Personal Data Store – joeandrieu.com
type: channel
description: My personal space
date: 2011-04-22T08:24:32Z
update period: hourly
update frequency: 1
update base: 2000-01-01T12:00+00:00
generator agent: https://wordpress.org/
items: Trust Me… Things Change.
items: World Economic Forum and Personal Data as an Asset Class
items: Facebook as Personal Data Store
items: Looking for feedback on pRFP and Information Sharing
items: Asymmetry by Choice
items: Beyond Data Ownership to Information Sharing
items: One Night Stand worth $300 Million
items: Kynetx takes on Structured Browsing
items: R-cards “ah-hah!” at IIW
items: Running the Numbers

Trust Me… Things Change.
type: item
creator: Joe Andrieu
date: 2011-04-22T08:24:32Z
subject: Information Sharing
subject: Personal Data Store
subject: Shared Information
subject: User Driven Services
subject: Vendor Relationship Management
subject: consent
subject: revocation
subject: trust
description: Trust is complicated. But for some reason, online trust mechanisms assume it is outrageously simple. For example, firewalls imply that once you’re in the network, you’re trusted. It’s baked into the framing of the problem. Similarly, Trust Frameworks assume that … Continue reading →
encoded: Trust is complicated. But for some reason, online trust mechanisms assume it is outrageously simple. <img decoding="async" class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-980" title="black and white handshake" src="https://blog.joeandrieu.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/black-and-white-handshake.dreamstime_18851240-300x225.jpg" alt="black and white handshake" width="210" height="158" srcset="https://blog.joeandrieu.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/black-and-white-handshake.dreamstime_18851240-300x225.jpg 300w, https://blog.joeandrieu.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/black-and-white-handshake.dreamstime_18851240.jpg 480w" sizes="(max-width: 210px) 100vw, 210px" /> For example, firewalls imply that once you’re in the network, you’re trusted. It’s baked into the framing of the problem. Similarly, Trust Frameworks assume that once you are in the Framework, you’re trusted (although you could build a framework that is dynamic). Even a user directed approach like Facebook Connect assumes that once you click “allow”, you trust that website to use your information appropriately, essentially forever… even if you revoke that permission later. Trust isn’t broad-based and it isn’t static. It is directed and dynamic. Think about it. We don’t trust our accountant to babysit and we don’t trust our babysitter with our finances. Trust is given for specific purposes and in specific contexts and it changes as quickly as we can fire that babysitter. <img decoding="async" class="alignright size-medium wp-image-983" title="multiple multi color handshakes" src="https://blog.joeandrieu.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/multi-multi-color-handshakes.dreamstime_4062545-300x300.jpg" alt="multiple multi color handshakes" width="180" height="180" srcset="https://blog.joeandrieu.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/multi-multi-color-handshakes.dreamstime_4062545-300x300.jpg 300w, https://blog.joeandrieu.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/multi-multi-color-handshakes.dreamstime_4062545-150x150.jpg 150w, https://blog.joeandrie…

World Economic Forum and Personal Data as an Asset Class
type: item
creator: Joe Andrieu
date: 2011-04-10T19:12:44Z
subject: Personal Data Store
subject: ProjectVRM
subject: Vendor Relationship Management
description: At this last week’s Personal Data Deep Dive in Palo Alto, I had a chance to talk with some of the folks working with the World Economic Forum about their recent report Personal Data: The Emergence of a New Asset Class. … Continue reading →
encoded: At this last week’s Personal Data Deep Dive in Palo Alto, I had a chance to talk with some of the folks working with the World Economic Forum about their recent report Personal Data: The Emergence of a New Asset Class. While I remain concerned about how the institutions of globalization might co-opt personal data to further their own ends, it almost certainly isn’t as bad as recently discussed on the Project VRM mailing list. My realization: of course WEF would see data as an asset class. If it weren’t, it wouldn’t even make it onto their radar. Complaining about the WEF seeing personal data as an asset is a bit like complaining that Mozart sees everything as music. Sure, it might be a limited framework and might be abused if applied too broadly, but it’s perhaps the most real way for the WEF to think about how personal data will lead to changes in the global economy. It is worth understanding that the paper is an early step in acculturating Fortune 1000 CEOs to a new reality about user-driven services, volunteered personal information, and the entire VRM gestalt. It’s a baby step. But it is a step. Indeed, the folks at the workshop were well aware of the kind of reaction they are bound to get from communities like VRM. Bottom up groups tends to distrust top-down institutions. Fair enough. But think about it from the perspective of the folks inside the WEF that are fighting the good fight, not just because it’s moral or politic, but because it is perhaps the only viable route beyond the information overload facing our entire information infrastructure. Those folks need to light the minds of global business leaders without igniting fear that the house is on fire.

