Date   

Re: Customer - Supplier Engagement Framework Explained - review prior to publishing.

Jim Pasquale <jim@...>
 

Et al:  Thank you for taking the time to read through Iain’s document, please comments on overall section contents. Marketing will handle the rest.

Appreciate everyone’s view and insight.

THX…

The B-s WG

On Aug 19, 2020, at 1:43 PM, Iain Henderson via groups.io <iain.henderson@...> wrote:

Hi folks, on the B’s call today Lisa and I agreed that we’d look to publish the ‘Customer Supplier Engagement Framework Explained’ paper on the Me2B website by end August.

To do that we’re asking for any further comments or queries in by end of 25th August, so end of next Tuesday if possible.

The document is up on the Me2B sharepoint at the link below and all who have access to the sharepoint should be able to comment directly in it.


For anyone who’s access does not work just let me know and i’ll send you a copy that you can work with.

Thanks

Iain





Disclaimer

The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorised to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and advise the sender.

.


Customer - Supplier Engagement Framework Explained - review prior to publishing.

Iain Henderson
 

Hi folks, on the B’s call today Lisa and I agreed that we’d look to publish the ‘Customer Supplier Engagement Framework Explained’ paper on the Me2B website by end August.

To do that we’re asking for any further comments or queries in by end of 25th August, so end of next Tuesday if possible.

The document is up on the Me2B sharepoint at the link below and all who have access to the sharepoint should be able to comment directly in it.


For anyone who’s access does not work just let me know and i’ll send you a copy that you can work with.

Thanks

Iain



Re: FTC Health Breach Notification Rule --only a couple more days for comment

Lisa LeVasseur
 

Richard?

 

From: main@Me2BAlliance.groups.io <main@Me2BAlliance.groups.io> On Behalf Of Juliet Okafor
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 5:42 PM
To: main@Me2BAlliance.groups.io; Me2BAlliance@groups.io
Subject: Re: [Me2BAlliance] FTC Health Breach Notification Rule --only a couple more days for comment

 

I will check this out. Will we be commenting?

 

Get Outlook for iOS


From: main@Me2BAlliance.groups.io <main@Me2BAlliance.groups.io> on behalf of Lisa LeVasseur via groups.io <lisa.levasseur@...>
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 8:38:18 PM
To: Me2BAlliance@groups.io <Me2BAlliance@groups.io>
Subject: [Me2BAlliance] FTC Health Breach Notification Rule --only a couple more days for comment

 

I stumbled on this today in my twitter feed:

 

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) requests public comment on its Health Breach Notification Rule (the “HBN Rule” or the “Rule”). The Commission is soliciting comment as part of the FTC's systematic review of all current Commission regulations and guides.

 

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FTC-2020-0045-0001


Re: FTC Health Breach Notification Rule --only a couple more days for comment

Juliet Okafor
 

I will check this out. Will we be commenting?

Get Outlook for iOS


From: main@Me2BAlliance.groups.io <main@Me2BAlliance.groups.io> on behalf of Lisa LeVasseur via groups.io <lisa.levasseur@...>
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 8:38:18 PM
To: Me2BAlliance@groups.io <Me2BAlliance@groups.io>
Subject: [Me2BAlliance] FTC Health Breach Notification Rule --only a couple more days for comment
 

I stumbled on this today in my twitter feed:

 

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) requests public comment on its Health Breach Notification Rule (the “HBN Rule” or the “Rule”). The Commission is soliciting comment as part of the FTC's systematic review of all current Commission regulations and guides.

 

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FTC-2020-0045-0001


FTC Health Breach Notification Rule --only a couple more days for comment

Lisa LeVasseur
 

I stumbled on this today in my twitter feed:

 

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) requests public comment on its Health Breach Notification Rule (the “HBN Rule” or the “Rule”). The Commission is soliciting comment as part of the FTC's systematic review of all current Commission regulations and guides.

 

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FTC-2020-0045-0001


The business case for privacy

Lisa LeVasseur
 

Nathan Kinch just referenced the link below in a tweet [on Privacy Impact Assessments, which is beneficial in and of itself https://twitter.com/NathanKinch/status/1292965113549398022]. 

 

We’ve talked about the Cisco research—good to see it laid out like this—ala a business case for privacy:

 

https://blogs.cisco.com/security/gdpr-one-year-on-what-have-we-learned


Re: RFC 6973

Lisa LeVasseur
 

Yeah, John Wunderlich is the one who clued me into the work, and I’d say our human relationship-based principles naturally align.  And yes, we should incorporate more of the boundary management principles into our vernacular. See what I can do in the next spin of the webinar.

