Doc this is an excellent piece have you put this out in your blog yet? Would like to Tweet and send this one out as part of continuing to educate the market on what constitutes good manners! Merry Christmas. Best regards
Geraldine McBride CEO MyWave
Sent from my iPad On 19/12/2014, at 5:39 am, Doc Searls <
">
> wrote: [I thought this went out a couple days ago, but found it in my drafts bin.]
In the physical world we know what privacy is and how it works We know it because we've developed privacy technologies and norms for thousands of years. Doors and windows are privacy technologies. So is clothing So are manners respecting the intentions behind others' use of those things. The Internet is a new virtual world we also inhabit. It is less than twenty years old, and came to us with the first browsers, ISPs, email and other handy graces. In many ways it was a paradise. But, as with Eden, we arrived naked there — and we still are, except for the homes and clothing we get from companies like Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple. Also from governments and other entities that certify who we are and limit what we can do. What those entities give us is as modern as the middle ages. We toil and prosper inside the walls of their castles, and on their company lands. In many ways, this isn't bad. But it isn't ours. To have true privacy in the networked world, we should be in charge of our own lives, our own identities, our own data, our own things, in our own ways. We should be able to control what we disclose, to whom, and on what terms. We should be able to keep personal data as secret and secure as we like. We should be able to share that data with others in faith that only those others can see and use it.
Our digital identities should be sovereign — ours alone — and disclosed to others at our discretion. While administrative identifiers are requirements of civilization, they are not who we are, and we all know that.
This is how identity works in the physical world. It is why governments and credit cards call me David while the rest of the world calls me Doc.
In the physical world we are not constantly advertising out identity. Nor are every entity we encounter interested in burdening themselves with knowing our names. It is enough to recognize each other as human beings, and learn their names when they tell us. Up to that point we remain for each other literally anonymous: nameless. This is a civic and social grace we hardly cared about until it was stripped of us online.
In the physical world, companies don't plant tracking beacons on people, or follow them around to see who who are and what they do — unless they’ve been led by big-data-at-all-costs advisors to ape the bad manners of the online world.
Bad manners by companies spying on us online won't change as long as we don't control means of disclosing our selves, including data that is entirely ours. Until we have true privacy — privacy that we define and control for ourselves — all we'll have are: • Crude prophylaxis, such as tracking and advertising blockers
• Talk about which companies screw us the least
• Talk about how governments screw us too • New laws and regulations that protect yesterday from last Thursday
We won’t get that privacy until we have the online equivalents of the clothing, doors and manners we have long established in the physical world.
For that, we need the next Barney. See the first of the here, for Barney’s in New York. Was brilliant in its day:
And thanks, T.Rob, for finding it. :-)
Doc On Dec 16, 2014, at 5:56 PM, Devon M T Loffreto <
" class="">
> wrote:
This is an endless debate. Why does it exist?
"Privacy" is not about making data opaque for the sake of obscurity and non-use.
Actionable "privacy" is about self-producing leverage. Leverage is good, whether judged at the scale of one, or the scale of many. The elimination of leverage can be both positive and negative, depending on the angle of output that people interact with.
This is why we are here on this 'VRM' list. To converse about how our use and design of technology affects leverage in both personal and systemic manners.
Institutional | Customer
Indie | Owner
Where do you occupy an actionable presence? To what end?
This will define your participation in this conversation. Self-interest is a preservative medium.
As many of us invest effort and $ this holiday season, participating in the multitude of ways that global/National/local commerce happens... consider the role of technologies in making outcomes you value happen. When you choose Amazon, you choose robotic labor at the level of pick & pack skills. Local diversity and revenue flow is most certainly affected. Yes, the absence of local merchandising/stock positions frees labor up to climb the value chain. It also reinvents the value chain, and at a pace that by any inspection, eclipses the capacity of our education system to distribute meaningful intelligence.
Personal privacy is mis-defined by many people... and yes, under-valuing personal leverage happens everyday... everywhere... yet, this does nothing to clarify how you participate within an evolving systemic approach to utilizing data leverage to your own advantage, and perhaps create opportunities for others to do the same by your entrepreneurial efforts.
