Category: Problems (page 5 of 5)

Do we have to “trade off” privacy?

Look up privacy trade-offs and you’ll get more than 150,000,000 results. The assumption in many of those is that privacy is something one can (and often should) trade away. Also that privacy trading is mostly done with marketers and advertisers, the most energetic of which take advantage of social media such as and .

I don’t think this has to be so.

One example of a trade-off story is this one on public radio’s Marketplace program, which I heard this evening. It begins with the case of Shea Sylvia, a FourSquare user who got creeped out by an unwelcome call from a follower who knew her location. Marketplace’s Sally Herships says,

There are millions of Sylvias out there, giving away their private information for social reasons. More and more, they’re also trading it in for financial benefits, like coupons and discounts. Social shopping websites like Blippy and Swipely let shoppers post about what they buy. But first they turn over the logins to their e-mail accounts or their credit card numbers, so their purchases can be tracked online.

Later, there’s this (the voice is Herships again):

Alessandro Acquisti researches the economics of privacy at Carnegie Mellon, and he says the value we put on privacy can easily shift. In other words, if giving away your credit card information or even your location in return for a discount or a deal seems normal, it must be OK.

ALESSANDRO ACQUISTI: Five years ago, if someone told you that there’d be lots of people going online to show, to share with strangers their credit card purchases, you probably would have been surprised, you probably would thought, “No, I can’t believe this. I wouldn’t have believed this.”

But Acquisti says, when new technologies are presented as the norm, people accept them that way. Like social shopping websites.

HERSHIPS: So the more we use sites like Blippy, the more we’ll use sites like Blippy?

ACQUISTI: Or Blippy 2.0.

Which Acquisti says will probably be even more invasive, because as time passes, we’re going to care less and less about privacy.

Back in Kansas City Shea Sylvia is feeling both better and worse. She thinks the phone call she got that night at the restaurant was probably a prank. But it was a wake up call.

What we’re dealing with here is an evanescent norm. A fashion. A craze. I’ve indulged in it myself with FourSquare, and at one point was the “mayor” of ten different places, including the #77 bus on Mass Ave in Cambridge. (In fact, I created that location.) Gradually I came to believe that it wasn’t worth the hassle of “checking in” all over the place, and was worth nothing to know Sally was at the airport, or Bill was teaching a class, or Mary was bored waiting in some check-out line, much as I might like all those people. The only time FourSquare came in handy was when a friend intercepted me on my way out of a stop in downtown Boston, and even then it felt strange.

The idea, I am sure, is that FourSquare comes to serve as a huge central clearing house for contacts between companies selling stuff and potential buyers (that’s you and me) wandering about the world. But is knowing that a near-infinite number of sellers can zero in on you at any time a Good Thing? And is the assumption that we’re out there buying stuff all the time not so wrong as to be insane?

Remember that we’re the product being sold to advertisers. The fact that our friends may be helping us out might be cool, but is that the ideal way to route our demand to supply? Or is it just one that’s fun at the moment but in the long term will produce a few hits but a lot of misses—some of which might be very personal, as was the case with Shea Silvia? (Of course I might be wrong about both assumptions. What I’m right about is that FourSquare’s business model will be based on what they get from sellers, not from you or me.)

The issue here isn’t how much our privacy is worth to the advertising mills of the world, or to intermediaries like FourSquare. It’s how we maintain and control our privacy, which is essentially priceless—even if millions of us give it away for trinkets or less. Privacy is deeply tied with who we are as human beings in the world. To be fully human is to be in control of one’s self, including the spaces we occupy.

An excellent summary of our current privacy challenge is this report by Joy L. Pitts (developed as part of health sciences policy development process at the Institute of Medicine, the health arm of the National Academy of Sciences). It sets context with these two quotes:

“The makers of the Constitution conferred the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by all civilized men—the right to be let alone.”

—Justice Louis Brandeis (1928)

“You already have zero privacy anyway. Get over it.”