 

From: main@Me2BAlliance.groups.io <main@Me2BAlliance.groups.io> On Behalf Of Iain Henderson
Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2020 12:53 AM
To: main@Me2BAlliance.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Me2BAlliance] RFC 6973

 

Thanks Lisa, yes that boundary management theory is very relevant to us, and more realistic than assuming GDPR and privacy regulation is going to help much. Facebook, Google and the like grow as they do because they tap into that human need to share (across thousands of use cases).

 

Better still in that we increasingly have the tools to work in that way; this JLINC background white paper discusses treating data sharing more akin to non disclosure agreements; i.e. contract law rather than regulation.

 

 

Maybe we should use the boundary management methodology when describing how Me2B relationships should work.

 

Iain



On 7 Aug 2020, at 16:27, Lisa LeVasseur <lisa.levasseur@...> wrote:

 

Good stuff in here—thanks, Iain.  

 

What you’re describing reminds me of Communication Boundary Management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_privacy_management_theory

 

Lisa

 

From: main@Me2BAlliance.groups.io <main@Me2BAlliance.groups.io> On Behalf Of Iain Henderson
Sent: Friday, August 7, 2020 7:15 AM
To: main@me2balliance.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Me2BAlliance] RFC 6973

 

I think the best way that Me2B could help these kind of dialogues would be to demarcate between ‘things that I don’t want to happen around the sharing of my data’ (the defence), and ‘things that I do want to happen when sharing my data’ (the offence).

 

The word and most of the conversations about privacy are really focused on the former; the defence. Privacy as a word is not well set up to deal with the things I do want to happen. Layer onto that, the information sharing is a fundamental human need that we cannot and should not try to avoid. What we need to do is that offence stack; ie when I want or have to share information (which is many times per day), how do I make sure that happens in a good way, rather than one which acts as a parasite on ones needs to share.

 

It is almost impossible to bridge the two major subject areas with the one word without losing the subtlety. In that respect, I for one rarely use the word ‘privacy’ if I can help it. That is also the reason why the original Kantara workgroup in our space was called ‘Information Sharing’; we wanted to build tools that enable information sharing to be done in a good way; as opposed to tools that would seek to prevent or limit sharing.

 

Hope that makes sense.

 

Apologies, I won’t make the Good Cops call today.

 

Iain 




On 7 Aug 2020, at 00:41, Doc Searls via groups.io <doc@...> wrote:

It might be helpful to look at the Privacy Manifesto at ProjectVRM: https://cyber.harvard.edu/projectvrm/Privacy_Manifesto. Being in a wiki, it is open to change.

 

Doc




On Aug 6, 2020, at 4:01 PM, Lisa LeVasseur <lisa.levasseur@...> wrote:

 

I’m sure many (most?  All?) of you are already familiar with this IETF RFC 6973 – Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols (2013):

 

It was new to me, and I learned about it today because it’s being used as a baseline for the PING (Privacy Interest Group) W3C Privacy Threat Model document.  It’s a fascinating approach, clearly modeled from security practices.  But one can (and several did, including me) question whether the terminology and the approach were appropriate for privacy.  Also, as we would expect, in the review of the W3C work today, the question of “what do we mean by privacy” naturally occurred.  

 

I floated the notion that the Me2B Relationship state was a crucial context to evaluate the riskiness or harmfulness of behavior.  To my surprise, the idea [not necessarily the terminology just yet] had support.  So I’m encouraged that we may start to get more exposure to and vetting of our core ideas. 

 

Lisa

 

 


Re: RFC 6973

Iain Henderson
 

Thanks Lisa, yes that boundary management theory is very relevant to us, and more realistic than assuming GDPR and privacy regulation is going to help much. Facebook, Google and the like grow as they do because they tap into that human need to share (across thousands of use cases).

Better still in that we increasingly have the tools to work in that way; this JLINC background white paper discusses treating data sharing more akin to non disclosure agreements; i.e. contract law rather than regulation.


Maybe we should use the boundary management methodology when describing how Me2B relationships should work.

Iain

On 7 Aug 2020, at 16:27, Lisa LeVasseur <lisa.levasseur@...> wrote:

Good stuff in here—thanks, Iain.  
 
