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.
The “Master App” can’t magically make it all work. On the project VRM blog, Doc Searls recently suggested that the killer app for VRM is the “Master App”. In response, on the Project VRM email list, Jim Pasquale suggested it’s … Continue reading →
The “Master App” can’t magically make it all work. On the project VRM blog, Doc Searls recently suggested that the killer app for VRM is the “Master App”. In response, on the Project VRM email list, Jim Pasquale suggested it’s more of a mixing board than a master app. Jim’s right. The “master app” reminds me of what I call “The Sauron business model,” a term I coined after watching over one hundred and twenty 60 second pitches at two different Startup Weekend Santa Barbara events in the last two years. With all of those pitches in rapid succession, the pattern popped right out. For those of you who might not be Lord of the Rings fans, Sauron was the bad guy hell-bent on unifying everything in Middle Earth under his brutal rule, and wanted that hobbit’s ring to do it: Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky, Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone, Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die, One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie. One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie. [quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Ring] What I saw repeated again and again and again in those pitches at Startup Weekend were hopeful entrepreneurs who earnestly believed that if they could just unify all of a person’s [insert unique idea here], they could provide a ground breaking new service that would transform the world. Just like Sauron, all they needed was that One Thing to make it all work… Creating the only singular view of an individuals financials, MyFinances.com will make it easy for people to instantly waste less–and make more–money! Bringing together all of a user’s vendors into one coherent dashboard, people will finally be able to make smart choices that both save money and create more value, while vendors get better access to the right customers at the right time! Giving users control of their identity across all online services will make their online lives simpler and more secure. Sound familiar? The problem with the Sauron business model is that it depends on first unifying All the Things before it generates any unique value. Unless you can provide value FIRST, you’ll never get a chance to unify all the things. Trying to convince or coerce users into doing so makes you look a little like Sauron: delusional, power hungry, and more value destroying than value-creating. What Doc wants sounds great, but starting with a dependency on unification is the wrong framing of the opportunity. As I see it, there are two ways forward for the ambitious market changer: sharpshooting your way into a revolution or teaching a gorilla to dance. <img decoding="async" class="alignleft wp-image-1179" src="https://blog.joeandrieu.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/crossing-the-chasm-150x150.jpg" alt="crossing the chasm by Geoffrey Moore" width="125" height="186" srcset="https://blog.joeandrieu.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/crossing-the-chasm-201x300.jpg 201w, https://blog.joeandrieu.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/crossing-the-chasm.jpg 336w" sizes="(max-width: 125px) 100vw, 125px" /><img decoding="async" class="alignright wp-image-1180" src="https://blog.joeandrieu.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ries-and-trout-positioning-150x150.jpg" alt="ries and trout positioning" width="125" height="158" srcset="https://blog.joeandrieu.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ries-and-trout-positioning-237x300.jpg 237w, https://blog.joeandrieu.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ries-and-trout-positioning.jpg 395w" sizes="(max-width: 125px) 100vw, 125px" />For most entrepreneurs, with limited ammunition and time, finding a way to make every shot counts isn’t just important, it’s vital. Find a niche, nail it. That mantra isn’t new, both Geoffrey Moore and Ries & Trout built business strategy movements on the idea. Focus is everything to the early startup. Do that and you might just be able to become a unifying tool for end-users… you just won’t start out as one. On the other hand, if you’re a player in a big company, with an already ubiquitous presence, then perhaps the opportunity is to make your over-sized gorilla dance like Fred Astaire. Bill Gates orchestrated the myth of Microsoft turning on a dime to take on the Internet. Steve Jobs created entire new categories of devices when he returned to Apple after a forced hiatus. Unfortunately, while most of us don’t have Steve Jobs or Bill Gates levels of genius, even fewer of us are in a position to change existing players as they did. Fighting for VRM, we are rooting for Sean Bohan over at Mozilla, who is fighting the good fight at the organization that makes Firefox, the worlds 3rd most popular web browser. If you are lucky enough to be in a position like Sean’s, go for it. We need visionary change from the top in as many large companies and organizations as we can get. But there are far more hopeful entrepreneurs than change agents positioned at industry giants… In short, beware of the Sauron plan. If you’re imagining your startup unifying all of anything before you produce unique value for your users and customers… you’re probably doing it wrong.
