Ten years ago I wrote a blog post that captured a key architectural insight at the core of VRM: putting the user at the center of integration not only improves the quality of services, it simplifies our systems. The article captured the gestalt of VRM and helped catalyze a range of conversations that still shape the VRM approach. Since then, we have seen a lot of progress. Here are a few standout examples. Continue reading →
Ten years ago I wrote a blog post that captured a key architectural insight at the core of VRM: putting the user at the center of integration not only improves the quality of services, it simplifies our systems. When we put the user at the center, and make them the point of integration, the entire system becomes simpler, more robust, more scalable, and more useful. The article captured the gestalt of VRM and helped catalyze a range of conversations that still shape the VRM approach. Since then, we have seen a lot of progress. Sometimes we proceeded in fits and starts and there were certainly failures along the way, including my own venture, SwitchBook. When I started pulling together my notes for this anniversary post, I was mildly surprised and delighted at how much real work got done and the real-world impact we’ve had. Here are a few VRMy developments in the last decade worth noting. Please chime in with a comment if you know of a good one to add to the list. Coming in December of that same year, OAuth kicked off a series of standard protocols for identity, attribute sharing, and permissions, including OAuth 2.0, OpenID Connect, and User Managed Access (now at 2.0). These efforts brought together the leading technology companies to collaboratively develop new standards that give individuals greater flexibility and control over data exchange between online services. Companies like Personal.com. (now TeamData), Digi.me, and Cozy Cloud shipped user-driven personal data stores. Software project HIE of One offers a personal data store that lets individuals manage our own healthcare data. In Europe, GDPR has ushered in a new wave of regulatory requirements and penalties driving companies and organizations to give individuals easier access to, greater control of, and more security in our personal data. JLINC Labs offers a provenance service layer that allows companies to quickly attain GDPR compliance for the right to erasure and data provenance by giving individuals direct control over which data is used for what purposes. Kantara Initiatives’ Consent & Information Sharing Work Group (CISWG) has published its Consent Receipt Specification to help both individuals and organization keep track of data provenance and terms of use. Working with the CISWG, Customer Commons has picked up the challenge of developing customer-driven terms of use called “first party terms”. Asserted by individuals when interacting with websites, they are designed to provide a balance to the ubiquitous company-asserted terms of use we all are forced to accept when we interact online. Perhaps the biggest recent splash has been made by self-sovereign technology, which provides distributed identity services completely independent of any centralized authority. Using distributed ledger technology, firms like Evernym, Blockstream, Digital Bazaar, Microsoft, and IBM are enabling a wide range of robust identity services that put individual users in the driver’s seat. Collaborative initiatives like Sovrin, Hyperledger, the Decentralized Identity Foundation (DIF), Rebooting Web of Trust, W3C Verifiable Claims Working Group, and ID2020 bring technologists together to develop open source and open standards solutions that realize secure, privacy enhancing, self-sovereign architectures. ID2020 brought the self-sovereign technology conversation to the UN, convening technologists, UN staff, representatives from sovereign states, and NGOs to explore how block-chain based approaches might enable cost-effective, scalable solutions for U.N. Sustainable Development Goal 16.9 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg16: to give everyone on the planet a legal identity by 2030, including birth registration. International non-profit technology solutions organization iRespond has agreements in place and is seeking funding for a self-sovereign identity layer to bootstrap identification credentials for tribal people in the border region of Myanmar and Thailand. These self-sovereign credentials will the recognized and used by local governments to provide work permits, health care, and other services. There is still a long way to go, and there probably always will be room to improve whatever systems we build. The conversations continue at the Internet Identity Workshop (IIW), the People Centered Internet, and of course, on the Project VRM mailing list as well as the collaborative initiatives mentioned above. Do you know a VRMy project that’s made a difference? Share with us in the comments.