Debate around systemic notions or leverage versus personal notions of leverage are not likely to go away. The question is, do you know how to use your personal Rights to change what is systemically possible or not?
There is no need to beg for privacy. There is no need to march for privacy.
Personal Sovereignty is actionable and enforceable. Courage is variable.... thus diversity of experiences.
Devon
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Graham Reginald Hill <
" class="">
> wrote:
Hi Iain
Surely the two are related.
Best regards from Bristol, Graham
--
Dr. Graham Hill
" class="">
UK +44 7564 122 633
DE +49 170 487 6192
http://twitter.com/GrahamHill
http://www.linkedin.com/in/grahamhill
http://www.customerthink.com/graham_hill
Partner
Optima Partners
http://www.optimapartners.co.uk
Senior Associate
Nyras Capital
http://www.nyras.co.uk
Associate
Ctrl-Shift
https://www.ctrl-shift.co.uk
Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. Dezember 2014 um 13:35 Uhr
Von: "Iain Henderson" <
">
>
An: "Wunderlich, John" <
">
>
Cc: "Graham Reginald Hill" <
">
>, "T.Rob" <
">
>, "ProjectVRM list" <
">
>
Betreff: Re: [projectvrm] Greg Satell on Let’s Face It, We Don’t Really Care About Privacy
Well said John.
The purpose of this list, as I recall it, is to discuss and foster the development of VRM or related projects; not to debate whether VRM or the mind set that wishes to build on the side of the individual is a good idea. Perhaps we need a separate list for that debate (I for one won’t be joining).
Cheers
Iain
> On 16 Dec 2014, at 12:56, Wunderlich, John <
">
> wrote:
>
> Graham;
>
> <Rant alert>
>
> Companies do things all the time. Depending on the country, we're talking about, they use child labour, shoot union militants, or expose workers to poisonous chemicals. All of these practices are in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In many cases, however, they are clearly lawful in the countries where they occur, not least because in many of those countries, the companies write the laws (see Elizabeth Warren's recent comments on Citibank and Dodd-Frank for a 1st world example). None of these examples 'drive a coach and horse' through the rights being violate. They just demonstrate that people and the companies they run are flawed.
>
> This is not a fruitful discussion. I'm on the list because I think that there is a way to build system that respect user choice and that, in the long run, agency has to be shared with users. That's the essence of the privacy discussion in a commercial setting - individuals should have some element of choice and control over what is done with their information, and should have some element of choice and control over their browsers, computers and information environment. I'm not on this list to make apologies for companies that vioate user trust or privacy in the name of 'innovation' or 'progress'.
>
> <Rant over>
>
> I support initiatives like Open Notice, Customer Commons, and the Respect Network because they recognize and support user agency and move away from what I believe are abusive and non-sustainable models.
>
> JW
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, December 16, 2014, Graham Reginald Hill <
">
> wrote:
> Hi T.Rob
>
> There is always discussion to be had. The UN is just another political talking shop. Discussion is its stock in trade. Enacting laws is not.
>
> Your settled facts may be others' fantasy fiction. Companies routinely collect vaste amount of data about individuals. They then 'aggregate, correlate, match and refine' it. It is clearly lawful to do so. I think that rather drives a coach and horses through your rather extreme interpretation of the right to privacy. One that appears to be neither supported by Article 8 that you referred to, nor by the Data Protection and Privacy and Electronic Communications regulations .
>
> Best regards from
>
> --
> Dr. Graham Hill
>
">
> UK +44 7564 122 633
> DE +49 170 487 6192
> http://twitter.com/GrahamHill
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/grahamhill
> http://www.customerthink.com/graham_hill
>
> Partner
> Optima Partners
> http://www.optimapartners.co.uk
>
> Senior Associate
> Nyras Capital
> http://www.nyras.co.uk
>
> Associate
> Ctrl-Shift
> https://www.ctrl-shift.co.uk
>
>
> Gesendet: Montag, 15. Dezember 2014 um 20:17 Uhr
> Von: "T.Rob" <
">
>
> An: "'Graham Hill'" <
">
>
> Cc: "'ProjectVRM list'" <
">
>
> Betreff: RE: [projectvrm] Greg Satell on Let’s Face It, We Don’t Really Care About Privacy
> > I was rather expecting that you would have read the sources before responding.
