical... and we'll never know until its there. Similarly, for my money (pun intended) this has a lot to do with the reason why Facebook's "Causes' goes nowhere.





On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Doc Searls < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

Well I signed the petition... but I've become a bit cynical about their potentials.

I haven't yet, mostly because I've been busy, and I think petitions tend to come from weakness rather than strength, and too often tend to have zero effects. But I'll sign it.

("A cynic is a romantic who's heart has been broken." I don't know where I heard it but it seems the mood of much of the nation and Western World)

The closest source is Rick Bayan, according to Wikiquote: <http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cynicism>

(Long quotes tend to get shortened in popular use. For example, "Amara's Law" has become "We tend to overestimate in the short term and underestimate in the long."  But the original was more wordy than that, and not his line alone.)


P.S. This should be of interest:

Facebook Fraud

about the problems with ad revenue fraud based on clicks.

This is what you get with a monoculture. I think it's a better example of that than of anything we can address well with VRM, except to the degree we support a rich and diversified business ecology.

Also a thought:

I'm reading "12 Years a Slave" (haven't seen the movie... but its a great book)... and here we're talking about a guy with a very real VRM problem.

And a significant attempt at VRM for him could... and very nearly did... lead to a noose. It ultimately took GRM (Government Relationship Management) to address. But it was a very bloody process... 

I think the example is extreme, but there are parallels.

While it is true that, on the whole, business values captive customers (and markets) more than free ones, there are exceptions that prove that this is not a rule for all business. (I give a some examples in The Intention Economy, notably Trader Joe's.)

While I'd agree the potential for VRM is to be best developed through tools designed for the Internet landscape... if serious attention to GRM is not similarly addressed...

It may all be for naught.

While slavery was a market horror that required government solution, I'm not sure it follows that GRM is required for VRM to work. Still, I do encourage us to watch and support the vertical VRM efforts, starting with GRM:

— What Britt Blaser et. al. are doing with GRM
— What Adrian Gropper et. al. are doing with HRM (Health RM)
— What Bill Wendell et. al. are doing with RERM (Real Estate RM)

I'll let them fill in the links. In a rush here.

Doc


Tom Crowl


On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:33 AM, Doc Searls < " target="_blank"> >wrote:
Just sharing.

Doc

Begin forwarded message:

Subject: Today, we fight back
Date: February 11, 2014 at 8:02:42 AM EST


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.