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 →
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 Seesmic and Tweetdeck, which access our Twitter data on our behalf; Trillian, which works with various instant messaging networks; and Mint, which pulls in our financial data from hundreds of websites. The “real-time web” is constructed on the fly, using linked data and real-time APIs to dynamically customize services for each of us. Personal data stores let us bring our own data to the mash-up party. Not only do we have better control over who sees what, we can provide more timely, higher quality data than service providers can get from other sources. Effective integration with personal data stores means no more ads for that car we’ve already bought; no more recommendations based on false assumptions. Unfortunately, data in the wild is constantly becoming outdated, miscopied, and misconstrued, because that’s the best companies can do using the billions of dollars worth of proprietary data that’s gathered about us rather than provided by us. Personal data stores easily allow individuals to give the most relevant, most up-to-date information to just those companies we want to do business with. That means not just better data, but more intimate relationships with our favorite companies and organizations. Perhaps the most liberating aspect of personal data stores is that everyone gets to have as many as we want. We all have our favorite websites for different online activities. As those sites open up their data with a user-driven permissions mechanism, they become personal data stores. So, whether it’s YouTube for videos, Flickr for Photos, Foursquare for location updates, TripIt for travel plans, or RunKeeper for exercise data, we get to bring our best data with us wherever we go. Savvy websites pull in this high quality data to personalize our visits, while those with unique data open it up for use elsewhere to maximize value to their users, which is exactly what Facebook is doing with Facebook Connect. Facebook Connect Facebook Connect makes this kind of access simple for everyone, with industry changing adoption rates. Over 66% of the top 100 websites and over 1 million total websites now integrate with Facebook in some way. Nearly 1/3 of Facebook users—over 150 million people—use Facebook Connect every month. Every time we do, we give websites access to information stored in our Facebook accounts, such as our name, gender, names of our friends, and all the posts currently on our wall or posted by us. It’s an archetypal personal data store, with highly credible and timely data in the form of our friend list and our status updates. Sure, Facebook Connect is still far too limited in the amount of information we can store and we lack control over how that information gets used… but architecturally, Facebook has changed the game for a vast portion of the World Wide Web. To find out what information Facebook is sharing, I built a website called “I Shared What?!?“, an information sharing simulator for Facebook. The site uses javascript and Facebook Connect to display everything it can get from Facebook. Visitors see in specific detail exactly what they share when hitting the “allow” button in the Facebook Connect permissions dialog. Facebook uses open standard technology to bring mash-ups to a new level, built on information provided directly by the user, in real-time, with minimal fuss or bother. There are shortcomings, of course. A lot of them, but I’ll save those for future posts. For now, think of Facebook as the 800 pound icebreaker of a new way for companies to connect with their customers. To this veteran VRM evangelist, Facebook has done more in 2010 to usher in the era of the personal data store than anyone, ever. In one fell swoop, Facebook launched a World Wide Web built around the individual instead of websites, introducing the personal data store to 500 million people and over one million websites. Unexpectedly, Facebook has moved VRM from a conversation about envisioning a future to one about deployed services with real users, being adopted by real companies, today. We still have a lot of work to do to figure out how to make this all work right—legally, financially, technically—but it’s illuminating and inspiring to see the successes and failures of real, widely-deployed services. Seeing what Amazon or Rotten Tomatos or Pandora do with information from a real personal data store moves the conversation forward in ways no theoretical argument can. There remain significant privacy issues and far too much proprietary lock-in, but for the first time, we can point to a mainstream service and say “Like that! That’s what we’ve been talking about. But different!”
Personal Data Stores, Exchanges, and Applications
Words matter. In the last few years, we in the VRM community have been using term “personal data store” as cornerstone concept. We all understood we were talking about the same thing: a VRM approach for allowing people to use … Continue reading →
Words matter. In the last few years, we in the VRM community have been using term “personal data store” as cornerstone concept. We all understood we were talking about the same thing: a VRM approach for allowing people to use share personal information with third- (and fourth-) party service providers on their own terms. Yet as our community grows, it has become clear that the Personal Data Store is but one aspect of a complete system, one we might as well call the Personal Data Architecture. As developers get more traction with their technology and the marketplace, it gets more and more useful to delineate the elements of the architecture more rigorously. To do that, Doc Searls, Craig Burton, Iain Henderson, Kaliya Hamlin, and I set some time aside after the VRM+CRM 2010 Workshop. Like the ongoing VRM conversation, it was a rolling evolution of a dialog. It started with just Craig & Iain with the rest of us showing up and participating throughout the afternoon. The core agreement is the terms I present here. I’ll post a following up with some new ideas in a few days. These are the key definitions underlying the Personal Data Architecture at the core of VRM and all of our work: Personal data store – a service where data is actually stored, with the ability to provision access to that data by permissioned applications; may be distributed and/or replicated across multiple physical stores. Personal data exchange – a service where an individual manages personal data store permissions. Personal data API – the interface a permissioned application uses for accessing personal data stores and personal data exchanges. Personal data application – a service permissioned by an individual to access their personal data store for particular use of specific information. Also an “app”. Service – an instance of software running on a machine. Individual – a living human being. Bonus Term: (which wasn’t the topic of this particular meeting, but syncs up with the work Iain and I are doing over at the Kantara Initiative’s Information Sharing Work Group.) Information Sharing agreement – an agreement between the discloser and the recipient governing the permissioned use of specific personal information. This language will continue to evolve, I’m sure. For now, this is a good snapshot for those of us building systems for sharing information between users and applications and for using that shared information. So, hopefully, the next time you hear PDS, you’ll know what it is…