Facebook as Personal Data Store
type: item
creator: Joe Andrieu
date: 2010-12-20T11:24:30Z
subject: Information Sharing
subject: Personal Data Store
subject: ProjectVRM
subject: Facebook
subject: Facebook Connect
subject: I Shared What?!?
subject: PDS
subject: Vendor Relationship Management
subject: VRM
description: With over 150 million people using Facebook Connect every month at over 1 million websites, Facebook has ushered in a new era, as the world’s largest personal data store. Personal Data Stores Personal data stores allow individuals to share online … Continue reading →
encoded: With over 150 million people using Facebook Connect every month at over 1 million websites, Facebook has ushered in a new era, as the world’s largest personal data store. Personal Data Stores Personal data stores allow individuals to share online data with service providers. Facebook Connect users can give third-party web sites like Digg, Amazon, and YouTube access to information stored at Facebook, turning Facebook into a personal data store for over 500 million people. What makes personal data stores special is the seamless sharing with websites for real-time personalization of the web. It’s more than just file back-up or synchronization. It’s not just publishing “content” to our friends or the public. Personal data stores allow us to bring our information to websites when we want to. It’s a way to treat the user as the point of integration. Personal data stores can be anywhere, shared with websites whenever we want. Consider giving FedexKinko‘s a link to a Flickr account so they can download photos to print a new calendar. Or giving a new doctor permission to access our personal health history rather than filling out a paper form while we sit in the waiting room. Or giving a website access to our Outlook contact list on our desktop computer so they can give us birthday reminders and gift suggestions. The key is user-managed access, wherever the data lives. Facebook Connect gives this kind of access control over all the data we store at Facebook, enabling web-wide personalization built around the individual. Mash-ups In recent years, mash-ups and real-time APIs have made it easier and easier for companies to combine information from different services into a single user experience. Instead of building bigger and more complicated proprietary data silos, companies take advantage of services like Google Maps and IP-address geolocation, using real-time information to enhance their websites. Some service are even built around other companies’ data: Twitter clients like…

Looking for feedback on pRFP and Information Sharing
type: item
creator: Joe Andrieu
date: 2010-09-07T21:14:36Z
subject: Information Sharing
subject: Personal Data Store
subject: ProjectVRM
subject: Shared Information
subject: Uncategorized
subject: ISWG
subject: Kantara
subject: pRFP
description: At the VRM+CRM workshop last month, we (the Kantara ISWG) released two papers for comment. One on the Personal Request For Proposal (pRFP) Engagement Model and the other the Information Sharing Report. The first is a look at a the … Continue reading →
encoded: At the VRM+CRM workshop last month, we (the Kantara ISWG) released two papers for comment. One on the Personal Request For Proposal (pRFP) Engagement Model and the other the Information Sharing Report. The first is a look at a the negotiation stage in the Car Buying Engagement Model, which paints a detailed picture of one person’s experience through the entire Customer-Supplier Engagement Framework for a new car. Think of this as “car buying VRM style.” In the pRFP Engagement Model, we do a deep dive on how Sally would use a pRFP broker to buy a new car. The second is a report placing Information Sharing in the global context. Based on a comprehensive literature review by Mark Lizar, the ISWG takes a look at the historical conversations about privacy and data protection to illustrate how we see Information Sharing as part of an emerging solution to managing the increasing risks and challenges of individuals sharing personal information online. If you have an interest, please take a look and give us some feedback. We’ll be incorporating input from the comment period starting next week, September 13, 2010. Extended to September 27, 2010. I hope to hear from you.