From kindergarten through our professional life, sharing binds us together as friends, colleagues, and collaborators, so perhaps it should be no surprise that online sharing through services like Facebook, Twitter, and email shapes our online social life. Yet sharing online … Continue reading →
From kindergarten through our professional life, sharing binds us together as friends, colleagues, and collaborators, so perhaps it should be no surprise that online sharing through services like Facebook, Twitter, and email shapes our online social life. Yet sharing online is anything but simple. The details of what happens with the information we share is often hidden behind long, complicated legal agreements that almost no one reads. If we’re lucky, they are explained in Terms of Service and Privacy Policy documents, sometimes buried out of view, other times forced on us like ransom notes forcing us to state our compliance or leave the site. It doesn’t have to be that way. Today, at the Internet Identity Workshop, we officially launch the Standard Information Sharing Label, which makes it easy for websites to say in simple, consistent language what they do with our information, making it easier for individuals to make better decisions about the information we share online. The Information Sharing Work Group has published a draft specification defining the Standard Label as well as a Kickstarter project to finance its graphic design. The Kickstarter has a brief video explaining the effort. The official press release is here. The work is free to use and open to collaborators. In all my years contributing to the VRM conversation, few projects have made me as proud as I am of the work behind the Standard Label. Check it out. If you like it, please spread the word and consider chipping into help take this work to the next level.
Fourth Parties are agents. Third Parties aren’t necessarily.
Fourth Parties is a powerful, but sometimes confusing term. In fact, I think Doc recently mischaracterized it in a recent post to the ProjectVRM mailing list. Normally, I wouldn’t nitpick about this, but there are two key domains where this … Continue reading →
Fourth Parties is a powerful, but sometimes confusing term. In fact, I think Doc recently mischaracterized it in a recent post to the ProjectVRM mailing list. Normally, I wouldn’t nitpick about this, but there are two key domains where this is vital and I’m knee deep in both: contracts and platforms. Doc said: Like, is the customer always the first party and the vendor the second party? Well, no. So, some clarification. First and second parties are like the first and second person voices in speech. The person speaking is the first person, and uses the first person voice (I, me, mine, myself). The person being addressed is the second person, and is addressed in the second person voice (you, your, yourself). And To sum it up, third parties mostly assist vendors. That is, they show up as helpers to vendors. The first point is great, and if you continue this further (and make the leap from parties to data providers), you get something like this: 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.. Which is from my post on data ownership. The trick is that 1st party and 2nd party perspectives are symmetrical. We are their 2nd party and they are their 1st party. Whatever solution we come up with in the VRM world needs to work for everyone as their own 1st party. Everyone. Including “them”. Including Vendors. In fact, that’s the only way we can get out of the client-server, subservient mentality of the web. It’s also the only way to make sure that our solutions work even when the “vendor” is our neighbor, our friend, or our family. This is particularly clear in the work we are doing at the Kantara Initiative’s Information Sharing Work Group. We are creating a legal framework for protecting information individuals share with service providers. As such, it’s vital that the potential ambiguities of language are anchored in rigorous definitions. And what has emerged is that every transaction is covered by a contract between two parties. Not three. Not four. Not one. Two. And to the extent that third (or fourth) parties are mentioned, they are outsiders and not party to the contract. Since we are building a Trust Framework, there is a suite of contracts covering the different relationships in the system, but the legal obligations assumed in each contract have clear and unambiguous commitments between the first and second parties only. Platforms But where I think where Doc’s framing most needs a bit of correction is that, in fact, historically, third parties are never presumed to be working for second party. Not in the vernacular and not in any legal context. This presumption only emerges once you add a Fourth Party claiming that it works on behalf of the user. That is, 3rd-party-as-ally-of-the-2nd-Party is a corollary to Fourth Party concept, not a foundation for explaining it. Take Skype, which I have on my Verizon cell phone. In the contract with Verizon, Skype is a third party application and Skype, Inc. is the third party. But Skype isn’t working on Verizon’s behalf. This is not only true in the sense of 3rd party applications whose value proposition is clearly at odds with the 2nd party, it is even more true when it comes to platforms. And especially when you consider the relevance of VRM as a platform for innovation. In every platform, there are third parties who create apps that run on the platform. Microsoft built Windows, but Adobe built Photoshop. Apple built the iPhone, but Skype built Skype. For platforms to be successful, they necessarily bring in 3rd party developers to build on top of the platform. These developers aren’t necessarily working on behalf of the platform provider, and it would be a miscarriage of alignment to claim that they are. They are out for themselves, usually by providing unique value to the end user. Some new widget that makes live better. This becomes even more true when you are dealing with open platforms, or what I called Level 4 Platforms (building on Marc Andreeson’s The 3 Platforms You Meet on the Internet). In open platforms, you actually have 3rd parties helping contribute to the code base of the platform itself. Netscape adds tables to HTML. Microsoft adds the <marquee> tag. But here, it is even crazier to imagine that these 3rd parties are acting on behalf of the platform party… because there really isn’t a platform party. Nobody owns the Internet. I think the right way to think about 4th Parties is that they have a fiduciary responsibility to the 1st party and 3rd parties may or may not. Fourth Parties answer to the 1st party. 3rd Parties may not answer to anyone.
