Pew Report download http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2011/PIP_Teens_Kindness_Cruelty_SNS_Report_Nov_2011_FINAL_110711.pdf

Comment : This is a US report but based on work I have seen from the EU - I would say that there is a high degree of alignment - I still worry that we believe we can teach the screenagers where in fact they are teaching us.  We are observing and they are changing faster than we can monitor.....

The majority of social media-using teens say their peers are mostly kind to one another on social network sites.

Their views are less positive than those of social media-using adults.  Most American teens who use social media say that in their experience, people their age are mostly kind

to one another on social network sites. Overall, 69% of social media-using teens think that peers are mostly kind to each other on social network sites. Another 20% say that peers are mostly unkind, while 11% volunteered that “it depends.” At the same time, in a similar question asked of adults 18 and older, 85% of social media-using adults reported that people are mostly kind to one another on social networksites, while just 5% felt that people are mostly unkind.

88% of social media-using teens have witnessed other people be mean or cruel on social network sites

15% of social media-using teens say they have been the target of online meanness

More teens report positive personal outcomes than negative ones from interactions on social network sites: 78% report at least one good outcome and 41% report at least one negative outcome

19% of teens have been bullied online, by text, or by phone.

How do people respond to mean behavior online?

Teens say they most often see people ignoring cruelty, but a substantial number have witnessed others standing up for victims.

A majority of teens say their own reaction has been to ignore mean behavior when they see it on social media.

Two-thirds of teens who have witnessed online cruelty have also witnessed others joining in – and 21% say they have also joined in the harassment

Teens rely most heavily on parents and peers for advice about online behavior and coping with challenging experiences

Most of these exchanges happening on social network sites are not taking place in full public view, as the majority of teens take various steps to manage their privacy online

55% of all online teens say they have decided not to post content that might reflect poorly on them in the future.

A notable number of teens also engage in online practices that may have the potential to compromise their safety online

Most parents of teens talk with their child or use non-technical measures to manage their teens’ online experiences

39% of all parents of teens have connected to their child on a social network site, but that does not necessarily prevent online trouble for the teen.

On SSRN: The PII Problem: Privacy and a New Concept of Personally Identifiable Information

by Paul Schwartz University of California, Berkeley – School of Law, and Daniel Solove, George Washington University Law School

Abstract: Personally identifiable information (PII) is one of the most central concepts in information privacy regulation. The scope of privacy laws typically turns on whether PII is involved. The basic assumption behind the applicable laws is that if PII is not involved, then there can be no privacy harm. At the same time, there is no uniform definition of PII in information privacy law.

Moreover, computer science has shown that in many circumstances non-PII can be linked to individuals, and that de-identified data can be re-identified. PII and non-PII are thus not immutable categories, and there is a risk that information deemed non-PII at one time can be transformed into PII at a later juncture. Due to the malleable nature of what constitutes PII, some commentators have even suggested that PII be abandoned as the mechanism by which to define the boundaries of privacy law.

In this Article, we argue that although the current approaches to PII are flawed, the concept of PII should not be abandoned. We develop a new approach called “PII 2.0,” which accounts for PII’s malleability. Based upon a standard rather than a rule, PII 2.0 utilizes a continuum of risk of identification. PII 2.0 regulates information that relates to either an “identified” or “identifiable” individual, and it establishes different requirements for each category. To illustrate this theory, we use the example of regulating behavioral marketing to adults and children. We show how existing approaches to PII impede the effective regulation of behavioral marketing, and how PII 2.0 would resolve these problems.

full text of the article, The PII Problem: Privacy and a New Concept of Personally Identifiable Information by Paul Schwartz, Daniel Solove :: SSRN.

A survey carried out by MyMemory  in Oct 2011 involved 1,781 Facebook users from all over the UK and suggests that the presence of alcohol is in 76% of British Facebook photos which may or may not determine a certain level of inebriation.  Further the study found that the UK's adult Facebook users were drunk in three out of every four images that they were tagged in. Of the users who were polled, only 12% of them don’t let anyone see their photos, while 58% allow their friends to look at their pictures. However, over a quarter say that their photos are viewable by anyone on Facebook. 8% went as far as saying that their photos might lead to “serious trouble at work”.

Another fact that came to light was that 93 per cent of UK Facebook users admitted to deleting tags on those images considered as compromising and "embarrassing."

In a separate study my MyMemory, it appears that ex-lovers aren’t always consigned to the past amongst Britons, and has revealed that over a third, 36%, of adults in relationships around the UK admit to keeping a ‘secret’ photo of an ex-lover; without the knowledge of their other half.

Forrester wanted it removed from here so you have to go to their site - joys.  

Personal data – digital data created by and about people – represents a new economic “asset class”, touching all aspects of society. The abundance of personal data represents untapped opportunities for economic growth and social benefit; however, the barriers restricting personal data’s movement and protection need to be resolved. This report finds that, to unlock the full potential of personal data, a balanced ecosystem with increased trust between individuals, government and the private sector is necessary.

Granting individuals greater control over their data is necessary to create a balanced personal data ecosystem.