Beyond Data Ownership to Information Sharing
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 →
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 is about information we have revealed to someone else with expectation of discretion, e.g., when we tell our doctor about our sexual activities. It’s no longer a secret from the Doctor, but because it is private, we have rules that keep the information from being used inappropriately. Most of the time, with most doctors, it works. Those few who break those rules are dealt with through legal means, both civil and criminal, as well as social approbation. So, because we inherently need to release data to different parties at different times, we can’t control it through secrecy alone. Instead, we need to build a framework for preventing abuse when others do have access to sensitive information. Like in the case with our doctor, we want our service providers to have the data they need to provide the highest quality services. Data sharing is data copying Second, in the world of atoms, there can only be one of a thing, which is the reverse of the world of bits. With atoms, even if there are copies, each copy is itself a singular thing. Selling, transferring, or stealing a thing precludes the original owner from continuing to use it. This isn’t true for information, which can easily be sold, transfered, and stolen without disturbing the original version. In fact, the entire Internet is basically a copy machine, copying IP packets from router to router, as we “send” images, web pages, and emails from user to user and machine to machine–each time a new copy is created whether or not the originating copy is deleted. To think of bits as if they were ownable property leads to attempted solutions like DRM that try to technologically prevent access to the information within the data, which is only good until the first hacker cracks the code and distributes it themselves. Instead, if we build social and legal controls on use, we can give information more freely, but under terms set by each individual when they share that information. Enforced by social and legal rather than purely technological means, this makes the most of the low marginal cost of distributing online, while retaining control for contributors. Transaction data has dual ownership Image via Wikipedia Third, much interesting data is actually mutually owned… which means the other guy can already do whatever the heck they want with it. Consider web attention data, the stream of digital crumbs representing the websites we’ve visited and any interactions at each: all our purchases, all our blog posts, all our searches. Everything. Some folks argue that we own that data and therefore have the right to control the use of it. But so too do the owners of the websites we’ve been visiting. We don’t own our http log entries at Amazon. Amazon does. In fact, in every instance where two parties interact, where we engage in some transaction with someone else, both parties are co-creating that information. As such, both parties own it. So, if we tie the issue of control to ownership, then we’ve already lost the battle, because every service provider has solid claims to ownership over the information stored in their log files, just as we, as individuals, own the browsing history stored on our hard drive by Firefox, Internet Explorer and Chrome. In the movie Fast Times at Ridgemont High, in a confrontation with Mr. Hand, Spicoli argues “If I’m here and you’re here, doesn’t that make it our time?” Just like the time shared between Spicoli and Mr. Hand, the information created by visiting a website is co-created and co-owned by both the visitor and the website. Every single interaction between two endpoints on the web generates at least two owners of the underlying data. This is not a minor issue. The courts have already ruled that if an email is stored for any period of time on a server, the owner of that server has a right to read the email. So, when “my” email is out there at Gmail or AOL or on our company’s servers, know that it is also, legally, factually, and functionally, already their data. Yours, mine, & ours: Reality is complicated Fourth, when two parties come together for any reason, each brings their own data to the exchange. We need a framework that can handle that. Iain Henderson breaks down this complexity in a blog post about your data, my data, and our data, talking about an individual doing business with a vendor, for example, someone buying a car. “My data” means data that I, as an individual have that is related to the transaction. It could include the kind of car I’m looking for, my budget, and estimates of my spouse’s requirements to approve of a new purchase. “Your data” means data that the car dealer knows, including the actual cost of the vehicle, the number of units in inventory, the pace of sales, current buzz from other dealers. “Our Data” means information that both parties have in common. That could be Shared Information, explicitly given by one party to the other in the course of the deal, such as a social security number so the dealer could run a credit check. It could be Mutual Information, generated by the very act of the transaction, such as the final sale price of the vehicle. Or, it could be Overlapping Information, which each party happens to know independently, such as the Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) of a vehicle (which we found online before heading to the dealership). The ownership of “your” and “my” data is usually clear. However, ownership of the different types of “our” data is a challenge at best. To complicate matters further, every instance of “my data” is somebody else’s “your data”. In every case, there is this mutually reciprocal relationship between us and them. In the VRM case, we usually think of the individual as owning “my data” and the vendor as owning “your data”, but for the vendor, the reverse is true: to them their data is “my data” and the individual’s data is “your data”. Similar dynamics occur when the other party is an individual. I bring my data, you bring your data, and together we’ll engage with “our” data. We need an approach that respects and applies to everyone’s data, you, me, them, everybody. In these complex Venn diagrams of ownership, it is more important who controls the data than who owns it. We’ve already lost the crudest form of control–secrecy–and we are going to continue to lose more as we opt-in to seductive new services based on divulging more and more information: our purchase history, browsing activity, and real-world location data. But we still need to control how all this data is used, to protect our own interests while still enjoying the benefits of the great big copy machine that is the Internet. Taking back ownership is confrontational © Regien Paassen | Dreamstime.com Fifth, we don’t need to