—Scott McNealy, Chairman and CEO of Sun Microsystems (1999)

And, in the midst of a long, thoughtful and well-developed case, it says this (I’ve dropped the footnotes, which are many):

Privacy has deep historical roots. References to a private domain, the private or domestic sphere of family, as distinct from the public sphere, have existed since the days of ancient Greece.  Indeed, the English words “private” and “privacy” are derived from the Latin privatus, meaning “restricted to the use of a particular person; peculiar to oneself, one who holds no public office.” Systematic evaluations of the concept of privacy, however, are often said to have begun with the 1890 Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis article, “The Right of Privacy,” in which the authors examined the law’s effectiveness in protecting privacy against the invasiveness of new technology and business practices (photography, other mechanical devices and newspaper enterprises). The authors, perhaps presciently, expressed concern that modern innovations had “invaded the sacred precincts of private and domestic life; and . . . threatened to make good the prediction that ‘what is whispered in the closet shall be proclaimed from the house-tops.’” They equated the right of privacy with “the right to be let alone” from these outside intrusions.

Since then, the scholarly literature prescribing ideal definitions of privacy has been “extensive and inconclusive.” While many different models of privacy have been developed, they generally incorporate concepts of:

  • Solitude (being alone)
  • Seclusion (having limited contact with others)
  • Anonymity (being in a group or in public, but not having one’s name or identity known to others; not being the subject of others’ attention)
  • Secrecy or reserve (information being withheld or inaccessible to others)

In essence, privacy has to do with having or being in one’s own space.

Some describe privacy as a state or sphere where others do not have access to a person, their information, or their identity. Others focus on the ability of an individual to control who may have access to or intrude on that sphere. Alan Westin, for example, considered by some to be the “father” of contemporary privacy thought, defines privacy as “the claim of individuals, groups or institutions to determine for themselves when, how and to what extent information about them is communicated to others.” Privacy can also be seen as encompassing an individual’s right to control the quality of information they share with others.

In the context of personal information, concepts of privacy are closely intertwined with those of confidentiality and security. Privacy addresses “the question of what personal information should be collected or stored at all for a given function.” In contrast, confidentiality addresses the issue of how personal data that has been collected for one approved purpose may be held and used by the organization that collected it, what other secondary or further uses may be made of it, and when the permission of the individual is required for such uses.Unauthorized or inadvertent disclosures of data are breaches of confidentiality. Informational security is the administrative and technological infrastructure that limits unauthorized access to information. When someone hacks into a computer system, there is a breach of security (and also potentially, a breach of confidentiality). In common parlance, the term privacy is often used to encompass all three of these concepts.

Take any one of these meanings, or understandings, and be assured that it is ignored or violated in practice by large parts of today’s online advertising business—for one simple reason (I got from long ago): Individuals have no independent status on the Web. Instead we have dependent status. Our relationships (and we have many) are all defined by the entities with which we choose to relate via the Web. All those dependencies are silo’d in the systems of sellers, schools, churches, government agencies, social media, associations, whatever. You name it. You have to deal with all of them separately, on their terms, and in their spaces. Those spaces are not your spaces. (Even if they’re in a place called . Isn’t it weird to have somebody else using the first person possessive pronoun for you? It will be interesting to see how retro that will seem after it goes out of fashion.)

What I’m saying here is that, on the Web, we do all our privacy-trading in contexts that are not out in the open marketplace, much less in our own private spaces (by any of the above definitions). They’re all in closed private spaces owned by the other party—where none of the rules, none of the terms of engagement, are yours. In other words, these places can’t be private, in the sense that you control them. You don’t. And in nearly all cases (at least here in the U.S.), your “agreements” with these silos are contracts of adhesion that you can’t break or change, but the other party can—and often does.

