I think the divide is pretty basic. I think there are people out there who see the Internet as a way of employing the same old techniques of SHILL, SHILL, SHILL. A hundred years ago, they would have rolled up to you in a wagon, shouting about their tonic. Fifty years ago, they would have rolled their vacuum cleaners up to your door.

The other side, the side I am on, is the one that sees an organic Internet full of people. Sure, when I have a book come out, I will often say, “Please, could you buy a copy? I need to buy food and Post-it notes and hamsters.” But in reality, I wouldn’t suggest it if I didn’t think you would like it. I have a lot of fun writing my books, and hey, if you can buy one, great! I think it’s just as great if you take it out of the library. I write because I actually like doing it, and through some miracle of science, I get paid, so wayhay!

Coaching moment: It’s important to take a minute and think about what great things computers, networks, social media, and other interactions with technology bring to you. Is it about being more of who you are? Well, yes it is. It’s also about who your friends, family, and colleagues are. It’s a shared environment. Not very many people will stand for others who don’t listen or hear, where the conversation is only one way. How long would you put up with it?

Creative commons photo credit: [puamelia] on Flickr. Thanks!

Update: Love Doc Searls post on this too.

More »

Related posts:

1. Commerce and Self
2. What They Know
3. Planning for the Future (Info Sharing)

It’s instructive to find out what they know! Several years ago (2006), my friends at Privacy Rights Clearinghouse wrote a post called For the New Year, Resolve to Check Yourself Out that will help you do this. Their list of resources will help you understand who you are from the perspectives of your:

• Credit history
• Medical Information
• Bank account history
• Insurance claims
• Public records
• Search engines

I’d add one point to their last bullet. If you have an account on Google, you can now go into your Google Account Settings (look for the link in the upper right corner to Settings). Under Personal Settings, look for Dashboard: View Data Stored with this Account. It’s a view of what Google knows about you.

Coaching moment: It can be both overwhelming and empowering to know this much about your world. Fortunately, the overwhelming feeling can be countered by putting the story together and taking control of the problems. You’re creating a story, a narrative of who you are. Fix your problems if you can. Imagine a world in which you controlled your own information and others came to you for it. That world might be highly customizable in ways that were unique to you. What would that look and feel like?

More »

Related posts:

1. Stateless Distributed Membership
2. On Data and Disclosure
3. On Sharing Information

My proposal for a Stateless Distributed Membership is a mouthful, so I’ll unpack it a bit. There are three parts: a membership, being stateless, and being distributed.

Membership

Let me start with the easy part. You probably understand the idea of membership as a group or association of people contributing to something like a conversation or project. They’re members of a group, or in my case, members of a conversation or project on my site. Nothing unusual about this idea.

Being Stateless

Next is the idea of being stateless. In computer science, the http protocol that you use to call a web page and associated resources is stateless because you call a page from the URL or a link in your browser, the server responds by sending the page, graphics, or whatever, then you see it. Each request is separate; there’s no need to stay connected to the servers. In my case, being “stateless” means that each transaction is independent. Eve Maler talks about a stateless identity in her post Both a data borrower and a data lender be:

This is a kind of data statelessness, in that when you tell various sites they can set, read, and republish your [information from your Personal Data Store], they’re letting go of any pretense of exclusive hosting control so that they can offer you a different kind of value.

Now, in the IdM and VRM worlds, some of us have been talking about identity statelessness for a while, which is similar but looks more like straight data-sharing (reading) rather than arbitrary service access (setting).

For some reason this is a tougher sell — even though CRM systems and user accounts are shot through with pale copies of stale data (and, in the enterprise case, even though syncing directories and replicating databases is brittle and no fun).

Even when one party — say, you yourself — is authoritative for some piece of personal data (like your home address), all the sites insist on making you provision a copy of this data into their profile pages by hand and by value, and insist on thinking they own something truly valuable even after you move and forget to tell them.

The bottom line: if I don’t insist on “owning” your data, we both will realize more value from our trust and flexibility. It’s daring, and in the larger scheme of things, I believe it’s a Good Thing.

Distributed

Finally, the term distributed refers to the fact that all parts of the conversation or projects are stored elsewhere on the net. If you wish to add a comment to a conversation on my server, your comment is added to your personal datastore (wherever it is, and whatever form it might take). When you wish to read the conversation, my server compiles the contributions as needed.