pick a fight to change the game. There is a lot of data out there that many of us believe we should have control over. I agree. A lot of people argue that we should have the right to exclude other people’s use because we own the data, because it’s ours in some legal, moral, or ethical framework. The problem is, those other people already have it, and they also believe that they are legitimate owners. In fact, many of them paid for that data, buying it from data aggregators who compile all sorts of things about people, from both public and private sources. This entire ecosystem of customer data is a multi-billion dollar business and every single player “owns” the data they are working with. So if we focus our energy in claiming ownership over that same data in order to take control, we are framing the conversation as a fight, a fight against a powerful, well-healed, well-funded, entrenched bunch of opponents. Most of these “opponents” are the very people we are trying to win over to our way of thinking. These are the vendors we want to embrace a new way to do business. These are the technologists we want to transform their proven, value-generating CRM systems to work with our data on our terms, instead of their data on their terms. Arguing over ownership puts these potential allies on the defensive, when what we really want is their collaboration. From Ownership to Authority, Rights, and Responsibilities Rather than building a regime based on data ownership, I believe we would be better served by building one based on authority, rights, and responsibilities. That is, based on Information Sharing. Who has the authority to control access and use of particular information? What rights does a party have in using and distributing a piece of information? What responsibilities does an information user have to others with respect to that information? Let’s stop arguing about who owns what and start figuring out how we can share information in ways that allow everyone to win. When we collect all of our information into a single conceptual repository, and then share access to it with service providers on our own terms, we create a high quality, highly relevant, curated personal data store. This allows us to bootstrap a control regime over all of our data in a way that creates new value for us and for our service providers. Now, instead of iTunes Genius or a Last.FM scrobbler only having access to our media use with their service, they can provide recommendations based on all the information stored in our personal audio data store. We get better recommendations and they get better data to drive their services. This personal data store is entirely under the authority of the user, sharing information with service providers according to specific rights and responsibilities. The Information Sharing approach neatly sidesteps the complexities involved in privacy and dataportability issues of the information already known by service providers. These remain serious issues, worth addressing. Resolving them will require long term investment in the legal, regulatory, moral, and political systems that govern our society. Fortunately, sharing the information in our personal data store can begin almost immediately once we have working specifications. This controlled sharing of information will dramatically increase our comfort level when revealing our intentions and interests. We would have control over the use–and would be able to prevent abuse–of that information, while making it easy for service providers to improve our lives in countless ways. At the Information Sharing Work Group at the Kantara Initiative, Iain Henderson and I are leading a conversation to create a framework for sharing information with service providers, online and off. We are coordinating with folks involved in privacy and dataportability and distinguish our effort by focusing on new information, information created for the purposes of sharing with others to enable a better service experience. Our goal is to create the technical and legal framework for Information Sharing that both protects the individual and enables new services built on previously unshared and unsharable information. In short, we are setting aside the questions of data ownership and focusing on the means for individuals to control that magical, digital pixie dust we sprinkle across every website we visit. Image by hegarty_david via Flickr Because the fact is, we want to share information. We want Google to know what we are searching for. We want Orbitz to know where we want to fly. We want Cars.com to know the kind of car we are looking for. We just don’t want that information to be abused. We don’t want to be spammed, telemarketed, and adverblasted to death. We don’t want companies stockpiling vast data warehouses of personal information outside of our control. We don’t want to be exploited by corporations leveraging asymmetric power to force us to divulge and relinquish control over our addresses, dates of birth, and the names of our friends and family. What we want is to share our information, on our terms. We want to protect our interests and enable service providers to do truly amazing things for us and on our behalf. This is the promise of the digital age: fabulous new services, under the guidance and control of each of us, individually. And that is precisely what Information Sharing work group at Kantara is enabling. The work is a continuation of several years of collaboration with Doc Searls and others at ProjectVRM. We’re building on the principles and conversations of Vendor Relationship Management and User Driven Services to create an industry standard for a legal and technical solution to individually-driven Information Sharing. Our work group, like all Kantara work groups, is open to all contributors–and non-contributing participants–at no cost. I invite everyone interested in helping create a user-driven world to join us. It should be an exciting future. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Award Number IIP-08488990. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
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 →