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!”
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.
This last year (2009) was the most challenging ever for me, both personally and professionally. Good times, tough problems, people that transformed my heart, and ideas that changed my perspective. It wasn’t always easy, but each challenge had its own … Continue reading →
This last year (2009) was the most challenging ever for me, both personally and professionally. Good times, tough problems, people that transformed my heart, and ideas that changed my perspective. It wasn’t always easy, but each challenge had its own reward. I’m looking forward to writing a bit more this year, opening the conversation up about portable contexts and user driven services. My work with Project VRM and the Kantara Initiative‘s Information Sharing and User-Managed Access Work Groups will continue to be a big part of that. I’m also looking forward to some interesting new product and service releases, from SwitchBook, MyDex, The Mine!, and others in the VRM community, as well as updates and innovations from Scanaroo, Kynetx and Azigo and others. Also, Doc Searls‘ upcoming book on the Intention Economy promises to be an intriguing read. It should be a good year for VRM. Best of luck to you and for your own plans for 2010. May it be a stand-out year for all of us.
Our world is continually becoming more and more user driven. From cable TV to YouTube, from newspapers to blogs, from Wal-Mart to eBay, from Ma Bell to the Internet, the shift from centralized, structured systems of authority to emergent, collaborations … Continue reading →
Our world is continually becoming more and more user driven. <img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright size-full wp-image-357" title="world UI" src="https://blog.joeandrieu.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/dreamstime_8489486world-uismall.jpg" alt="world UI" width="180" height="180" srcset="https://blog.joeandrieu.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/dreamstime_8489486world-uismall.jpg 180w, https://blog.joeandrieu.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/dreamstime_8489486world-uismall-150x150.jpg 150w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 180px) 100vw, 180px" />From cable TV to YouTube, from newspapers to blogs, from Wal-Mart to eBay, from Ma Bell to the Internet, the shift from centralized, structured systems of authority to emergent, collaborations between individuals has been reshaping our political, social, and economic world for generations. This is a trend that has driven—and been driven by—the massive success of the Internet, email, the World Wide Web, eBay, Google, RSS, FaceBook, YouTube, and Twitter. Each of these examples took an existing model and made it more user driven: networking, messaging, electronic publishing, buying & selling, content discovery & advertising, news aggregation/syndication, online video, status updates. The conclusion: companies which find ways to be more user driven are more valuable, more profitable, and more successful. What does it mean to be “user driven”? At its most basic, it means putting the user in charge, in some way. Fully realized, it means putting the user at the center of the system, as a point of integration, origination, and control. We call these fully realized systems “User Driven Services”. User Driven Services put users in charge. Users start each interaction, manage the flow of the experience, and control what and how data is captured, used and propagated. Users are the cause and the controller, working with service providers to co-create collaborations that create value for all parties. From self-serve gas stations and soda fountains to ATMs and self-checkout grocery stores, companies have been putting users in charge of different aspects of their services for years. With GetSatisfaction—which allows users to self-organize for cooperative customer support—and Facebook—which provides social context for user-generated content—users are not just self-servicing, they provide the core content behind the user experience. Now, through user-centric Identity and API access to most popular online services (Flickr, Twitter, Facebook, etc.), users can direct which parts of their experience are serviced by which providers, allowing unprecedented realtime flexibility in service creation. User Driven Services are redefining how we interact, how we manage our businesses, and how we engage in both public and personal conversations. Businesses and organizations that want to thrive in this new reality would do well to help co-create a new mutually beneficial marketplace for products, services, and ideas. Individuals, participating in this rising tide of personal power, have an opportunity to coordinate with each other and with service providers to craft a future that meets all of our needs, as individuals, entrepreneurs and business people. Terminology A few key terms: System: a group of independent but interrelated elements engineered to operate as a unified whole. (The systems to which we refer are not natural or conceptual systems, but rather, operating mechanisms designed and implemented to perform intended functions.) User: any individual interacting with a system. Service: a value generating experience available to users through interactions with a system; also the system providing such experiences. User Driven Services: services that maximize value creation by maximizing user control and authority. Characteristics User Driven Services have the following characteristics: Impulse from the User Control Transparency Data Portability Service Endpoint Portability Self Hosting User Generativity Improvability Self-managed Identity Duty of Care We will explore each of these characteristics in a series of articles over the next few weeks. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Award Number II+-08488990. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect teh views of the National Science Foundation.