These contexts have been so normative, for so long, that we can hardly imagine anything else, even though we have that “else” out here in the physical world. We live and sleep and travel and get along in the physical world with a well-developed understanding of what’s mine, what’s yours, what’s ours, and what’s none of those. That’s because we have an equally well-developed understanding of bounded spaces. These differ by culture. In her wonderful book , Polly Platt writes about how French —comfortable distances from others—are smaller than those of Americans. The French feel more comfortable getting close, and bump into each other more in streets, while Americans tend to want more personal space, and spread out far more when they sit. Whether she’s right about that or not, we actually have personal spaces on Earth. We don’t on the Web, and in Web’d spaces provided by others. (The Net includes more than the Web, but let’s not get into that here. The Web is big enough.)

So one reason that privacy trading is so normative is that dependency requires it. We have to trade it, if that’s what the sites we use want, regardless of how they use whatever we trade away.

The only way we can get past this problem (and it is a very real one) is to create personal spaces on the Web. Ones that we own and control. Ones where we set the terms of engagement. Ones where we decide what’s private and what’s not.

In the VRM development community we have a number of different projects and companies working on exactly this challenge.  is pure open source and has a self-explanatory name. Others (, and others) are open in many ways as well, and are working together to create (or put to use) common code, standards, protocols, terminologies and other conventions on which all of us can build privacy-supporting solutions. You’ll find links to some of the people involved in those efforts (among others) in Personal Data Stores, Exchanges, and Applications, a new post by  (of Switchbook). There’s also the One example is the and at . (For more context on that, check out Iain Henderson’s unpacking of the .) There’s also our own work at ProjectVRM and , which has lately centered on developing -like legal tools for both individuals and companies.  What matters most here is that a bunch of good developers are working on creating spaces online that are as natural, human, personal—and under personal control—as the ones we enjoy offline.

Once we have those, the need for privacy trade-offs won’t end. But they will begin to make the same kind of down-to-Earth sense they do in the physical world. And that will be a huge leap forward.

Being a platform for your own health

In “Gimme my damn data!” The stage is being set to enable patient-driven disruptive innovation, Vince Kuraitis says,

We assert that to disrupt within a non-working system is to bark up a pointless tree: even if you win, you haven’t altered what matters. Business planners and policy people who do this will miss the mark. Here’s what we see when we step back and look anew from the consumer’s view:

  1. We’ve been disrupting on the wrong channel.
  2. It’s about the consumer’s appetite.
  3. Patient as platform:
    • Doc Searls was right
    • Lean says data should travel with the “job.”
    • “Nothing about me without me.”
  4. Raw Data Now: Give us the information and the game changes.
  5. HITECH begins to enable patient-driven disruptive innovation.
  6. Let’s see patient-driven disruption. Our data will be the fuel.

Well, to point #3, it’s more than just me. I wrote what Vince calls “right“, and that Dave deBronkhart (e-Patient Dave) also cites, when I was in the hospital and observed the system up close and personal, and found that others have been advocating Patient as Platform for a long time, though with different names. Kudos to all of them.

I have one small quibble, and that’s with the word “consumer.” Patients today no longer only consume. They produce.  What they want and need is more responsibility for their own health care. More importantly, a patient cannot be a platform if he or she is only consuming. By nature and definition, a consumer is a subordinate creature. It lives downhill from the flow of services. Platforms stand below what they support, but are not subordinate. They are the independent variable on which the variable ones standing on it depend.

For more along these lines, follow Adriana Lukas here, where (among other things), she has MINT, which stands for My Information Not Theirs.

Getting Real and VRM

Deep in a post about other stuff, Tony Fish asks, “What is Vendor Relationship Management (VRM) and how will it effect your future customer relationship strategy?” The parties to whom that is addressed are corporate CRM and marketing folks. Alan Mitchell provides some answers, along with more questions, in Get ready for Vendor Relationship Management:

Why should marketers be interested in VRM? Because, given a choice between a product that isn’t really addressing their needs (CRM) and one that is (VRM), customers are more likely to opt for VRM. In other words, VRM is a game changer.