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 latter are embeddable or downloadable extensions to the core HTML/http architecture of the web, while augmentation services provide third-party manipulation of website presentation on behalf of the user. They actually tweak the web page as the user sees it, rather than offering websites a new way to package content or functionality. Web augmentation isn’t new, but it is gaining adoption and breadth. There is a low-grade market war going on in this space. While browsers define the official battleground of the World Wide Web; augmentation services are the guerilla warriors of next generation browsing. The approach that reaches ubiquity first will create significant value throughout the architecture: for users, software vendors, and service providers. So, the question that comes to my mind is where does Kynetx fit into all of this? The value proposition of a rules-engine for customization is powerful, if that engine makes it easy to leverage strong identity. Every website will, imo, want to take advantage of the unique value of user-centric identity and Information Cards in particular. However, rewriting your customization to do that will take resources and that will slow adoption. If Kynetx can simplify how websites plug- in to the Identity meta-layer that sounds like a real value. Gaps There are however, several gaps that I see in Kynetix’s approach mapped out in the white paper. First, who are the target developers: websites or Third party services. Or both? It’s not clear to me if the primary authors of KRL rulesets (and hence Kynetx’s customers) will be the destination website developers or third party augmentation services. For example, . Adaptive Blue‘s Glue augments web pages so that things like movies can be recognized across domains for social commentary, ratings, and sharing. That means that Glue modifies the presentation of web pages at IMDB, Netflix, Amazon, Blockbuster, etc. In this pattern, it is the third-party, Glue, that would be running KRL rulesets, not the websites. Is this the intended architecture for Kynetx? Is the point of the Kynetx Information Card to provide authorization by the user to allow services like Glue to augment their web experience, while the rest of the plug- in handles injection into the web page within the browser? Or, is the main point that web services themselves would leverage Kynetx’s Information Card approach to manage third party identity for customization? For example, so Hertz could seamlessly provide AAA or AARP discounts if, and only if, the appropriate AAA or AARP information cards (KIX) are presented by the user? In this case, Hertz writes the customization, but doesn’t need to know upfront what the user’s affiliations might be. If the first case is intended, the white paper doesn’t do a good job explaining how this fits into a larger, open ecosystem, nor does it highlight this unique architectural opportunity. If a user wants Orbitz to help augment its travel planning experience, even when it is at Expedia or Southwest airlines or Hilton.com, it would be great to do that in a secure, authorized, privacy-sensitive way. But it isn’t quite clear if this is the point of Kynetx’s approach. (Although it is a great opportunity, one that r-buttons and SwitchBook see in the not-so-far future). If the second case is the goal, it isn’t clear to me why Kynetx is better than other customization frameworks. With a card selector and cards issued from the right authority, users can already present AAA or AARP credentials to websites, which in turn can integrate that information into their existing CMS or other presentation code (Drupal, PHP, perl, Ruby-on-Rails, etc.). If the value proposition is in speed-to-market for identity-based customization, then the white paper needs to make that case first and foremost. If that’s the goal, then it also suggests a business model, which I talk about in a bit. It could also be that both of these are part of the approach: allowing both the website developer and third parties augment the web experience based on strong identity. This is the general idea behind r-buttons and would almost certainly speed deployment. However, the white paper doesn’t address the issues of contention when multiple providers want to augment the same page. Given the open-ended javascript functionality associated with a KIX, this could be a challenge. Second, isn’t re-aggregation actually about creating a coherent context? While the Kynetx approach allows users to present a particular relationship at a particular website, that doesn’t seem to solve the stated problem. I don’t see how it actually achieves a cross-web aggregated experience. In fact, it seems that the best aggregated experience should combine many relationship cards at many different services. In the 29-day travel planning scenario, won’t users need to send their AAA and AARP cards to every site they visit? (Or some large subset?) Does the card selector require a ceremony for every website every session? Or just once and then it is a permanent approval, such as confirming once with Expedia that the user is a AAA member? Managing this A x B complexity with A Information Cards and B websites scales poorly if every site has a distinct ceremony–and even worse if each card presented at each site is a distinct ceremony. This apparent model of KIX based aggregation seems to miss an opportunity, one that is near to my heart as the core of the Search Map architecture for User-driven Search. It seems to me that for a given web-based task–such as travel planning–what you need is a user-driven personal data store that tracks the user’s progress across the Web. This data store should be 100% transparent, 100% editable, and seamlessly transferable/accessible to authorized vendors under terms controled by the user. We call our version of this a Search Map, an electronic document that provides the user a concrete way to manage and express their Search intent. It is also a seamless way to manage and express user context. In the white paper, Phil asserts that “users are freed from managing episode context themselves” as a core benefit. But, I don’t think this is actually a benefit. Attempting to achieve that goal could end up being more patronizing than useful, following in the footsteps of “Clippy” the Microsoft Windows help agent which tried to figure out the context and help users, but failed miserably. “I see you are writing a letter. Would you like assistance?” Ack! It’s not that users don’t want to manage their context, it’s that they haven’t been given simple, value-producing tools to do so. Consider spreadsheets: it’s not that users want to balance the budget on a computer—doing budgets on a computer isn’t inherently rewarding. It’s that spreadsheets make it easy to get value out of balancing their budget on the computer. Managing KIX across 29 days of travel planning and potentially a hundred+ websites sounds like a chore… unless we have a coherent expression of the context (in something like a Search Map, perhaps) that is easy to use and immediately useful. Third, over-centralization limits scale. The Kynetx model, as I understand it, doesn’t scale to the full World Wide Web, because it centralizes two core functions: resolving requests for augmentation and the validation of injection javascript as safe, private, and secure. Both of these constrain the growth opportunity for a KRL-based approach to augmenting web services. First, it places the core usage-time server demand on a single service. Given the business model of charging for ruleset evaluations, there is no obvious incentive for Kynetx to release an open source reference implementation to make it easier for alternate KRE service providers. In fact, there is every expectation that Kynetx will be motivated to “win the market share” battle and be the primary KRE service. Which, unfortunately, makes it just another silo, and will face precisely the same sort of scaling issues that plague Twitter. Second, by making Kinetx the arbiter of “quality” it places a single entity in control ofwhat constitutes “safe”. Even with good intentions, such centralized moral authority is not just dangerous, it alienates potential