Showing posts with the label intent

A structural model for Identity based on certification, recognition, reputation and anonymity.

I have been thinking for a while about a model that describes the interdependencies between public, private, identity, reputation and privacy (laws).  This is mostly driven by the need to try and find an approach to define different types of “identity” based on characteristics that have some degree of stability and repeatability. The first “public” version of this model is represented in hand drawing below, and I would love feedback, input and criticism.   The vertical axis represents the perceptions of how people can be perceived by everyone else; this provides a range from a private citizen (general public) to a public figure (politician). The horizontal axis represents the how we conduct ourselves from being a private self (protected) to being public (15 seconds of fame) The quadrants are defined by the extremes of the axis definitions as follows: Obscurity - a private citizen who wants to remain private. An example at an extreme is a hermit, but this category tries to incorporate

Loyalty is dead in an intention economy!

source : Andy Land, Vice President of Marketing from unBoundID makes a case in the blog for Identity as a product.  I question the position that links trust and knowledge to Loyalty.  Loyalty is a about distorting economics.    If loyalty is just about increasing margin and contribution from the user (customer) then the only person who benefits is the company.... As we move to the potential that users can define their own terms and provide an intention that others can bid for, where is loyalty.  However Identity still exists.  

You are the product, but what signal is the product giving off about what it intends to do?

source : The NYT ran a Sunday article ( a while ago)  on how you are the product of Facebook as the customer is the advertiser.  Whilst this is not new, it is good to see it being aired in public.  However what the article missed is that the search is on for the right signal that allows me to know what you intend to do - as this is perceived to have the greatest economic benefit (this weeks thinking) We have moved from knowing what you did and when and using the analysis of that data as a poor predictor; (but has significant economic value c $5bn) to seeing what signals you are giving off that shows me what you intend to do.  Yes we are trying to understand who influences you and who you influence as these are good economic predictors as well; but there is nothing like knowing what you are about to spend real "cash" on.    Thinking further as we develop new curre

The question is not what data can I get or what can I do with it....

image from It may or may not be true that social media companies know more about us than our Government.  However what is known is that we are generating more data that can be tracked (aka one element of the digital footprint).  We know that value comes from how companies analyse this data and then use it to influence you in some purchase decision.  To increase the value companies are then trying to close the loop by understanding what influenced you and how you influence your social group. Johanna Blakley did an excellent TedTalk on the end of gender and how our current views of segmentation only provide a "distorted mirror of life".  In summary she says that ridged segmentation based on old school demographics is restrictive as it labels and define us assuming us all have similar behaviour, taste, likes and are predictable - based on your demographics and buckets.  This is however different to Dan Ariely views from "Predictab

Privacy Day - why we may have the wrong model!

Today is the 4th Data Privacy Day . The focus is to inform and educate about personal data rights and protections. However, in many ways we debate privacy as a "motorway model."  There are two directions of the traffic, one towards more and better freedom, open, engagement, value and wealth.  The other is towards less and worse based on fear, uncertainty and doubt.  On either side we know that if we stray too wide it will lead to unethical, immoral, illegal and creepy and at some middle point we can find a compromise position.   My view is that this could well be the wrong model, as is built on the assumption of rule, regulation, enforcement, nation, system and compromise. We are searching for a perfect solution. Privacy is a setting and is uniquely personal to everyone on earth.  My often righteous and western view is based on my history and perhaps as I find that India and China over take us in terms of economic activity we should consider looking for an alternative model b

Stories are data with Soul - implications for analysis of your digital footprint and your attitude to privacy

The TED talk from Brene Brown: The power of vulnerability  is worth 20 minutes. Whilst her talk is about vulnerability in the opening she starts with a phrase "maybe stories are just data with a soul"   The talk got me thinking on all sorts of levels but the phrase has significant implications on how to look at the data and information from your digital footprint. Whilst we are in the opening stages of another issue with Facebook (opening address and phone number)  The privacy campaigners are out waving banners but seam to forget that anyone can buy all your data from a wide range of sources and that there is a barter in exchange for your data/ privacy.   Should someone be able to change the rules, *yes* it is how innovation happens.  However the implication is that this data (name, address, phone number) does not have a story, it has no soul.  Your location, attention, reputation, intent, purchases, friends - now they do have a story to tell and so could have a soul.  

good example of creepy vs value by @Kevinmarks "marauders map vs the weasley clock" in Harry Potter