In this model, I do need to maintain a database of where to find your comments and a way to authorize you as the person who granted permission for me to include them in the conversation on my website. But think of it: if you want to revoke permission for me to use your comments, you can. How revolutionary (and potentially messy) is that?

Furthermore, you may choose to log in using an identity that’s different from the last one you used. That works on my server. For example, you might wish to be a regular person contributing to most conversations, but if you’re a professional fundraiser and one of the threads is about raising funds for a non-profit, you may wish to disclose your work and position in that context. Your two identities describe different parts of your life, and you may have good reasons to keep those parts separate.

The IIW Session

In my session, I described this concept and asked what people thought about it. I offered three scenarios where people might interact. One of them: a conversation or forum where blog posts and trackbacks can help create a threaded conversation. The session is an hour-long exploration and discovery of the possibilities. If you have questions or can add a piece to this puzzle, I’d love to hear from you.

My heartfelt thanks go to the people with whom I’ve spoken about this, including =JeffH, Eve, the guy at the end of the video talking with me about trackbacks (I’m sorry I can’t find your name), several others who made great suggestions and shared ideas at my session, and Joe, who spent considerable time exploring underlying frameworks with me.

Coaching moment: You probably have more than one account online, and have likely cursed the problem of forgetting user names and passwords. You may have wished that the picture of you holding a beer wasn’t online for your boss to see. Maybe you’ve been spooked by an advertisement for something that you really didn’t want. If you could do things differently, what would you do? How do you handle your accounts now? Do you feel secure about your online practices? Do you even want to be in control? Not everyone does.

More »

Related posts:

1. IIWX: The Videos
2. The Five A’s of Security
3. Planning for the Future (Info Sharing)

Here are my video archives.

• Markus Sabadello, XRIh-Based Peer to Peer Networking
• Eve Maler, UMA Update (first half only)
• Kevin Marks, Permission vs Consent
• Paul Trevethick, User-Side Data Store
• Doc Searls, VRM Update
• Iain Henderson & William Heath, Kantara/MyDex Research on User Data
• William Heath, Personal Data Store and Politics in the UK
• Mike Hanson, Contacts in your Browser
• Stacey Pitsillides, Cubes
• Jeff Hodges, HTTPS Security Policy
• Doc Searls, EmanciPay update
• Judi Clark (me), Stateless Distributed Membership

My thanks to TubeMogul for distributing these videos, and to Blip.tv for hosting them all.

More »

Related posts:

1. IIW: past and present
2. Agreeing with Maureen’s Manifesto
3. Stateless Distributed Membership

Scenario planning is a way of looking at a complex world and future decisions. Normally the practice of scenario planning takes considerable time (easily weeks to months), research, expertise and analysis to do properly. I was trained to do scenarios by Global Business Network (GBN), a company that first popularized this as a consulting practice. You may be interested in a scenarios paper I wrote back in 2002 for a more general audience, about the balance of power between restrictive/open network access providers and restrictive/open content providers: Our Stake in Cyberspace: The Future of the Internet and Communication As We Know It.

For our workshop purposes, we compressed the scenario planning process down to one day, brainstormed about our decisions and concerns, simplified the research, used the group’s expertise, and came away with simplified, shared insights. I’m still sorting through the notes and will post more about it shortly. One of the bottom lines from this event is this (thanks Joe): if I want to support user-driven access and control of information sharing, I need to be part of the VRM conversation, and help build and support the businesses involved in this work. (So far every VRM-oriented business appears to be in development.) Many of us are part of the conversation (mailing lists, social networking groups, face to face conversations, et al). I invite you to join the mailing list or read and comment on the blogs in the Blogroll (right column).

Coaching moment: What are the most important decisions that you or your business need to make in the next 3-7 years? Your questions might be yes/no or a choice among several. Now look to see what kind of forces affect your decisions. What kind of situations or characteristics or business/environmental forces will impact your decisions the most? Which ones can you do something about?

The process of writing down, then sorting through your mountains of details will often help you see your decision picture more clearly. Your considerations should include things you can do something about, things that affect you directly and need to be addressed. It’s generally not helpful in resolving your individual decisions to spend much time on global concerns that are not relevant to your decisions and out of your control right now, or are otherwise just plain unobtainable.

Basic brainstorming, sorting and planning is something you can do on your own or with friends. It’s not too hard, doesn’t require fancy tools (pencil and paper works well), and there are rewards (possibly great rewards!) for having tried. Don’t quickly push ideas away because they’re silly: sometimes those are the most valuable in the right context. You just need to write everything down, then sort and think about it; maybe re-sort and re-think. Ok, ready?