A VRM filter helps create a new operational and innovation agenda. The simple question ‘how does this help the customer achieve his or her relationship management goals’ can go a long way to predicting which initiatives will stick, and which won’t. Creating systems to recognise customers at every touchpoint and treat them in a seamless fashion looks pretty good under this spotlight. Profiling and propensity modelling for the purposes of direct marketing? Not so sure.

More answers and questions emerge in a thread that starts with Denis Pombriant‘s The Relationship Entity, at the heart of which is this:

Who owns the customer relationship?  Is it the customer?  The vendor?  Both?  I think this is a trick question because a relationship is a duality that exists independent of both parties but requires both to exist at all.  In fact, the relationship becomes an entity of itself, a mass-less, weightless entity but a reality nonetheless.  Substitute the word marriage for relationship and you see my point.

(Tell me about it. Inside our wedding rings my wife and I have engraved “The couple decides.”)

Denis concludes,

I advocate thinking about the relationship as an independent entity, one that has to be nurtured from both sides.  And that drives my thinking on social CRM.

Paul Greenberg follows with Customer Ownership: Relationship? Conversation? Simply Put. SCRM is not VRM. Simple Being the Operative Principle. Some excerpts:

…the company owns the company, the customer owns their own personal value chain so to speak. That’s why there is a difference between SCRM and VRM.  Vendor Relationship Management is what the customer does to command their side of the relationship.  SCRM is what the company does in response to the customer’s control of the conversation – and all the other things associated with that.  But the company still owns itself – meaning its operational practices and its objectives and its records and its legal status as a company.

I think that the customer is at the hub of business ecosystem – to the point that you can call it a customer ecosystem. Meaning the customer drives demand and the company is now forced to respond to that.   But a relationship between company and customer is exactly what Denis says it is and that relationship’s success is the essence of SCRM…

Companies are increasingly being pushed to respond to customers and that is where SCRM begins to show itself.

So let me put it this way.  The final line of my definition of CRM says, “Its the company’s response to the customer’s control of the conversation.”  At this time, the ongoing way that the company responds to the customers control of the conversation IS the relationship.

Thanks to Chris Carfi for pointing us to that thread.

On the topic of branding (one of marketing’s oldest terms, borrowed originally by Procter & Gamble from the cattle industry), Alan Mitchell gets us started again with Brand messsaging: the heart of it. He begins,

I’ll be as blunt as possible. So long as marketers accept the conventional wisdom so neatly summed up by McKinsey, that the job of marketers is to increase “brands’ power to generate messages that influence the consumer’s decision to purchase” we will never – repeat, never – be able to make the mental and operational changes we need to flourish in the emerging era…

To explore the dynamics of what’s happening here, let’s approach the issue obliquely via a wonderful passage in Youngme Moon’s new book Different

In this passage she describes how modern markets work (or, to be more precise, our prevailing mental model of how they work). They display at least five defining characteristics.

  1. Consumers are exercising choice (but only from among the choices that producers have decided to offer them).
  2. Every consumer in every category is on a journey from novicedom to connoisseurship: most of us are neither novices or connoisseurs, we’re somewhere in the middle, learning. This learning is achieved almost entirely via DIY methods (there are no GSCEs or degrees in shopping).
  3. Aside from advertising, most product information is inseparable from the product itself: we go to market to inspect the product, to understand its features, attributes and qualities etc. To learn, in other words.
  4. Virtually all the information provided about the product is provided by the seller …
  5. … designed and distributed in furtherance of the seller’s goals, i.e. to persuade the buyer to buy.

This is the environment that created the brand-messaging consumer-influencing agenda. But it’s an environment that is fading fast. If we look at the emerging environment it looks rather different:

  1. An increasing proportion of the information that’s made available about the product is separate from the product itself: e.g. online.
  2. An increasing proportion of this information comes from independent sources (including other consumers), not the seller …
  3. … so an increasing proportion of this information addresses the consumer’s goal of making better decisions, rather than the seller’s goal of influence.
  4. These last two developments mean that learning about products and markets isn’t just a DIY activity any more: specialist services (search, comparison, peer-to-peer advice etc) are emerging to help consumers on this front; to provide them with the information they need; to help them become more ‘professional’ in their product judgements and choices.
  5. The more consumers get to understand what’s available and what’s possible, the more the process of arriving at a decision changes – from ‘choosing from among the choices presented to me’ to ‘building a specification of what I would like, and then finding the best fit’.