innovation. Nobody wants to be forced to seek permission for their new functionality. That was, IMO, the primary reason the World Wide Web dominated AOL so quickly. The way to reach web scale is to make it absolutely trivial for /anyone/ to play the game. Several open source implementations and open standards enabled anyone who wanted to, to set up their own web server and try out the World Wide Web as a service provider. And, despite that lack of central control, lots of companies made lots of money providing enhanced software to manage those systems. So don’t fall for the illusion that central control is required or desirable for a big financial win. Signing software is understood technology; we can enable signed KIX functionality with a validated identity as a first step towards quality control. Then, by opening up the validation service–and separating it from the distribution/matching of those KIX functions, we can allow software developers and service providers the freedom to innovate and provide their own approaches to what is valid and what isn’t. Some providers will choose to accept ANY signed KIX and simply track reputation. Others will charge a fee for developers, but run through a quality control check and review. By opening it up, you allow users and developers the freedom to manage KIX quality however they like, without building a presumptive “download at your own risk” ecosystem. With Kynetx the sole authority on “quality” for KIX functionality, we would have both a technical and a political bottleneck that would retard the adoption of a generalized approach to the disaggregated web experience. [Btw, it would be great if there were a name for the javascript injected into the browser when a KRL rule fires after evaluating the context and the user identity. This is currently just the “associated KIX functionality”, which is a bit wordy.] Fourth, what about privacy and data rights management? On the whole, it isn’t clear to me what data might be sent around in the claims of various Information Cards, but there is no discussion in the white paper about the data rights associated with that information. If I’m telling Hertz that I’m an AARP member, can they use that data to start sending me junk mail or SPAM targeting AARP members? Frankly, this is a hole in the entire user-centric Identity framework. OpenID Attribute Exchange and Information Cards allow users to use a third party service for the management and presentment of minimally sophisticated facets of identity (much better than username & password), but neither inherently enables users to specify a data rights regime for the claims or attributes so provisioned. In effect, we’ve made it easy for users to provide additional data about themselves, but missed the opportunity for users to easily control the use of that data. Since Kynetx has a goal of seamlessly augmenting users’ web experience, isn’t it incumbant on them to assure that seamlessness both protects users’ right to privacy and prevents unintended over-customization based on supposedly private data? This is another manifestation of the “Tivo thinks I’m gay” problem, where Tivo analyzes viewing behavior and assumes things about the user, with no way for the user to manage their profile. The data rights problem happens because there is nothing to keep Tivo from telling Hertz, GE, or NBC they think the user is gay. The problem in the Kynetx approach happens when service providers start passing presumably private data to third parties—and users lack the means to control that leakage once the service provider knows certain data. This level of data rights control needs to be built in from the start for VRM and user-driven applications. Business Model At the core, I think the business model needs rethinking. Although a CPM-based pricing for KRL evaluations seems to align the value proposition directly with costs, it actually presents more risk and less control to potential customers than other models. It also presents greater risk and less stability for Kynetx itself. What service providers and developers want to see in a technology platform is one with a free entry point (so you can get testing and trying it ASAP, even if a production system would need a for-fee license), a constrained, predictable cost structure, and economies of scale. Charging per evaluation offers none of these. This model instead creates an artificial scarcity and then charges by the drop. What you want is to create abundance and sell buckets and hoses and pumps. Doc calls this the “because of” effect. Constraining KRL evaluation to support a pay-by-drink business model will artificially constrain adoption. Instead, run to ubiquity and sell the best tools for leveraging the system you’ve helped create. At the same time, the evaluation of rulesets will have highly variable demand, with great spikes and drops far outside of Kynetx’s control. Tying revenue to that demand volatility means an unpredictable, wild revenue profile, flattening out only with insanely large numbers of users. This works for mega services like Amazon Web Services, but for a start up moving from initial revenue to predictable cash flow, it can be unsettling. In contrast, an IDE sales model or subscription based service with monthly fees bounds developer expenses and stabilizes the revenue curve. I like the idea of KRL rulesets. Currently, SwitchBook is planning on using Javascript, RegEx, and XPath, for similar evaluations. That approach not only feels ad-hoc, it is. I’d like to see a unified approach that is flexible, cross-platform, and supported by a good development and test environment. I think Kynetx could go far by creating an open source platform for KRL rulesets, then providing a robust IDE and testing framework for those who want to manage KRL rules to meet business needs. I think this is nicely pointed to in the mention in the White Paper of A/B testing with different KRLs. This is precisely the kind of sophistication that businesses will need to make the most of KRLs and which can easily be separated from the core infrastructure that enables KRLs in an open way for everybody. Also, the consulting opportunities to analyze, customize, and manage KRL rulesets is a huge business opportunity. Doing that well is likely to remain a black art for a long time to come; helping Fortune 1000 companies do it well should be lucrative. As Dale Olds put it referring to Novel’s Bandit Project: First, enable an open identity-metasystem, then sell tools to companies to help them manage it. Collaborations I like the value proposition of platform-independent identity-based customization. It fits well with VRM’s r-buttons, MyDex’s Personal Data Store service, and SwitchBook’s Search Maps. I think there’s still some brain work to be done figuring out how we can all support each other and simultaneously build sustainable business models, but I’ve no doubt there’s a way if we all invest in exploring those opportunities. Although I focused on questions and concerns about Kynetx in this post, I have great respect for Phil and hope to work with him as both our companies–and the entire VRM community–build out viable solutions to these kinds of problems.