   I have written about the boundaries between value and creepy many times - are few examples are linked here, however this is a good one as it shows that one is about detail, moving, real time and what others can find out about you without you knowing - the other is about sentiment What is interesting is that both require the same level of detailed knowledge, it is all how it is presented that makes one acceptable and one creepy... Previous Blogs on creepy For non Harry Potter readers - from Wikipedia..... The Marauder's Map   The Marauder's Map is a magical map of Hogwarts created by James Potter, Sirius Black, Remus Lupin and Peter Pettigrew while they were at Hogwarts, during which time they gained extensive knowledge about the school grounds, such as its various hidden passages, from their frequent night-time adventures together.   At first glance, the Map is simply a blank piece of parchment; but when the user points his wand at the Map and says, "I solemnly swear th

Digital footprint: inputs and outputs

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 Extract from “My Digital Footprint”, this is from the Chapter 6, "A two sided business model"   Having studied the left-hand side of Figure 28, let’s now consider the digital footprint (right-hand side) of that diagram. We study digital footprints from two perspectives: the feedback loop and mobile. We do this by studying the inputs and outputs of MY DIGITAL FOOTPRINT . We have introduced the concept of inputs and outputs for MY DIGITAL FOOTPRINT   and we recap them here: the inputs to MY DIGITAL FOOTPRINT   are the data elements and the outputs are the value derived from the process which is in turn enhanced by the feedback loop. It is worth noting that attention (input) and reputation (output) are often called the ‘currencies of the web’. Economic value is created from these two from the ability to trade and barter (output). Given that time is scarce, attention is scarce.   Inputs into MY DIGITAL FOO

Extract from “My Digital Footprint”, this is from the Chapter 2 “What are the links between Identity and My Digital Footprint”

Figure 4 provides a visual representation of the links between digital identity and MY DIGITAL FOOTPRINT . The purpose of this representation is to separate out the key topics and themes that will be explored in the remainder of this book and to highlight that some of the more controversial aspects of identity are dropped, as are the technical implementation arguments. This separation, it is hoped, will allow the reader to focus on the underlying important strategic issues that need to be unpacked and discussed in a framework where ideologies can be put to one side and the value and concepts presented.   Figure 4 Linkages between identity and MY DIGITAL FOOTPRINT These linkages form the basis for the framework presented in this book as per Figure 5. The core themes relate to data, dependencies, value and business models. Within the context of data, this book explores the collection, store and analysis of user data to create value. Dependences are threaded into the fabric of many aspect

When CCTV can recognise you

Today we are concerned in some ways by the thought that CCTV can capture our actions and the issues about our privacy.  This is balanced with the comfort that so are others and those who have nothing to hide are safe.  Data (video) is kept in the promise that at some point it could be used to protect you, and conversely used to capture you, when the algorithms become sufficiently good to interrupt actions, I hope never intent. Today, in the most part, the CCTV system cannot link the image of you to an identity of you.  When this link is established could it be used to make your personal data more secure?  If you lost your phone, image the local CCTV network acknowledging that it is not you holding your phone and locks the device up, or indeed starts to track it. Would such data (systems linking images to identity) be of use, or are the benefits outweighed by the possible downsides?

What Digital Footprint means to others #mdfp

image from the BBC Words are both a blessing and a curse; phrases are fashionable, colloquial and always misinterpreted.  Today at the dentist I was told I had a “communication” and that got me thinking about how we use the same word in different professions and how the same phrase communicates different things depending on location and intent.  My interest here is “Digital Footprint” and here are the most common interpretations I found today…. Digital Footprint is an term that helps educate our children about the dangers of being on-line; followed by the following advise; if in doubt don’t do it and if you do it will be found (probably the most popular use) Digital Footprint describes the data you leave in the Internet from your keyboard and mouse. Digital Footprint is the data you leave in the cloud from you all your interactions, creating and consuming, passive and active with all digital devices. Digital Footprints describe your digital identity and digital reputation. A

What is the difference between voice, data and Google Buzz ?

This post is more about a question that I am struggling with than insight, the rhetorical question is “can you hear me thinking/”. Ignoring the obvious difference and the all TCP/IP arguments, yes voice can be VoIP and data is clicks are IP packages, I am interested in why our response to voice recording (the recording and interpretation of what you said) differently to data gathering from location, attention, clicks, content creation etc) It seams that we generally accept that our digital footprints will be recorded (collected and stored), this data will be analysed and value will be created from new service discovery or improvements to existing services. We give up the rights to our click data, our blog post creations and facebook entries in exchange for free services (in general) There appear to be 3 types (broadly) of data that can be gathered or harvested from your conversations (voice) ·          “Meaning” what is the meaning of the words spoken.  Hearing the whole conversation a