Asymmetry by Choice
type: item
creator: Joe Andrieu
date: 2010-08-24T12:42:40Z
subject: Information Sharing
subject: Personal Data Store
subject: ProjectVRM
subject: Shared Information
subject: User Driven Services
subject: Vendor Relationship Management
description: Perhaps the most powerful form of asymmetric information is missing from JP Rangaswami’s post addressing whether the web is making us dumber. I agree with the core point of JP’s article, but I think he oversimplifies the argument on asymmetry … Continue reading →
encoded: Perhaps the most powerful form of asymmetric information is missing from JP Rangaswami’s post addressing whether the web is making us dumber. I agree with the core point of JP’s article, but I think he oversimplifies the argument on asymmetry in a way that misses something important about the power of information. JP defines four types of informational asymmetry, which he argues is key for information to have power: Asymmetry-by-access — You can get it, they can’t. Asymmetry-in-creation — You create it, you can control access or have unique benefit from it. Asymmetry-in-education — The information may be symmetrically available, but only “experts” can make effective use of it.This could also be called asymmetry-by-capability: the capability to utilize information more effectively than others. Asymmetry-by-design — Take abundant information and design a system to create scarcity. For example, the iPhone (or Android) app store as the only – (or dominant) way to get new apps on your phone. JP goes on to argue that This approach, asymmetry-by-creation, and its alter ego, asymmetry-by-design, are about creating artificial scarcity. This is fundamentally doomed. I’ve said it many times. Every artificial scarcity will be met by an equal and opposite artificial abundance. With all due respect, I must politely disagree. At first, I thought it was a flaw in the argument about asymmetry, but then I realized it was perhaps because I was considering a fifth asymmetry that simply didn’t fit JP’s mold. Asymmetry-by-choice – The information is shared with mutual agreement by all parties to respect certain limits, typically requested by the discloser, although often required by regulators. This asymmetry is typically bootstrapped from asymmetry-by-creation and maintained as asymmetry-by-access. One example: I tell my therapist things because I know they won’t get revealed. The therapist agrees to keep that information in confidence because she knows that if she doesn’t, I won’t reve…

Beyond Data Ownership to Information Sharing
type: item
creator: Joe Andrieu
date: 2010-01-21T22:32:19Z
subject: Information Sharing
subject: Intention Economy
subject: Personal Data Store
subject: ProjectVRM
subject: Shared Information
subject: User Driven Services
subject: Vendor Relationship Management
subject: CRM
subject: data ownership
subject: Doc Searls
subject: privacy
subject: project VRM
subject: User Driven
subject: VRM
description: The question of who owns our data on the Internet is a challenging problem. It can also be a red herring, distracting us from building the next generation of online services. The term “ownership” simply brings too much baggage from … Continue reading →
encoded: The question of who owns our data on the Internet is a challenging problem. It can also be a red herring, distracting us from building the next generation of online services. The term “ownership” simply brings too much baggage from the physical world, suggesting a win-lose, us-verses-them mentality that retards the development of rich, powerful services based on shared information. Anyone up for sacred cow cheeseburgers? I’m a member–and a big fan–of Steve Holcombe‘s “Data Ownership in the Cloud” LinkedIn group and I love the efforts of the Dataportability guys and am a big supporter of the Privacy and Public Policy work group at Kantara. There is a lot of good work being done by folks trying to figure out how to give people greater control over the use of data about them (privacy) and gain access to data they use or created (dataportability). Unfortunately, sometimes the arguments behind these efforts are based on who owns–or who should own–the data. This is not just an intellectual debate or political rallying call, it often undermines our common efforts to build a better system. Consider this: Privacy as secrecy is dead Data sharing is data copying Transaction data has dual ownership Yours, mine, & ours: Reality is complicated Taking back ownership is confrontational Privacy as secrecy is dead First, the data is pretty much already out there. The issue isn’t “How do we keep data from bad people,” it’s “How do we keep people from doing bad things with data?” DRM and crypto and related technology as the sole means to prevent data leakage and data abuse are failures. Sooner or later, the bad guys break the system and get the data. Sure, there are smart things we can do to protect ourselves. Just like we wear seatbelts and lock our front doors, we should also use SSL and multi-factor authentication, but we can’t count on technology to keep our secrets. We need solutions that work even when the secret is out. In fact, privacy isn’t about information we keep secret. It…

