Sorry for the delayed response!
You have to love Serendipity. While catching up on my VRM inbox I happened to be listening to Copland's 'A Lincoln Portrait.' The quote jumped out asking to be shared!
VRM is vital for sustainable free market economies as they become digital. VRM concepts are equally if not more vital for free constitutional democracies as the people go digital. The power is with the people in a constitutional form of government. Where the people in a constitutional form of government go, so goes their power and so goes their rights to protect that power. As we the people today, in the blink of a generation, move our lives to the digital realm, so goes our digital power and so goes our digital rights to protect that digital power. The analog power and the analog rights already exist, they just have not yet clearly emerged in the digital realm.
Security expert Bruce Schneier characterizing our current paradigm as feudal with lords (Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple...) and vassals. We pledge our allegiance to the lords of our devices and holders of our data. ( https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/12/feudal_sec.html ). I hope that with groups like VRM we can skip past feudalism and stay with free market constitutional democracies. On Apr 12, 2014, at 11:50 AM, Doc Searls <
">
> wrote: An interesting angle. Hence the subject change.
With a monopoly, one seller controls the market for many buyers.
With a monopsony, one buyer controls the market for many sellers.
While monopsony customarily refers to the advantage one large buyer (e.g. a government) can have over many sellers, I found myself thinking that it might also apply to the state we might seek for each of us as customers, with VRM.
Not saying this is an ideal state; just that it's fodder for thought, especially if guided by that Lincoln line.
Doc
On Apr 12, 2014, at 12:03 PM, Jonathan King <
">
> wrote: As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. ~ Abraham Lincoln On Apr 8, 2014, at 10:55 PM, Doc Searls <
">
> wrote: I think the tide is turning on this stuff, as more people become aware of the Faustian natures of the bargains they're making with the Facebooks of the world. Less investment is going into unwelcome surveillance and more into privacy protection and related work. Or so it seems to me at 11:51 on a Tuesday night.
But I should put my bias on the table. To me — and I hope to others involved in ProjectVRM — our work is toward giving the individual more agency in the world, including more control over their own exposures. That goes for the CEOs you'd like to spy on in your scenario, as well as everybody else.
Doc
On Apr 8, 2014, at 11:39 PM, Lucas Cioffi <
">
> wrote: Hi All, this one's for the futurists out there...
These days, if the average person's geographic location is made public, that person usually is the one who made it public using a service like Foursquare.
In the future, do we expect that to not be the case? If Facebook opened up a facial recognition API, would we expect that most public, geographic check-ins would instead be made by third-party apps & hardware without consent of the one who gets checked-in?
For example, I'm guessing many people would jump at the chance to get free car insurance in exchange for mounting a facial recognition scanner to the roof of their car. The driver gets free insurance, and while driving to pick up groceries, he uploads a few hundred people's locations to some company's cloud.
I could see a bunch of new applications for data like this. For example, if my company is competing with another company, then I could pay $100 to use a search engine which could tell me all the buildings that the competing CEO has walked into over the past 2 years and which new clients he/she has been meeting with this week.
These questions come to mind: How is this good/bad? Is this inevitable? Does this change human behavior in significant ways? -- Lucas Cioffi
Charlottesville, VA 917-528-1831
|