On yesterday’s Project VRM conference call, a piece of the Vendor Relationship Management puzzle snapped into alignment in a flash of insight. It wasn’t something new to the movement, rather it was a realization about the primacy and criticality of … Continue reading →
On yesterday’s Project VRM conference call, a piece of the Vendor Relationship Management puzzle snapped into alignment in a flash of insight. It wasn’t something new to the movement, rather it was a realization about the primacy and criticality of what we are doing and how to communicate it. It has always been a part of the conversation, just one that we often took a bit of time to get around to. And yet, it is perhaps the most important piece of all: When we put the user at the center, and make them the point of integration, the entire system becomes simpler, more robust, more scalable, and more useful. This is a profound shift that has some interesting parallels with a concept in AI called “stigmergy” and with a bit of classic Einstein becomes a totally new way to think about next generation systems design. In other words VRM changes the landscape in a way that not only makes life better for individuals, it profoundly improves the information architecture that modern society depends on. If you’ll indulge me, I’ll try to explain. User Centrism VRM has its roots in the user-centric Identity movement and has user-centrism at the core of its DNA. The first, and perhaps most obvious, interpretation of user-centrism is user control. That, unfortunately, is part of the problem. User Control User control is critically important. It resonates with the core of the modern social contract. Freedom. Liberty. Capitalism. The Age of Reason. Liberalism. These systems and ideologies all assume that the individual, and only the individual, has legitimate moral authority over his or her life, assets and the disposition of both. These are powerful concepts. So powerful, that when you build systems that provide individual control, you energize vast personal resources that in turn become real economic power, measured in trillions of dollars, just to consider US GDP. Contrast this with fascism, communism, and socialism, which place the state above the individual and in varying forms take control away. There’s some powerful mojo supporting the whole capitalistic freedom-loving democracy thing. Regulated Freedoms Of course, unfettered freedom isn’t the ultimate answer. We’ve learned how unregulated markets fail in various ways, often recreating abuses of power that eventually lead back to a loss of individual control. Think Standard Oil. Southern Pacific Railroad. AT&T. All monopolies that abused their power. And they all owe their break-up to the Progressive political movement which itself was an exercise in user control that started in the early 1900s and arguably ended in the 1990s when Clinton “reformed” welfare. The Political Siren Call The problem with user control is that it is so powerful as a political concept. “Putting users back in control” is a seductive rallying cry. In fact, it echoes with John Edward’s current populist campaign against poverty as well as Marx’s call to “workers of the world, unite!” The echoes also show up in user centrism in efforts like the Attention Trust, on which I’ve commented before. Much of the Attention Trust work is important, powerful work. But I still don’t know what they mean when they say that people own their attention data. Does that mean we somehow have the right to “nationalize” private data silos in the name of the people? Without debating the politics of this question–there are good points on both sides–it is clear that this line of thinking about VRM, user control, and user rights, is deeply political and therefore, controversial. The Conflict of Control It is also challenging to the graceful and speedy realization of our goals. Starting the conversation by asserting user control implies a loss of control somewhere else. Usually that means conflict, as few entities have ever given up control without a fight. So, thinking and talking about putting users in control resonates with users. But it scares the crap out of vendors. Too bad, some people say. Even yesterday, on that same VRM conference call: “We’ll punish them and get them to be more open and more transparent.” We may be able to do just that, but it is unlikely to be the easiest route to realize our goals. Especially not if there is a way to reframe the conversation, a way to redefine the important matters, such that the debate is not about user control, but rather about the inherent efficiencies and power of user-centrism. If we can do that, then user control gets built into the system automatically and those who would be giving up some of the control they have today–in their precious vendor data silos–do so not out of punishment, but out of honest, natural desires to improve their bottom line. Along that route lies the embrace of vendors and, I believe, more fruitful relationships for everyone. User Centrism as System Architecture Doc Searls shared a story about his experience getting medical care while at Harvard recently. As a fellow at the Berkman center, he just gave them his Harvard ID card and was immediately ushered into a doctor’s office–minimal paperwork, maximal service. They even called him a cab to go to Mass General and gave him a voucher for the ride. At the hospital, they needed a bit more paperwork, but as everything was in order, they immediately fixed him up. It was excellent service. But what Doc noticed was that at every point where some sort of paperwork was done, there were errors. His name was spelled wrong. They got the wrong birthdate. Wrong employer. Something. As he shuffled from Berkman to the clinic to the cabbie to the hospital to the pharmacy, a paper (and digital trail) followed him through archaic legacy systems with errors accumulating as he went. What became immediately clear to Doc was that for the files at the clinic, the voucher, the systems at the hospital, for all of these systems, he was the natural point of data integration… he was the only component gauranteed to contact each of these service providers. And yet, his physical person was essentially