Adrian, you've been making sense about this stuff for years. And I think what you pose with the PPR Information Governance Label is an excellent place to start with lawmaking around privacy and surveillance.It says,Patient Privacy Rights Information Governance Label August 19, 2019 Note: 0-to-5 of the boxes to be checked by the application, device, or service provider.1. No sharing: The data is never shared with any external entities. It is not even shared in de-identified form.2. No aggregation: The data is never aggregated with other types of input or data from external sources. This includes mixing the data gathered via The Service with other data, such as patient-reported outcomes.3. Always voluntary self-identification: The user of The Service is able to choose their own identity. The user does not need to have their identity verified unless required by law.4. Digital agent support: The user is able to specify a digital agent, trustee, or equivalent information manager, and this specified agent will not be subject to certification or censorship.5. No vendor lock-in: The Service is easily and conveniently substitutable, so the user can easily move their data to another vendor providing a similar service. This prevents vendor lock-in and is often accomplished using Open Standards. Indications for Use: The five separately self-asserted statements on the PPR Information Governance Label are subject to legal enforcement as would the privacy policy associated with The Service.I cite it as well in What law might clear the way for VRM development?At least the first four of those things should be plain requirements of every company operating online. (I'd like the fifth, but I'm not sure it can be defined well enough, and might preclude market entrance by a first mover for which there are no competitors.)Obviously, there should be room for individuals to permit exceptions to those rules. But those should be normalized and scalable by the individual across multiple providers.DocOn Sep 17, 2019, at 5:59 AM, Adrian Gropper < " target="_blank"> > wrote:Indeed, the governance issue needs a “race to the top” that visibly rewards vendors and service providers that go the extra mile. My new car does not “need” to collect, use, or aggregate data about me. In case they choose to offer a service that does benefit from data about me, they can choose to respect my authorization server so that I can manage consent on my own terms via my own user interface.A race to the top needs clear winners and runners-up to encourage improvement and allow the vendor a clear marketing benefit that will warrant a higher price or customer loyalty.To the extent VRM / Me2B shares this strategy, we need to provide a ranking system that is clear, standardized, and enforceable by the FTC. It should apply to the widest possible range of services so that customers do not have to deal with different metrics for advertising vs. cars vs. shopping sites, etc...The only example of this I’m aware of is the PPR Information Governance Label https://ssrn.com/abstract=3439701 Do we know of other clear and standardized labels? How would we improve this one?Adrian--On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 5:13 AM Guy Jarvis < " target="_blank"> > wrote:StJ,With reference to your closing point ie how do we achieve effective governance, perhaps persuading/encouraging some "iconic" businesses to adopt genuine VRM and thereby giving them a demonstrable advantage over their competitors (customer attraction/retention eg) is a way forwards also?My concern with attempting a global-scale outcome directly is that such a strategy risks falling foul of geo-politics (blue church Vs red insurgency etc)GuyJOn Tue, 17 Sep 2019, 09:39 StJ Deakins, < " target="_blank"> > wrote:Hi Guy (apologies I’ve been reading and lurking on this string as it’s busy season for us)Double +1 on both the comments about using different lenses - and on the limits of national regulation in a global digital world. Both spot on. GDPR is great if I live in Belgium, less great if I live in Botswana or Belize (or Birmingham, Alabama). This is the grand issue we need to be working toward solving. Handily, to work on a global level, VRM/ Me2B/ HumanCentric tech will need to be global and available to all. So we have the beginnings of a global Citizenry. The question for me is what governance should look like (as has been commented on at length here).StJOn 16 September 2019 at 16:54:48, Guy Huntington ( " rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"> ) wrote:
Hi All,
I’ve been reading the threads with interest. I have a slightly different perspective. It can best be summarized by Shoshanna Zuboff’s quote from her book “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power”
“One explanation for surveillance capitalism’s many triumphs floats above them all: it is unprecedented. The unprecedented is necessarily unrecognizable. When we encounter something unprecedented, we automatically interpret it through the lenses of familiar categories, thereby rendering invisible precisely that which is unprecedented.”
She uses her house being struck by lightning as an example. It began to catch fire. She rushed around closing doors to rooms to prevent smoke damage and also picked up photos
As she exited the house, she watched the entire house burn down. “I was blind to conditions that were unprecedented in my experience.”
This is the age in which we now live, i.e. unprecedented. It’s global, yet we use nation states to deal with it. It’s driven by technology which is now changing so fast, we can’t cognitively keep up with it. Our climate is changing, yet we set nation state targets to deal with it, that look like it won’t meet the challenge. Finally, there’s the point which led me to write this post, i.e. automation.
Like Shoshanna, we use our old lenses, based on our history, to view forward. Yes, we’ve seen automation, i.e. steam engines, factory lines, et al. That’s how we view going forward, i.e. sure jobs will be lost but they’ll be replaced by other new jobs. This was the American dream. My point is I can’t see it happening.
In China, where labour is cheap, they have factories run by robots.
In the UK, there’s businesses built where they automate the back-end warehouses of central large shipping warehouses, using robots and air traffic control systems. The result? Only a few people now work there.
Where I live, In Vancouver, BC, there was an article in the paper this past weekend. It was claiming that about 9,000 jobs could be lost in port handling facilities due to automation.
In China, there was a study where they compared real doctors doing diagnosis versus robots. Robots outperformed the doctors. For what it’s worth, over the next decade or so, I feel that all sorts of different job types, from doctors, lawyers through to people who do all sorts of other types of work, will begin to see reduced hours and then job loss.
Our economies are built on Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nation principles. The question that keeps appearing in my head is what is going to happen to those of us who are automated out of jobs, income and a sense of purpose? What if most people don’t have work? This question will slowly emerge into the mainstream as the years progress and job loss gains momentum.
This is only the early days of what I think are unprecedented times. It doesn’t mean today that the sky is falling. It isn’t. However, the fast-moving waters of technological change are swirling in. It will produce an increasingly disruptive force in our economies, in our lives, in our jobs and on the planet.
Regards,
Guy
Adrian Gropper MD
PROTECT YOUR FUTURE - RESTORE Health Privacy!
HELP us fight for the right to control personal health data.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.