>
>
> My apologies, Graham. For me, statements like "It is not as though [privacy] is a human right!" cast a long shadow of doubt on the credibility of anything else in the same post. Since the claim made is false on its face, any evidence presented to support it has either been misconstrued or else was used appropriately but is similarly disposable. Hence, TL;DR.
>
>
> Also, the sources quoted cannot inform the discussion when there is no discussion to be had. My problem with tracking and data brokerage has always been the sense of entitlement proponents claim for these practices. Privacy *is* an entitlement according to the UN and all its member countries. The burden of protecting that privacy is imposed on holders of Personal Data as a means of ensuring that right of privacy. The collection, aggregation, correlation, matching and refining of personal data by corporations, is not an entitlement.
>
>
> I consider these to be settled facts. In that context, claims to the contrary stop any discussion in its tracks. We have no common ground so long as you propose that privacy is not a human right and that the technical ability to collect personal data *is* a right. (That last is resurrecting a claim made in a prior thread which dovetails with this one).
>
>
> Kind regards from the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames,
>
> -- T.Rob
>
>
> > PS. I was reading an interesting article on click-bait this morning. If only I could remember where I had seen it.
>
> Probably this one: http://iopt.us/1srb0bf
>
>
> From: Graham Hill [
">mailto:
]
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 13:06 PM
> To: T.Rob
> Cc: ProjectVRM list
> Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Greg Satell on Let’s Face It, We Don’t Really Care About Privacy
>
>
> Hi T.Rob
>
>
> I posted Greg's blog post to drive a little conversation. I am pleased that you have responded, albeit in a rather effervescent way. This wasn't perhaps the type of response that I had in mind. I was rather expecting that you would have read the sources before responding. Having said that, I am pleased for each and every comment. All of us are smarter than any of us!
>
>
> Privacy as an ethical concept is relative and contextual rather than absolute and fixed. What you or I consider 'private' depends upon our respective circumstances and our personal quid pro quo. Both the Pew Internet Report on 'Public Perceptions of Privacy and Security in the Post-Snowdeen Era' (http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/11/12/public-privacy-perceptions/) and the earlier Boston Consulting Group report on 'Data Privacy by the Numbers' (http://www.slideshare.net/TheBostonConsultingGroup/data-privacy-by-the-numbers) support that view. They show that people are willing to give away quite large amounts of information about themselves in exchange for something of value.
>
>
> When I wrote that 'many people are concerned about their lack of digital privacy they typically expect someone else, i.e. government, to do something about it' I was merely paraphrasing the Pew Internet report that said (on Page 4) '64% believe the government should do more to regulate advertisers, compared with 34% who think the government should not get more involved'.
>
>
> I am a little reluctant to discuss privacy as a legal concept as I am not a lawyer. I suspect that you are not a lawyer either. However, Article 8 that you mention appears to be both somewhat relative in its nature and only applicable to public authorities. Even then, it gives them unspecified leeway to override an individual's privacy where necessary to protect the interests of security, public safety and the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of heath and morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. As Greg's post was about privacy in a business marketing setting and my post was triggered by his, I am not entirely sure if Article 8 applies in these circumstances. Other legislation like Data Protection and Privacy and Electronic Communication obviously do apply. But that is a different topic entirely.
>
>
> As Greg's blog, the other sources and my final remark all hinted at, everything does have its price. Privacy is no different. It is relative and contextual. It depends on our personal quid pro quo. The laws protecting it appear to be aimed at public authorities and even then gives them plenty of leeway to act differently. Perhaps I should have said, 'it is hardly as though privacy is a human right'.
>
>
> Best regards from Bristol, Graham
>
>
> PS. I was reading an interesting article on click-bait this morning. If only I could remember where I had seen it.
>
>
>
> On 15 Dec 2014, at 16:40, T.Rob <
">
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > Everything has its price. Privacy is no different. It is not as though it is a human right!
>
>
> Really? Is this a principle of your consulting practice because if so you might be advising your clients to commit crimes against humanity.
