Posts Tagged ‘VRM’

IIW14: VRM update

May 1st, 2012
Comments Off

Doc Searls started out by listing many parts of this area on the whiteboard about VRM. As a principle, VRM makes us independent of organizations and better able to engage.

FOSS projects
Freedom Box
4th Parties
Personal Data stores/
Poroject VRM + research
Customer Commons
Trust frameworks
Intent-casting (pRFPs)
Music (industry)
Terms of Engagement
Personally-asserted prefs & policies
Information Sharing

We want to be able to work with CRM, not against.

Concerns: We’re losing more control, ability to manage our own data. We need better communications to be pro-active to be in control. Wondering how it will be commercially viable. VRM is a more efficient market to solve problems.

From solutions side, potentially inverting the info structure is very powerful–info from person to market (accuracy, intent, etc.). Actual known intent is a more powerful than guessing.

Everything that creeps us out is from bad guesswork. Enormous opportunity and a lot of money left on the table due to present market efficiencies. Newly trained quants being sucked up by miserable guesswork.

How does someone verify that another is who they are? Verified identity, trust and reputation, personal data stores to verify. There are many options.

It’s not just about business, not just about my wallet. It’s about relationships and conversations left on the table too. I want it easier to control my part of the world.

Example of a pharmaceutical company filled with doctors but company is run by marketing department. Or a large well-respected auto manufacturer that’s run by their IT department (who limits everything).

What are big catalyzing factors that will help this? We’re one invention away, the necessity that mothers invention. We’re all doing groundwork, necessary but not sufficient. Big orgs will cope, but it’s not their job.

Question: what will it take? Several things, but it gets down to the fact that it answers needs that we currently have in our data flow lives. Example: buying a car (a guy who just goes and gets one for a fee, buyer doesn’t have to deal with dealership. Kantara Info Sharing’s car buying user story illustrates what it might look like.)

It’s also about trust: giving a real phone number generated 50 calls re: health insurance. Same thing for moving. Intent is a big deal, and we’re being subbordinated by the needs of others. Most people have no knowledge or concern (yet) about creating personalized contracts and relationships. Also where do networks begin and end? Should be possible to use affiliated parties to fulfill interactions without ever revealing our identity. We want to do the whole spectrum of relationships, not just transactions.

If there’s a way to leverage personal identity, other aspects of this conversation forward, that would benefit everyone. Structural tools: opening up a channel (with user control) and intent-casting, other party’s reputation is affected, brings a bi-directional equality to the market. Where is control, ownership and leverage, and when does it start (young student playing sports)?

friends/family, future, records, tools , , , , , , , ,

IIW XIII: Developments in Drupal

October 18th, 2011
Comments Off

General request for update on who’s doing what that’s compatible with Drupal.

Paul, Forge Rock, has done work with OpenSSO, OpenDS

Scotty, Stanford, uses two modules: weapon of mass destruction and a shibboleth module to deal with Drupal on campus and Drupal Gardens projects. Makes logins look like their webAuth, works with SAML 2.

Question about if drupal works with MongoDB: yes, Drupal 7 has a database module that does.

Question about presentation controls (UI) for graphic presentation of data: look to jquery for widgets and toolkits.

Isaac, Animate Login, described his drupal and android project to use QR codes on mobile phones to get away from password use.

Scotty briefly described his current mobile web project that resizes and reorients pages.

Of interest to a stealth brokering (authentication) project I’m working on, suggestions to look at these technologies:

  • Microblogging APIs (including PubSubHubub) for notification of consent
  • Telehash and evented APIs
  • Pingback & Trackback models
  • and, diaspora (host your own)

We started a Google Group to talk more about this. Join us if you speak this language!

tools , , , , , ,

IIW XIII: Sneaky Bastards

October 18th, 2011

Renée Lloyd’s talk on how VRM disrupts and liberates legal practice. VRM challenges how legal practice is executed.  What if new businesses had to negotiate with her? What messages are people giving us? Agreement making in a human style: sharing thoughts, contextual, ceremonies and expressions vary. Contrast: agreement corporate style (hand cuffs, “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” -Goethe)

Clickwrap “agreements” are what we call Contracts of Adhesion: no negotiations, take it or leave it. Should not be assumed that we always want a fast track. Look especially in employment contracts, very restrictive. Makes sense in certain contexts but should not be a universal solution. Even if you’re the 800 pound gorilla, you don’t always have to act like one. The processes are insidious, things start small but quickly spread into areas where it’s impossible to right any wrongs.