What you’re describing reminds me of Communication Boundary Management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_privacy_management_theory
 
Lisa
 
From: main@Me2BAlliance.groups.io <main@Me2BAlliance.groups.io> On Behalf Of Iain Henderson
Sent: Friday, August 7, 2020 7:15 AM
To: main@me2balliance.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Me2BAlliance] RFC 6973
 
I think the best way that Me2B could help these kind of dialogues would be to demarcate between ‘things that I don’t want to happen around the sharing of my data’ (the defence), and ‘things that I do want to happen when sharing my data’ (the offence).
 
The word and most of the conversations about privacy are really focused on the former; the defence. Privacy as a word is not well set up to deal with the things I do want to happen. Layer onto that, the information sharing is a fundamental human need that we cannot and should not try to avoid. What we need to do is that offence stack; ie when I want or have to share information (which is many times per day), how do I make sure that happens in a good way, rather than one which acts as a parasite on ones needs to share.
 
It is almost impossible to bridge the two major subject areas with the one word without losing the subtlety. In that respect, I for one rarely use the word ‘privacy’ if I can help it. That is also the reason why the original Kantara workgroup in our space was called ‘Information Sharing’; we wanted to build tools that enable information sharing to be done in a good way; as opposed to tools that would seek to prevent or limit sharing.
 
Hope that makes sense.
 
Apologies, I won’t make the Good Cops call today.
 
Iain 


On 7 Aug 2020, at 00:41, Doc Searls via groups.io <doc@...> wrote:

It might be helpful to look at the Privacy Manifesto at ProjectVRM: https://cyber.harvard.edu/projectvrm/Privacy_Manifesto. Being in a wiki, it is open to change.
 
Doc


On Aug 6, 2020, at 4:01 PM, Lisa LeVasseur <lisa.levasseur@...> wrote:
 
I’m sure many (most?  All?) of you are already familiar with this IETF RFC 6973 – Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols (2013):
 
It was new to me, and I learned about it today because it’s being used as a baseline for the PING (Privacy Interest Group) W3C Privacy Threat Model document.  It’s a fascinating approach, clearly modeled from security practices.  But one can (and several did, including me) question whether the terminology and the approach were appropriate for privacy.  Also, as we would expect, in the review of the W3C work today, the question of “what do we mean by privacy” naturally occurred.  
 
I floated the notion that the Me2B Relationship state was a crucial context to evaluate the riskiness or harmfulness of behavior.  To my surprise, the idea [not necessarily the terminology just yet] had support.  So I’m encouraged that we may start to get more exposure to and vetting of our core ideas. 
 
Lisa
 



Cyber hell (song born in San Diego)

Lisa LeVasseur
 

Can’t recall if I’ve shared what’s been going on in San Diego to the community.  Through the good work of the Trust SD  Coalition https://sandiegotrust.org/ the city recently approved two rules including a privacy commission to oversee the selection/adoption/deployment of surveillance technology https://fox5sandiego.com/news/local-news/council-committee-oks-new-rules-for-citys-use-of-surveillance-technology/  This work was modeled on the Oakland, CA rules and privacy commission.

 

Apparently inspired by local reports on the situation (https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/morning-report-smart-streetlights-are-now-accessible-only-to-police/), Chuck Perrin created this song, Cyber Hell: 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B56Scni6RM&feature=youtu.be  

 

Which is good, because we really needed a theme song.  😉

 

Lisa


Re: RFC 6973

Lisa LeVasseur
 

Good stuff in here—thanks, Iain. 

 

What you’re describing reminds me of Communication Boundary Management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_privacy_management_theory

 

Lisa

 

From: main@Me2BAlliance.groups.io <main@Me2BAlliance.groups.io> On Behalf Of Iain Henderson
Sent: Friday, August 7, 2020 7:15 AM
To: main@me2balliance.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Me2BAlliance] RFC 6973

 

I think the best way that Me2B could help these kind of dialogues would be to demarcate between ‘things that I don’t want to happen around the sharing of my data’ (the defence), and ‘things that I do want to happen when sharing my data’ (the offence).

 

The word and most of the conversations about privacy are really focused on the former; the defence. Privacy as a word is not well set up to deal with the things I do want to happen. Layer onto that, the information sharing is a fundamental human need that we cannot and should not try to avoid. What we need to do is that offence stack; ie when I want or have to share information (which is many times per day), how do I make sure that happens in a good way, rather than one which acts as a parasite on ones needs to share.

 

It is almost impossible to bridge the two major subject areas with the one word without losing the subtlety. In that respect, I for one rarely use the word ‘privacy’ if I can help it. That is also the reason why the original Kantara workgroup in our space was called ‘Information Sharing’; we wanted to build tools that enable information sharing to be done in a good way; as opposed to tools that would seek to prevent or limit sharing.