>
>
> I refer you to Article 12 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights(http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a12 ) which states:
>
>
> No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
>
>
> Of course, some clients might scoff at the authority of the UN. If they happen to be in the UK then perhaps they recognize Article 8 of the Human Rights Act of 1988 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/7 ) which states:
>
>
> Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
>
>
> No multi-million pound ad campaign will erase the human right to privacy. This isn't one of those subjective things like "Coke is better than Pepsi" that you can just keep repeating until it becomes true for your target demographic. You'll actually need to convince a bunch of people to repeal some laws first.
>
>
> > although many people are concerned about their lack of digital privacy they typically expect someone else, i.e. government, to do something about it.
>
>
> Ya think? Perhaps that's because the government has pledged to do exactly that when they passed the law. See above for references. Some would say the government are actually *obliged* to uphold the aforementioned laws as if doing so were, you know, mandatory and stuff.
>
>
> Of course, I may be dead wrong about all this. It has happened before. (I know, right?) In that case can you tell us who, besides you, is above these laws and why? Also, it would be handy to have a spreadsheet because us citizensserfs tend to assume nobody is above the laws and, at least in my case, find it difficult to identify those who are. Take you for instance. There is no crown in your profile photo or other identifying characteristic to indicate your elevated extrajudicial status. It is only when you put words to (virtual) paper that anyone can tell that the laws don't apply to you.
>
>
> Barring that possibility, we now return you to your regularly scheduled reality where, yes, there is an actual universal human right of privacy.
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> -- T.Rob
>
>
> T.Robert Wyatt, Managing partner
>
> IoPT Consulting, LLC
>
> +1 704-443-TROB (8762) Voice/Text
>
> +44 (0) 8714 089 546 Voice
>
> https://ioptconsulting.com
>
> https://twitter.com/tdotrob
>
>
> From: Graham Hill [
">mailto:
]
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 10:39 AM
> To: Doc Searls
> Cc: ProjectVRM list
> Subject: [projectvrm] Greg Satell on Let’s Face It, We Don’t Really Care About Privacy 
>
>
> Hi Doc
>
>
> Harvard Business Review blogger Greg Satell has just published an interesting post on 'Let’s Face It, We Don’t Really Care About Privacy' on his Digital Tonto blog (http://www.digitaltonto.com/2014/lets-face-it-we-dont-really-care-about-privacy/?utm_source=Digital%20Tonto%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=848a327f51-The_Social_Tax12_13_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3e316dce02-848a327f51-389199989&ct=t%28The_Social_Tax12_13_2014%29). Greg references a new Pew Internet Report on 'Public Perceptions of Privacy and Security in the Post-Snowdeen Era' (http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/11/12/public-privacy-perceptions/) that highlights that although many people are concerned about their lack of digital privacy they typically expect someone else, i.e. government, to do something about it. And as an earlier Boston Consulting Group report on 'Data Privacy by the Numbers' (http://www.slideshare.net/TheBostonConsultingGroup/data-privacy-by-the-numbers) shows, these same people are often willing to give away increasingly intimate information about themselves in exchange for something of value.
>
>
> As the old saying hoses… Everything has its price. Privacy is no different. It is not as though it is a human right!
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> Best regards from Bristol, Graham
>
>
> --
>
> Dr. Graham Hill
>
>
">
>
> UK +44 7564 122 633
>
> DE +49 170 487 6192
>
> http://twitter.com/GrahamHill
>
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/grahamhil
>
>
> Partner
>
> Optima Partners
>
> http://www.optimapartners.co.uk
>
>
> Senior Associate
>
> Nyras Capital
>
> http://www.nyras.co.uk
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dr. Graham Hill
>
>
">
>
> UK +44 7564 122 633
>
> DE +49 170 487 6192
>
> http://twitter.com/GrahamHill
>
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/grahamhil
>
>
> Partner
>
> Optima Partners
>
> http://www.optimapartners.co.uk
>
>
> Senior Associate
>
> Nyras Capital
>
> http://www.nyras.co.uk
>
>
>
>
> --
> John Wunderlich
> Fat fingered from a mobile device
> Pleez 4give spelling errurz!
>
>
>
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.
This email and any attachment contains information which is private and confidential and is intended for the addressee only. If you are not an addressee, you are not authorised to read, copy or use the e-mail or any attachment. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and then destroy it.
|