One Night Stand worth $300 Million
type: item
creator: Joe Andrieu
date: 2009-02-23T06:43:23Z
subject: Intention Economy
subject: Personal Data Store
subject: ProjectVRM
subject: Vendor Relationship Management
subject: Abhijit Nadgouda
subject: Doc Searls
subject: iface thoughts
subject: Jared Spool
subject: One Night Stand
subject: project VRM
subject: Vendor Releationship Managment
subject: VRM
description: In the ProjectVRM Standards Committee discussions, we’ve talked quite a bit about a “One Night Stand” use case, where a personal data store is used with an online retailer and all personal data is erased–as much as possible–after the transaction. … Continue reading →
encoded: In the ProjectVRM Standards Committee discussions, we’ve talked quite a bit about a “One Night Stand” use case, where a personal data store is used with an online retailer and all personal data is erased–as much as possible–after the transaction. Teleconference 2008 06 18 Teleconference 2008 07 02 Teleconference 2008 08 13 Teleconference 2008 09 24 Teleconference 2008 10 08 Face to Face 2008 October The premise is simple: if users know they are safe giving personal data, they will give it more freely. Limits on long term data mining (and its attendant offensive behavior of junk mail, spam, and telemarketing) paradoxically increase data sharing and enhance the ability of vendors to provide more meaningful engagement at the moment of the transaction. Less long term data retention leads to more real-time data provided by users, resulting in better customer experiences, and more profit for vendors. Until recently, this was a theoretical argument, a belief by those of us promoting VRM. As Doc Searls puts it, “A free customer is more valuable than a captive one.” Now we have evidence of just how valuable that can be. Jared Spool shares with us the real-world example of a redesign in the direction of the “One Night Stand” that created $300 million in value in the first year: [excerpt edited for brevity. see full article for details] The form was simple. The fields were Email Address and Password. The buttons were Login and Register. The link was Forgot Password. It was the login form for the site. It’s a form users encounter all the time. How could they have problems with it? The problem wasn’t as much about the form’s layout as it was where the form lived. Users would encounter it after they filled their shopping cart with products they wanted to purchase and pressed the Checkout button. It came before they could actually enter the information to pay for the product. “I’m Not Here To Be In a Relationship” We were wrong about the first-time shoppers. They did mind register…

Kynetx takes on Structured Browsing
type: item
creator: Joe Andrieu
date: 2009-02-08T07:47:48Z
subject: Identity
subject: Intention Economy
subject: Personal Data Store
subject: ProjectVRM
subject: User Driven Search
subject: Vendor Relationship Management
subject: ad blockers
subject: Adaptive Blue
subject: data rights management
subject: Doc Searls
subject: Glue
subject: information cards
subject: kynetx
subject: MyDex
subject: open source
subject: open standards
subject: OpenID
subject: Phil Windley
subject: privacy
subject: r-button
subject: rbutton
subject: relationship services
subject: search map
subject: Skype
subject: structured browsing
subject: SwitchBook
subject: User Driven Services
subject: VRM
subject: web augmentation
subject: Yahoo Toolbar
description: Doc Searls recently brought my attention to a White Paper by Phil Windley, about his company, Kynetx. It does a good job explaining the thinking behind their architecture, and raises some questions that, for me, challenge some underlying assumptions and … Continue reading →
encoded: Doc Searls recently brought my attention to a White Paper by Phil Windley, about his company, Kynetx. It does a good job explaining the thinking behind their architecture, and raises some questions that, for me, challenge some underlying assumptions and business choices. Problem Domain The distributed nature of the web is a big part of its power–nobody needs to ask permission from a central authority to use it or create with it. However, that disaggregation limits the cohesion for sophisticated uses, leaving users to hobble together ad-hoc mash-ups of value from multiple, diverse service providers. For example, the average travel planner spends 29 days from their first query to their first purchase. No tool I know of facilitates that entire process effectively. Solving this problem in a general way—while retaining the authority of the individual and the flexibility of open systems—is perhaps the greatest opportunity for VRM. The personal data store and VRM relationship services are two prongs of an architectural shift for enabling this kind of aggregation while remaining open. Once you put the user in the driver’s seat, with coherent controls over the flow and the data, the experience can integrate around the user, even as they drive anywhere on the Internet. Solution Kynetx’s solution is built on one primary capability: A rules engine (and language) for contextual customization based on strong identity-based claims, using the user-centric Identity of Information Cards. This puts Kynetx squarely in the web augmentation service business. Adaptive Blue (and their Glue product) is perhaps the most sophisticated approach to this space, but Yahoo’s Toolbar also augments web pages, as does Skype (putting its SkypOut button on any phone # it recognizes), and the granddaddies of all web-augmentation services are the ad blocker plug-ins that remove banner ads on websites. I distinguish web augmentation from web media enhancements, like PDF and Flash and Java, in that the lat…