What this means is that we are in transition. Let’s accept that sellers will always want to influence consumers’ decisions in their favour and that consumers will always want to make better decisions. That’s not changing, but how they go about these tasks is being turned upside down (or, to be more precise, right side up).

For many decades now we have lived in a seller-centric market largely shaped and defined by marketers’ quest to influence consumers’ decisions. Consumers have had to pursue their goals within this context. We are now moving towards a buyer-centric market shaped and defined by consumers’ quest for better decisions, with marketers having to pursue their goals within this context. This is the “tectonic power shift”, the “dramatically altered” balance of power between companies and consumers that McKinsey so rightly referred to.

In Sixth Characteristic, Jacek Chwalisz adds to Alan’s list,

Using current communications tools it is possible to find, understand, communicate and satisfy people who at the moment are looking for particular object, not only its perception.

In that post Jacek probes the distance between the real and the unreal, and the role of branding in creating the latter. He sees in brands a “magic” that is “not rational.” Specifically,

I think people taking under consideration different choices than offered by brands feel risk related to possible lost of this “magic”. And they are right, because brands satisfy their needs of “magic”. How this “magic” works? People have a tendency to mix up subject of perception and method of perception. For many people “story about facts” is the same as “facts”, “knowledge about something” is the same as “something”, “self perception” is the same as “self” (this mechanism was described many times, even in European Middle Ages as “medium quo” and “medium quod”).

This distance between perception and reality is reduced by authenticity, and therein lies the problem with branding itself, of the current craze around “personal branding,” and why the latter is oxymoronic.

I took all this on earlier this month in a string of posts titled Brands are Boring, Branding is Bull, and The Unbearable Lightness of Branding. Quite a few comments followed, but none does a better job than Phil Windley’s
Branding and Indispensability vs Reputation and Influence. “We already have an identity and we have our humanity. Those are the things that we need to emphasize, not the idea of personal brand.”

As everybody above make clear, VRM is something that happens on the customer’s side of his or her relationship with vendors (or with any other entity). As Jacek suggests, real relationship requires authenticity. For that, traditional branding is largely a side issue. In fact, I suggest that all branding is essentially a distraction. I might even suggest that nearly all marketing is too. That’s because marketing is still mostly about push. Let’s face it: pushing is what most marketers get paid to do.

But pull will outperform push, because it will involve less — or no — guesswork. It will be based on what the customer actually wants, rather than what vendors want to push at them.

Back in 1997, before blogging got started, I wrote two pieces no publisher would touch, both about “push,” which was then a big buzzcraze: Shoveling Push Media, and When Push Comes to Shove. The craze went away, but the urge to push hasn’t, and shouldn’t. Sellers need to let buyers know what they’ve got and why it’s good. But the waste involved in blasting out message, and “branding,” is huge. And it wastes more than money.

Bonus link: VRM is #15 on Web Design Cool’s list of 21 Twitter Tips From Socially Savvy Companies.

Wanted: User-usable data

For years makers of many kinds of goods and services have provided means for them to monitor how things are going. Now they need to include us in on the action, for the simple reason that we can do it better than they can. That’s the point of Driving by the Numbers, Robin Chase‘s recent op-ed in The New York Times.

Says Robin,

…sometimes the solution to a safety problem is simply more transparency. Indeed, there is a relatively easy solution that would help identify problems before they affect thousands of cars, or kill and injure dozens of people: allow drivers and carmakers real-time access to the data that’s already being monitored.

Most cars now undergo regular state emissions and safety inspections. A mechanic plugs an electronic reader into what’s known as the onboard diagnostic unit, a computer that sits under your dashboard, monitoring data on acceleration, emissions, fuel levels and engine problems. The mechanic can then download the data to his own computer and analyze it.