The Internet is undergoing a major reconfiguration. No longer is it sufficient for companies to package a value proposition on their website and then drive traffic to it through ads, search engine optimization, and reciprocal links. Today companies must find … Continue reading →
The Internet is undergoing a major reconfiguration. No longer is it sufficient for companies to package a value proposition on their website and then drive traffic to it through ads, search engine optimization, and reciprocal links. Today companies must find ways to provide a value proposition wherever the user might be: on Facebook and Twitter, on their iPhones, and even through 3rd party applications accessing deep into the company’s datasphere through APIs and webhooks. The Internet is reconfiguring around the user, wherever people happen to be. I’ve been talking with folks in the VRM community about this topic over the last few years. VRM is, at its core, about starting with the user, re-engineering systems to maximize user freedom and control, and placing the user at the point of integration. Or, as Doc Searls puts it, creating tools for “both independence and engagement”. For example, I’ve led several discussions at various VRM workshops on what I call “user driven search“: what would happen if the user were truly in control of all the data related to their search and could engage any Search provider they like with the full scope of that information and under the user’s terms? In the last several months, I have been advocating a new term has that captures the core direction of both VRM and User Driven Search: “User Driven Services”. When you configure your services around the user as the primary point of origination, integration, and control, you are building User Driven Services. Over the next few weeks, I’ll dive into what we mean by User Driven Services; consider it a warm up for both the VRM West Coast Workshop 2009 and the Internet Identity Workshop. More …
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 →
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 registering. They resented having to register when they encountered the page. As one shopper told us, “I’m not here to enter into a relationship. I just want to buy something.” Some first-time shoppers couldn’t remember if it was their first time, becoming frustrated as each common email and password combination failed. We were surprised how much they resisted registering. Without even knowing what was involved in registration, all the users that clicked on the button did so with a sense of despair. Many vocalized how the retailer only wanted their information to pester them with marketing messages they didn’t want. Some imagined other nefarious purposes of the obvious attempt to invade privacy. (In reality, the site asked nothing during registration that it didn’t need to complete the purchase: name, shipping address, billing address, and payment information.) Not So Good For Repeat Customers Either Repeat customers weren’t any happier. Except for a very few who remembered their login information, most stumbled on the form. They couldn’t remember the email address or password they used. Remembering which email address they registered with was problematic – many had multiple email addresses or had changed them over the years. When a shopper couldn’t remember the email address and password, they’d attempt at guessing what it could be multiple times. These guesses rarely succeeded. Some would eventually ask the site to send the password to their email address, which is a problem if you can’t remember which email address you initially registered with. (Later, we did an analysis of the retailer’s database, only to discover 45% of all customers had multiple registrations in the system, some as many as 10. We also analyzed how many people requested passwords, to find out it reached about 160,000 per day. 75% of these people never tried to complete the purchase once requested.) The form, intended to make shopping easier, turned out to only help a small percentage of the customers who encountered it. (Even many of those customers weren’t helped, since it took just as much effort to update any incorrect information, such as changed addresses or new credit cards.) Instead, the form just prevented sales – a lot of sales. The $300,000,000 Fix The designers fixed the problem simply. They took away the Register button. In its place, they put a Continue button with a simple message: “You do not need to create an account to make purchases on our site. Simply click Continue to proceed to checkout. To make your future purchases even faster, you can create an account during checkout.” The results: The number of customers purchasing went up by 45%. The extra purchases resulted in an extra $15 million the first month. For the first year, the site saw an additional $300,000,000. Now that’s real money. Hat tip to Abhijit Nadgouda of iface thoughts.