More »

Related posts:

1. On Sharing Information
2. IIW: past and present
3. The Five A’s of Security

Speaking of IIW and videos, I was just reviewing my videos from last year (IIW IX and IIW8). One lesson learned: last year for IIW IX I tried to live stream the sessions but wow, the network at the Computer History Museum is… how shall I say… less than optimal for anything like staying connected. Many of the videos are in pieces, as the streaming failures usually crashed my browser too.

Here’s what I have from IIW-IX. Sorry about the advertising. I can’t turn it off.

• Data Portability (real start is about 1:20 minutes in) with Elias Bizannes
• Bioinformatics, Identity and the Law (part 1, part 2) with Scott David
• Information Sharing (part 1, part 2) with Joe Andrieu
• Schema Mapping with Paul Trevethick
• Brainstorming about 4th Party Services (part 1, part 2)
• Creating Action Cards (part 1, part 2, part 3) with Phil Windley, Kynetx
• Interview with Steve Fulling, Kynetx (video missing in the beginning)
• Demo: Attribute Aggregation with David Chadwick
• Demo: Tastonomics from Orange Labs (part 1, part 2)
• Demo: Ouno (part 1, part 2)

In contrast, I learned a different set of lessons for IIW8 (last spring). Those videos were recorded to disk. I had them all available as .mov files, but have recently updated them all to flash (still apparently the most commonly used format). Thanks to TubeMogul for distributing them to Blip.tv and iTunes. Here’s the post with links to each downloadable session.

If you’re inclined to join us for next week’s event, the logo above will take you to the registration page. Otherwise, stay tuned for selected video from this unconference.

More »

Related posts:

1. IIWX: The Videos
2. Stateless Distributed Membership
3. On Data and Disclosure

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission says that if you accept things of value (cash, goods, services), you must disclose it in your review. In a news release, FTC Publishes Final Guides Governing Endorsements, Testimonials Changes Affect Testimonial Advertisements, Bloggers, Celebrity Endorsements, the FTC states, in part,

The revised Guides specify that while decisions will be reached on a case-by-case basis, the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service. Likewise, if a company refers in an advertisement to the findings of a research organization that conducted research sponsored by the company, the advertisement must disclose the connection between the advertiser and the research organization. And a paid endorsement – like any other advertisement – is deceptive if it makes false or misleading claims.

How does this work (or not) in real life?

There are two people I know who rarely blog or tweet about anything they haven’t benefited by (directly or indirectly). Their disclosures are hidden if included at all. Does that make them sneaky or dishonest? Not necessarily, but probably (according to the FTC statement above).

Compare: Someone who is very good at promotion, and who loves helping people and companies understand how to use different “social media” tools to help with their commercial outreach efforts. This is clear to everyone who meets her. She discloses her connections and endorsements, and is hired by companies wishing to learn how to be more social.

Current communication tools–including those referred to as “social media”–allow us to blur the lines between our opinions and reviews. When someone does something nice for us, we might spontaneously and publicly say thanks (via a wall post on Facebook or a tweet on Twitter). If someone gives us something with a shared expectation that we’ll say something nice about them, that’s covered under FTC guidelines. “Oh, you’re blogging about our restaurant? The manager says the dessert is on the house.” Who will know? Maybe nobody, but it’s more than your reputation that you’re risking.

Coaching moment: Do you become a different person, all bubbly and joy, when someone does something nice for you? I bet; most of us do. What about when someone does something nice but then advises you how much it’s going to cost? (“Nothing is really free,” and all that.) Not so bubbly and joy, this more manipulative and generally undesirable.

So where’s the trade-off? What goods and services would you happily engage in a social conversation about–because you love the company or their stuff, with our without getting anything free in return? What goods, services, or companies would you feel like you’d be selling your soul to promote? How much are you willing to “leave out” of a review because of free stuff? Where is your bottom line?

More »

Related posts:

1. Planning for the Future (Info Sharing)
2. Things we don’t know
3. Stateless Distributed Membership

Despite our “agreeing” to various sites’ Terms of Service when we sign up for an account, we do not generally “volunteer” to be tracked, our habits quantified, categorized and sold. That raises the question: what if we could control more of what we exchanged? Would we? What would it take?