incidental to the entire data trail being created on his behalf. User as Point of Integration But what if those systems were replaced with a VRM approach? What if instead of individual, isolated IT departments and infrastructure, Doc, the user was the integrating agent in the system? That would not only assure that Doc had control over the propagation of his medical history, it would assure all of the service providers in the loop that, in fact, they had access to all of Doc’s medical history. All of his medications. All of his allergies. All of his past surgeries or treatments. His (potentially apocryphal) visits to new age homeopathic healers. His chiropractic treatments. His crazy new diet. All of these things could affect the judgment of the medical professionals charged with his care. And yet, trying to integrate all of those systems from the top down is not only a nightmare, it is a nightmare that apparently continues to fail despite massive federal efforts to re-invent medical care. (See The Emergence of National Electronic Health Record Architectures in the United States and Australia: Models, Costs, and Questions and Difficulties Implementing an Electronic Medical Record for Diverse Healthcare Service Providers for excellent reviews of what is going on this area, both pro and con.) Profoundly Different Doc’s insight–and that of user-centric systems–isn’t new. What’s new is the possibility to utilize the user-centric Identity meta-system to securely and efficiently provide seamless access to user-managed data stores. With that critical piece coming into place, we have the opportunity to completely re-think what it means to build out our IT infrastructure. What clicked on the conference call was first, that this approach actually has some intriguing resonance with a field of AI called “swarm intelligence” and the concept of stigmergy. And second, as a result, the user as the point of integration has the potential to be profoundly different and profoundly more efficient than current practices. Swarm Intelligence and Stigmergy Swarm Intelligence looks to the world of insects as inspiration for building AI systems that are collectively smart, but using individually dumb, but active components. For example, how do wasps build nests? Or how do ants find paths to food? It turns out that a lot of these insect behaviors have common properties that can be used to build computer algorithms. One concept that is particularly useful is “stigmergy”, which means marking the environment as communal signaling in a larger, emergent algorithm. Ants, for example, mark their trails with pheromones. As other ants explore for food, they sometimes follow existing trails, other times not. As more and more ants find success along one particular trail, it gets reinforced, and even improved as some ants’ explorations discover a slightly better route. This natural feedback loop uses the environment in a simple way to allow a bunch of ants to find food in an incredibly efficient way. The last time I looked into it, the Ant Algorithm was in fact the best known algorithm for a particular version of the “Traveling Salesman” problem. Amazing. All without any “active” part of the algorithm actually knowing or thinking about the entire area being mapped–which is what other mapping algorithms basically do. For an excellent discussion of Swarm Intelligence see Eric Bonabeau’s Swarm Intelligence: From Natural to Artificial Systems. Einstein, Ants, and User Centrism So what the heck do a bunch of ants have to do with VRM? With a bit of a solipsistic twist and topological imagination, quite a bit. Albert Einstein helped the world understand the truth that all velocity is relative. That me running at 15 mph towards a stationary car is the same as the car traveling 15 mph towards me. The important thing is the relationship between the parties, not which one is standing still. Now apply that sense of relativity to “stigmergy” and invert the ant and the environment. (And don’t hurt your brain!) Instead of thinking of humans as the active element, think of humans as the environment and Vendors as the ants. Instead of humans visiting a bunch of isolated data silos, invert it so that vendors are visiting stationary users–or their stationary data stores. Now, instead of a bunch of individuals running around leaving a disparate data trail which is hard to keep track of, the individual represents the digital environment where data is stored by vendors. When the next vendor comes along, the data is there, available for use, without the need for complex integration, processing, or systems maintenance, just like the environment is there for the next ant to come along, allowing that ant to do what they do without a complicated brain or sophisticated map of the territory. It doesn’t matter that Doc was physically moving around in his example. From Doc’s perspective, he was always right there. “No matter where I go… there I am.” This is more than just a solipsistic view of the universe, it is perhaps the most critical insight of the VRM user-centric gestalt. When you put the user at the center, it makes it trivially easy to manage and integrate the entire digital experience of the user. Because it is all right there, all the time. It is hard for me to judge if that makes any sense to the average person, but when it clicked in my brain yesterday, it was like a mega-watt flash bulb going off. This is a profoundly different way to think about systems architecture. Just like the ant algorithm, it shifts the problem from one of a complicated system that has to know and integrate everything, to one where all the vendor needs to know is which data store goes with which user. The rest follows. Sure, there is still a lot of work yet to be done. We have to figure out the protocols and technologies for what data vendors actually share in that data-store and how we assure reliable, always-on access in a secure and privacy-protected manner. Fortunately, as I mentioned earlier, the user-centric Identity meta-system is addressing a huge portion of that. In short, we are building on the shoulders of giants, which stand on the mountains of Moore and Gates and Postel and Berners-Lee and Andreeson. Sounds like fun to me.