Because carmakers believe such diagnostic data to be their property, much of it is accessible only by the manufacturer and authorized dealers and their mechanics. And even then, only a small amount of the data is available — most cars’ computers don’t store data, they only monitor it. Though newer Toyotas have data recorders that gather information in the moments before an air bag is deployed, the carmaker has been frustratingly vague about what kind of data is collected (other manufacturers have been more forthcoming).

But what if a car’s entire data stream was made available to drivers in real time? You could use, for instance, a hypothetical “analyze-my-drive” application for your smart phone to tell you when it was time to change the oil or why your “check engine” light was on. The application could tell you how many miles you were getting to the gallon, and how much yesterday’s commute cost you in time, fuel and emissions. It could even tell you, say, that your spouse’s trips to the grocery store were 20 percent more fuel-efficient than yours.

Carmakers could collect the data, too. Aberrant engine and driving behavior would leap out of the carmakers’ now-large data set…

For those companies, keeping that data to themselves — in fact, not realizing in the least that the largest body of intelligence about their own goods and services is out there among the actual users of them — is mainframe thinking at its worst.

In 1943, Thomas Watson of IBM famously said, “”I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” That’s the kind of thinking that IBM (which invented the PC as most of us know it, in 1982) gave up generations ago. But it’s still alive and well in big companies of nearly all other kinds.

What I’d like to know is if there are any hacks on Toyota’s or Honda’s or any car maker”s data reporting systems. Betcha there is. If not, let’s attack this from our side of the fence, rather than the car makers’ — or even the governent’s. (They’re even less likely to get it right.) To wrap that case, here’s Robin’s bottom line:

Cars would continue to break down and even cause accidents, but it wouldn’t take a Congressional hearing to figure out why.

Hat tip to Bart Stevens of iChoosr for sharing Robin’s piece with fellow VRooMers.

Geocasting

The following excerpts a recent Project VRM Conversation on Geocasting — the ability to share your location data with the world, how you could optionally share it, and how it could be abused.

A thread on privacy developed as often happens in these discussions about the ongoing digitization of our thoughts, movements, and actions. Continue reading

Dear Hollywood,

Please get rid of the @#$%^& region coding on your movies.

We meant to bring along some movies when we came to Switzerland for our holiday vacation, which we’re on now. Forgetting the DVDs was my fault. Not being able to watch other movies, however — ones that we would be glad to pay for and watch on our laptop, is not our fault. It’s yours. It’s way past time to fix that.

Thanks to the insanity of region coding, we can’t play DVDs rented or bought here, because they’re encoded for Region 2, while our laptops are set for Region 1. There are workarounds, but we don’t feel like screwing with those.

But, we thought, Hey, we’re Netflix customers. Maybe we could watch live online. The wi-fi connection at the hotel here is surprisingly good (considering that we’re way back up in the Alps). Alas, when we go to Netflix, it says,

Watching Instantly is Not Available Outside the US

Our systems indicate that the computer you are using is not located within the 50 United States or District of Columbia. Due to studio licensing reasons, movies are available to watch instantly only on computers in those locations.

I don’t know if this retro craziness actually creates any business for the studios, but it clearly prevents business in our case, and many others.

So, Hollywood, why screw your own customers? You have a direct relationship with me. I pay to watch your movies. We have a relationship. Why should that relationship fail when I leave the country? This is the freaking Internet we’re on. My watching a Netflix movie should not have a damn thing to do with where I am in the world. What am I going to do that’s a risk to you? Copy and re-encode it for sale over here? Let’s get real.

There has to be a better way than this.

If you can’t figure one out for yourselves (and, after eleven years, there is good reason to believe you won’t), how about working with customers to develop a solution that involves point-to-point, customer-seller relationships that enable business and support good will, rather than preventing both?

If you’re interested, let us know.

Newer posts

© 2023 ProjectVRM

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