This article was originally posted at the I Shared What?!? blog on 7 December 2010.
The Wall Street Journal has an interesting story about a rare moment of legislative censure. “In an unusual move, the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection asked a Columbia University Law School professor to censor his remarks in a hearing about online privacy legislation,” states WSJ author Jennifer Valentino-DeVries. Whose testimony was censored? Eben Moglen, Professor of Law and Legal History at Columbia University Law School, Chairman of the Software Freedom Law Center, and Director of the Software Freedom Conservancy.
Moglen’s testimony got to the heart of the problem of information sharing as it is now: Read more…
This article was originally posted at the I Shared What?!? blog on 19 November 2010.
One of the beautiful things about voluntary, personal information sharing is that we have the option to interact with our friends and colleagues–as part of our social network–using a variety of tools and Internet services. It’s often a harsh reality check to be reminded that some of those tools and services don’t really want us to share in ways that we would like.
So it goes with sharing between service providers Google and Facebook. Each of them have useful collaborative, content sharing tools such as Facebook’s walls (telling in subtle ways) and photos, and Google’s docs, groups, and YouTube. Both providers also have ways to use your login as a single sign-on with other services (Facebook Connect and Google Friend Connect).
What’s new: Google is reminding us that sharing your contacts with Facebook is a one-way street. It’s helpful to have a reminder that our sharing is not just about us, but often includes details and data about our friends that they may or may not wish to share about themselves. It’s a messy world while we figure this out.
Fatemeh Khatibloo, Forrester Research moderates panel with Jason Cavnar, Singly, Todd Cullen, Acxiom, Shane Green, Personal, and Mary Hodder, Personal Data Ecosystem Consortium.
Fatemeh: why do consumers care? Jason: consumers have a sense of things being out of control. Todd: clients desperately looking for meaningful way to interact with consumers. On supply side, it’s new territory. Huge demand on marketer’s side. Shane: at core, we realize that who has access to our data shapes our experience, access, opportunities. Value: there’s a blindspot about what data is worth in additional value exchange. The more you start to see the opportunities as tangible, the more value is obtainable. Mary: This event is at a good time. As users get stalked online, they become aware that something’s happening, don’t know what to do, start calling senators. Opportunity for alternative to Do Not Track legislation, market solutions.
Fatemeh: privacy audits, do they provide a false sense of security when the government starts to audit the big companies? Shane: follow the money: big money in top right corner of Facebook (strong tie to advertising). People are waking up in unexpected ways to see connections between dollars and sense. Survey in their marketing: difference between “stuff in the attic that might be sold” vs “spy or thief in my attic.” Jason: general awareness, at consumer level it’s my data, Sand Hill Road and companies that make money monetizing personal data. He’d like to see Silicon Valley invest in this respect as better model. Mary: zooming out a bit, how this works revolves around incentives (shipping parties, 3rd parties) and how they’re structured, and how does that structure support the business model? Going back down to audits: they’re meant to inspire fear as provocation to do the right thing. But how to incentivize the parties to do the right thing from consumer’s perspective?
Fatemeh to Todd: privacy and audits, marketing disconnect, who do we talk with in these organizations to make a difference? Todd: I wish it were one person such as a data steward, but that’s really rare. Our data is traveling around the web, should be easy to capture it for free. As long as this disconnect persists among marketers, no incentive to contribute to solving “a problem.”
Jason: Infrastructure needs to be put in place. Shane: lots of teaching, CEOs don’t understand how they got in the Wall Street Journal for spying on people. Mary: we talk to folks in advertising and trade agencies, Salesforce and CRM companies, media buying entities… right now they’re heavy users of personal data online. Folks are getting on board, need to know what business model is and how to fix this. Jason: there’s an enterprise need for interoperability too. Business model will be around easy access to customer control of data.
Fatemeh: industries that will help propel this forward, who has the most to lose and the most to gain? Jason: it’s the #2 in every market. Mary: banking and finance, there’s a lot to gain, high value in helping with most basic functions (e.g., reconciling statements with Mint), documenting meta-data around trades of data. Shane: agree that #2, 3, 4 players have a lot to gain. This is really tough for big incumbents because of embedded complex systems. Too much friction getting access to certain kinds of data that could reinvent/innovate travel processes, for example. Smaller innovators can tool up faster. Todd: high tech firms are not traditionally big buyers of data. Drive to grow globally: lack of reputable suppliers.
Forrester analyst Fatemeh Khatibloo asked if people had made available their report Making Leaders Successful Every Day. Report is available from Personal. She talks about car buying process as an example: start with personal RFP-type offer, receive offers that are customized to our concerns. Our interactions with dealers lead to purchase of a car. (Related: see ISWG’s Car Buying Engagement Model.)
Five key concepts that brands and companies need to do to engage:
Respect my data, respect me
Security of infrastructure, governance
Transparency
Data portability
Economy, including penalties for bad behavior
Why is this coming? Consumers are fed up (breaches), but want relevance, convenience and value. Gigya study on single sign-on says many people use social sites for logins.
What should marketers & brands be thinking about: Rewrite your privacy policies to be understood. Create an organization-wide data governance policy. Install a data steward to liase between org and consumers (distinct from IT Privacy officer). Start working towards true data portability.
In future, Forrester is looking at redefining personal data, trust frameworks, how VCs look at this industry, etc.
Lots of problems managing registration and authorization account. Various threats compromise computers. Need for better management tools that are easy to use and secure. Here’s a OneID demo video that shows more.
The Wall Street Journal has an interesting story about a rare moment of legislative censure. “In an unusual move, the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection asked a Columbia University Law School professor to censor his remarks in a hearing about online privacy legislation,” states WSJ author Jennifer Valentino-DeVries. Whose testimony was censored? Eben Moglen, Professor of Law and Legal History at Columbia University Law School, Chairman of the Software Freedom Law Center, and Director of the Software Freedom Conservancy.![[del.icio.us]](http://digitalidcoach.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Facebook]](http://digitalidcoach.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[LinkedIn]](http://digitalidcoach.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/linkedin.png)
![[Ma.gnolia]](http://digitalidcoach.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/magnolia.png)
![[Technorati]](http://digitalidcoach.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Twitter]](http://digitalidcoach.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
![[Email]](http://digitalidcoach.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)