The report addresses the interrelated and complex cultural, business, technology and policy trends shaping the personal data ecosystem by presenting a user-centric set of recommendations for individuals, private enterprise and policy-makers. In particular, the report suggests five areas for collective action:

1) Innovate around user-centricity and trust. The personal data ecosystem will be built on the trust and control individuals have in sharing their data. Continued testing and promoting of trust frameworks that explore innovative approaches for identity assurance at Internet scale are needed.

2) Define global principles for using and sharing personal data. Given the lack of globally accepted policies governing the use and exchange of personal data, an international community should articulate core principles of a user-centric personal data ecosystem.

3) Strengthen the dialogue between regulators and the private sector. Technologists should closely align with regulators to establish processes that enable stakeholders to formulate and update a standardized set of rules to create a basic legal infrastructure.

4) Focus on interoperability and open standards. Stakeholders should identify best practices and engage with standards bodies, advocacy groups, think tanks and various consortia on the user-centric approaches required to scale the value of personal data. 

5) Continually share knowledge. To stay current, stakeholders should actively share insights and lessons learned on their relevant activities (both successes and failures). The ecosystem promises tremendous value created when individuals share information about who they are and what they know. This principle should also apply to practitioners within the development community.

Launched in 2010, the Rethinking Personal Data project is a multi-year project intended to bring together private companies, public sector representatives, end-user privacy and rights groups, academics and topic experts to deepen the collective understanding of how a principled, collaborative and balanced personal data ecosystem can evolve.

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_ITTC_PersonalDataNewAsset_Report_2011.pdf

http://cdt.org/files/inline/pdf/Personal-Data-Ecosystem.pdf

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1909366

Paul Schwartz and Daniel Solove have a article available for download from SSRN.  Aug 2011

abstract:

Personally identifiable information (PII) is one of the most central concepts in information privacy regulation. The scope of privacy laws typically turns on whether PII is involved. The basic assumption behind the applicable laws is that if PII is not involved, then there can be no privacy harm. At the same time, there is no uniform definition of PII in information privacy law. Moreover, computer science has shown that in many circumstances non-PII can be linked to individuals, and that de-identified data can be re-identified. PII and non-PII are thus not immutable categories, and there is a risk that information deemed non-PII at one time can be transformed into PII at a later juncture. Due to the malleable nature of what constitutes PII, some commentators have even suggested that PII be abandoned as the mechanism by which to define the boundaries of privacy law.

In this Article, we argue that although the current approaches to PII are flawed, the concept of PII should not be abandoned. We develop a new approach called “PII 2.0,” which accounts for PII’s malleability. Based upon a standard rather than a rule, PII 2.0 utilizes a continuum of risk of identification. PII 2.0 regulates information that relates to either an “identified” or “identifiable” individual, and it establishes different requirements for each category. To illustrate this theory, we use the example of regulating behavioral marketing to adults and children. We show how existing approaches to PII impede the effective regulation of behavioral marketing, and how PII 2.0 would resolve these problems.

 The full document is here

I have a problem with the whole idea of Control – it has already gone

Original Post - http://napsterization.org/stories/archives/000769.html

More commentary - http://personaldataecosystem.org/2011/11/3589/

This image is from Corrado Moiso blog  and his write up is there about the diagram

 “Personal data negotiation” would create the opportunities to have a more rich and fear marketplace on the personal data, by enabling the so called “The Economics of Personal Data and the Economics of Privacy”. Individuals can trade the conditions for enabling 3^rd parties (service providers, data brokers, …) to access some of their data, with the possible involvement of an actor play an intermediary role. Individuals and 3^rd parties can agree on which data are disclosed, possible neutralization filters, etc. and on the benefits for individuals (in terms of money, free access to services, etc.). In this way, individuals can be more actively involved in the exploitation of their personal data (at least to achieve a greater awareness on the data disclosed to have access to free services).

Midata - access and control your personal data, this is the UK governments Consumer Empowerment Strategy for data….

The three main objectives of midata are to:

• secure broad private-sector participation in the project, with a key number of businesses agreeing to release individual, personal data to consumers
• let consumers access and use their data in a safe way
• encourage businesses to develop innovative services and applications that will interpret and use the data for consumers

Agenda 1: consumer data

 “Giving people back their data” is billed as putting the customer back in control when forming or reviewing a relationship with a vendor. Sorry but this misses the point totally and most users don’t want their data. We generate vast amounts of data in creating and consuming. You will get zero understanding our consumption patterns based on the data – you need the algorithm and the output.

Please start protecting those who want to give data but have no value as they will be left out from FREE soon as I can spot them.  Also – no-one owns data……

Agenda 2: identity

There is a need to prove things: who you are, can you pay, entitlement-by-residence and so on.

The favoured approach is that of “federated identity assurance”. Not trying to create one massive database of people information against which things can be checked, but to use information sourced from a number of existing trusted relationships, in combination, to give sufficient assurance of identity.

Ignoring the issues about what is personal data – check out Personal Data Ecosystem PDEC (I am on the board)  Identity is more than your data and is more than what you can prove -  we need to get some new words in this area as Identity is just way to confusing.  Also I don’t need to prove who I am to buy anything?

Agenda 3: open for business

Well until someone in government wakes up that this is a service play – there is no manufacturing and very low employment but high tax income – others will be ahead in the delivery of this.

….But well done to mydex who are in there competing