R-cards “ah-hah!” at IIW
type: item
creator: Joe Andrieu
date: 2008-06-08T02:22:40Z
subject: Identity
subject: Personal Data Store
subject: icards
subject: IIW2008a
subject: information cards
subject: r-cards
subject: rcards
subject: relationship cards
subject: VRM
description: At last month’s Internet Identity Workshop and the subsequent DataSharing Summit, Markus S and Drummond Reed unpacked several ideas about r-cards, which, to a certain extent, are an evolution of the Information Card at the heart of CardSpace. Going into … Continue reading →
encoded: At last month’s Internet Identity Workshop and the subsequent DataSharing Summit, Markus S and Drummond Reed unpacked several ideas about r-cards, which, to a certain extent, are an evolution of the Information Card at the heart of CardSpace. Going into IIW, I understood r-cards simply as a hybrid of InfoCard’s managed and personal card models. Managed cards are issued by another party–all the data associated/transmitted with that card is controlled by that managing party, while personal cards are self-asserted, allowing individuals to serve as their own card provider, controlling all of the associated data. R-cards then, allow a managing party to co-control a card with the user–with some data controlled by the managing party and some controlled by the user. However, during the IIW demo of r-card, I had an epiphany about how powerful the r-card is, once we actually allow the user to manage the personal claims through multiple, dereferenceable links. <o></o>One issue that came up during the demo was that if the “personal” side of the r-card is manually entered claims, such as contact information, then the user is creating a management nightmare: duplicate claims would need to be entered and maintained across many different r-cards. The more r-cards, the worse the problem. The “obvious” solution discussed at the session was to allow the user to specify specific claims that are served by other IdPs, such as a Personal Address Manager. And for completeness sake, let’s note that such claims could be mashed up from multiple other IdPs, not just a single one. Thus, any number of claims from a particular IdP could act as a sort of sub-card, combining with other subcards at presentation time. The net result of this is a realization that that perhaps the most interesting thing about r-cards is their use as dynamic cards or aggregate cards or mashup identity cards. That’s pretty cool in itself. However, it also struck me that this also potentially fixes usability problems arou…

Running the Numbers
type: item
creator: Joe Andrieu
date: 2008-04-30T11:26:57Z
subject: Personal Data Store
subject: ProjectVRM
subject: Vendor Relationship Management
subject: Attention
subject: Bart Stevens
subject: Intention
subject: Steve Rubel
subject: VRM
description: Bart Stevens recently suggested a breakdown on the potential economic impact of VRM, based largely on a post by Steve Rubel arguing that $1B is wasted in online advertising today. First, I anticipate the Personal Data Store to become a … Continue reading →
encoded: Bart Stevens recently suggested a breakdown on the potential economic impact of VRM, based largely on a post by Steve Rubel arguing that $1B is wasted in online advertising today. First, I anticipate the Personal Data Store to become a design pattern that underlies other VRM services, rather than a service by itself. In fact, a PD isn’t really a PD unless it enables VRM services explicitly… Personal Data Stores aren’t just online storage like Amazon’s S3. Second, I think the $1 Billion number is far too small. Steve is only estimating the CPM costs for display ads that are literally missed by users during eye tracking studies. That’s an intriguing number because those ads truly are wasted… there isn’t even any brand exposure because the ads are not even seen. It’s like paying for ads in a magazine that is never opened by a real reader. On the other hand, there are still plenty of ads that are seen by the wrong people and CPC ads that are clicked on by the wrong people. Note that for the “right” people, those ads arguably generate useful brand exposure, so they aren’t wasted. When advertising starts with the advertiser, it inherently wastes money, as it inevitably buys placement in ineffective or misaligned media. By now it is an old chestnut that advertisers waste half their budget–they just don’t know which half. Sometimes advertising is an investment in exploring potential markets… the goal is the data gained in the test marketing, which isn’t entirely a waste. Other times advertising is educational outreach where the goal isn’t so much to trigger a sale, but instead to introduce people to new products and services. Sometimes this is called demand generation. And that still leaves a vast amount of waste, buying media (offline or online) that just doesn’t perform or create any value. The potential savings in these areas is not only missing from Rubel’s analysis, I’d wager it is far more than $1 billion. The huge potential of VRM is to turn these models inside-out, …