Lawyers use existing terms from contracts to create new, limit liability. Nothing new: no innovation is allowed (social media prohibited). Caveat emptor: problematic because consumers can’t “be aware.” FTC expects that markets create innovation, expected that it will help protect. But no plain english rules, effective regulation that’s reactive (because bad things happen) produces unworkable constraints and rules.  System is out of balance. “No number of legal victories, tech tools or whitepapers–however well-intended or important–are going to convince people to take ownership of agreement-making back from lawyers and companies.” It’s about people, not lawyers. We need to bring the balance back, help people to take ownership.

Time for a change of attitude! What do you do when the most economic solution is a data exploiter for the big companies? What if there was a trusted voice? For example, what if the Terms of Use on a site, instead of the pages you see now, told you this (video) [x] Cede your rights? No site has fair terms right now. Or what if you had a “sneaky bastards” prompt that took your selected text, marked it up, turned it into a visual games? (Sue for emotional distress: Amazon’s terms at 80 pages and Renée didn’t have it all, PLUS they can change those terms anytime. Outrageous.) Activities to bind parties, even if they don’t understand, includes individual initialing every page. New advice in legal community is to make it clearer that they knew. Relaxed formality standards. – starter site with Renée’s rants, hall of shame, hall of fame, etc. Learning, doing, kicking butt, giving props, pure ferocious fun! Data on collaborative law shows less law suits in case where people/individuals are consulted about change. Innovation: minimum viable contracts, curate, track and assess new contract models, etc. Check the site for things to develop.

future, history, records, tools , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

iiw12: VRM and R-Button

May 4th, 2011
Comments Off

R-Button - graphic icons that represent the status of a relationship with the site you're visiting.Again testing with chachanga, here’s part one (1 min 43 secs) and part two (the rest of the session) of the IIW session on the R-Button. This is a fascinating (and somewhat technical) session about putting a new button in your browser to indicate whether there is or could be a relationship (the R in R-Button) between you and the site you’re visiting. The ProjectVRM site has more on how this button might work.

Coaching moment: Have you ever visited a website and didn’t remember if you bought something there before? Now you’re looking for another one, or support, or whatever. This will help you recognize those sites. What if you want to donate money to, say, your local radio station without all the overhead of adding you to their mailing list and sending subsequent funds requests? This might alert the station to the fact that there’s money (even a small amount) available. The link above has more examples. What’s interesting is that this icon is a visual indicator of stuff I want to know or remember but don’t have the tool to do now.

future, records, tools , , , , , , ,

Mining the new Gold

March 9th, 2011
Comments Off

The Wall Street Journal has been running a fantastic set of articles called What They Know. Today’s (15th in their series) is called TV’s Next Wave: Tuning In to You. This article states that:

Data-gathering firms and technology companies are aggressively matching people’s TV-viewing behavior with other personal data—in some cases, prescription-drug records obtained from insurers—and using it to help advertisers buy ads targeted to shows watched by certain kinds of people.

How this translates, the article explains, is that these companies are now tracking you at a level of surfing and life-involvement that is highly customizable to your tv. (They don’t have to know your name, they know who you are by your habits.) Let’s say, for example, that you watched five cookie commercials (tracked), then later in the week you bought a package of cookies (tracked from purchases). These companies will start to get a picture of how many cookie commercials (or anything else that you watch) it will take to affect your behavior. Using an example from the article, the U.S. Army tested four different ads for recruitment:

One group, dubbed “family influencers” by Cablevision, saw an ad featuring a daughter discussing with her parents her decision to enlist. Another group, “youth ethnic I,” saw an ad featuring African-American men testing and repairing machinery. A third, “youth ethnic II,” saw soldiers of various ethnicities doing team activities.

Someone will likely claim that there’s no personally identifiable information being exchanged. That will be a lie, as they could only make that claim by defining “personally identifiable information” in a very different way than regular people–or government regulators–would. This is more about tracking and compiling the most intimate details of our lives, so we can be manipulated into acting a certain way.

Coaching moment: Corporate behavior like this is an example of a slippery slope. There is no real end to the social destruction that could be wrought on our world by corporate visions of a “good society.” I doubt that any one person that works for these companies would wish to be tracked and manipulated in this way. But when that person goes to work for a company that does this, the person is “just doing his job.”

There’s a clear reason why “Do Not Track” legislation is being proposed. This story points out an example of tracking that, I would argue, crosses ethical boundaries. It’s one thing to use voluntarily shared data about people. It’s another to invade their homes and lives for corporate gain.

I might be over-reacting. How do you feel about this?

history, records, tools , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,