Obviously stores want to know if we are a serious customer: if we’re looking for the purpose of actually buying, if we can afford the items we’re looking at, and if they should use those items to suggest additional items we might be interested in (or if it was a gift to someone else and we have no personal interest in that item). For example, car dealers would save billions of dollars each year if they could identify serious and qualified buyers without having to create advertisements for television, magazines and newspapers, and billboards everywhere. In fact, it would probably be worth something to us as a serious shopper if we could identify ourselves as such ahead of time and especially during sales negotiations.

Like the car buying story above, scenarios are stories that we tell to help us understand complex environments. Chris Carfi did four nice overview examples in his Social Customer Manifesto’s VRM scenarios. The world of information sharing is complex in many ways: personally (what do I want to share?), politically/regulatorily, in commerce, technologically, and more.

Digital ID Coach is organizing a day-long workshop to look at this subject. We will be engaged in Rapid Scenario Development (a process that usually takes days or weeks). If you’re in the San Francisco bay area on May 16, you’re invited to join us. If not, stay tuned; we’ll be posting notes from that workshop.

Coaching moment: It’s worth thinking about how we use technology, and how it helps us do what we want to do. Technology such as computers, phones, and even programmable devices like thermostats and switches, have obvious benefits like aiding communications or saving energy. Technology also has a cost, like learning to use it or controlling things you don’t want it to do.

In the case of information technology, you’re empowered to connect to friends and resources but you also trade information about your location and other details. Since this will never be a case of only responding to your needs and never exchanging (which technically doesn’t work since the info needs to know where you are to respond to your request), we need to think about that exchange. What would help us the most? What would you be comfortable telling others about?

This is complex because it probably depends on each exchange. However, we can determine policies for general use in categories like “collect but don’t distribute without my express permission,” or “forward at will, this is something I want.” What categories or practices would you suggest?

More »

Related posts:

1. Planning for the Future (Info Sharing)
2. Stateless Distributed Membership
3. IIW: past and present

However, under the guise of “increased security,” we are increasingly surrounded by tools and technologies that minimize and standardize us, including video surveillance and data storage and analysis. About that last link to Google, CEO Eric Schmidt recently said “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.”

This indiscriminate personal data hoarding is both an individual and a societal problem. Schmidt’s argument that we shouldn’t have anything to hide is specious (not to mention a double standard: it doesn’t apply to Schmidt). In a 2007 paper called ‘I’ve Got Nothing to Hide’ and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy, George Washington University Law School’s Daniel J. Solove convincingly critiques that argument. Indeed we have many things to hide, like our passwords and credit card numbers, certain personal habits and preferences, things that contribute to human dignity and respect. As noted security expert Bruce Schneier writes in his essay The Eternal Value of Privacy, “Too many wrongly characterize the debate as “security versus privacy.” The real choice is liberty versus control.”

Ironically, Gary Wolf and Kevin Kelly host a blog called The Quantified Self where they report about people exploring ways to keep track of themselves. It’s a significant difference between curiosity, personal need, and voluntary disclosure that’s driving data sets, and corporate ventures like Facebook (nod to jerking you around again with recent privacy policy changes), Google (Schneier’s response to Schmidt’s quote above), and damned near every corporate site you make an account with and that tracks your every move these days.

I’m looking for examples of sites that encourage liberty and demonstrate some respect for its users/clients. I will be reporting on what I find. If you have suggestions, I welcome them.

Coaching moment: Here’s a little thought exercise. Think about a typical day in your life.

What kind of things do you do in private? These might be taking a shower, brushing your teeth, thinking about the day. Some things might be really private as in just you by yourself, and other things may be private in some context, like thinking about your day out loud with your spouse or partner. Once you get a good list, which of those things would make you uncomfortable if they were made public in some way?

Now think of the kind of things you do in public, like driving to work or the store, walking around, having a conversation over lunch. Think about stories that might be told about you from the perspective of not knowing what you were really doing. You might take clues from signs that you walk by, or maybe other people (posture, groupings, facial expressions). Can you think of any stories that are not only wrong but might hurt you?

Finally, think about your online tools. Have you actually looked at the Terms of Service or Privacy Policies that you’re agreeing to? If you knew they were disrespectful to you or even abusive of your personal self and liberty, would you stop using them? Since the answer is “probably not,” what would you suggest these companies change?

More »

Related posts:

1. What They Know
2. What Data Can Show
3. The Right to be Yourself