 

Hope that makes sense.

 

Apologies, I won’t make the Good Cops call today.

 

Iain 



On 7 Aug 2020, at 00:41, Doc Searls via groups.io <doc@...> wrote:

It might be helpful to look at the Privacy Manifesto at ProjectVRM: https://cyber.harvard.edu/projectvrm/Privacy_Manifesto. Being in a wiki, it is open to change.

 

Doc



On Aug 6, 2020, at 4:01 PM, Lisa LeVasseur <lisa.levasseur@...> wrote:

 

I’m sure many (most?  All?) of you are already familiar with this IETF RFC 6973 – Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols (2013):

 

It was new to me, and I learned about it today because it’s being used as a baseline for the PING (Privacy Interest Group) W3C Privacy Threat Model document.  It’s a fascinating approach, clearly modeled from security practices.  But one can (and several did, including me) question whether the terminology and the approach were appropriate for privacy.  Also, as we would expect, in the review of the W3C work today, the question of “what do we mean by privacy” naturally occurred.  

 

I floated the notion that the Me2B Relationship state was a crucial context to evaluate the riskiness or harmfulness of behavior.  To my surprise, the idea [not necessarily the terminology just yet] had support.  So I’m encouraged that we may start to get more exposure to and vetting of our core ideas. 

 

Lisa

 


Re: RFC 6973

Iain Henderson
 

I think the best way that Me2B could help these kind of dialogues would be to demarcate between ‘things that I don’t want to happen around the sharing of my data’ (the defence), and ‘things that I do want to happen when sharing my data’ (the offence).

The word and most of the conversations about privacy are really focused on the former; the defence. Privacy as a word is not well set up to deal with the things I do want to happen. Layer onto that, the information sharing is a fundamental human need that we cannot and should not try to avoid. What we need to do is that offence stack; ie when I want or have to share information (which is many times per day), how do I make sure that happens in a good way, rather than one which acts as a parasite on ones needs to share.

It is almost impossible to bridge the two major subject areas with the one word without losing the subtlety. In that respect, I for one rarely use the word ‘privacy’ if I can help it. That is also the reason why the original Kantara workgroup in our space was called ‘Information Sharing’; we wanted to build tools that enable information sharing to be done in a good way; as opposed to tools that would seek to prevent or limit sharing.

Hope that makes sense.

Apologies, I won’t make the Good Cops call today.

Iain 

On 7 Aug 2020, at 00:41, Doc Searls via groups.io <doc@...> wrote:

It might be helpful to look at the Privacy Manifesto at ProjectVRM: https://cyber.harvard.edu/projectvrm/Privacy_Manifesto. Being in a wiki, it is open to change.

Doc

On Aug 6, 2020, at 4:01 PM, Lisa LeVasseur <lisa.levasseur@...> wrote:

I’m sure many (most?  All?) of you are already familiar with this IETF RFC 6973 – Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols (2013):
 
It was new to me, and I learned about it today because it’s being used as a baseline for the PING (Privacy Interest Group) W3C Privacy Threat Model document.  It’s a fascinating approach, clearly modeled from security practices.  But one can (and several did, including me) question whether the terminology and the approach were appropriate for privacy.  Also, as we would expect, in the review of the W3C work today, the question of “what do we mean by privacy” naturally occurred.  
 
I floated the notion that the Me2B Relationship state was a crucial context to evaluate the riskiness or harmfulness of behavior.  To my surprise, the idea [not necessarily the terminology just yet] had support.  So I’m encouraged that we may start to get more exposure to and vetting of our core ideas. 
 
Lisa


Re: RFC 6973

Doc Searls
 

It might be helpful to look at the Privacy Manifesto at ProjectVRM: https://cyber.harvard.edu/projectvrm/Privacy_Manifesto. Being in a wiki, it is open to change.

Doc

On Aug 6, 2020, at 4:01 PM, Lisa LeVasseur <lisa.levasseur@...> wrote:

I’m sure many (most?  All?) of you are already familiar with this IETF RFC 6973 – Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols (2013):
 
It was new to me, and I learned about it today because it’s being used as a baseline for the PING (Privacy Interest Group) W3C Privacy Threat Model document.  It’s a fascinating approach, clearly modeled from security practices.  But one can (and several did, including me) question whether the terminology and the approach were appropriate for privacy.  Also, as we would expect, in the review of the W3C work today, the question of “what do we mean by privacy” naturally occurred.  
 
I floated the notion that the Me2B Relationship state was a crucial context to evaluate the riskiness or harmfulness of behavior.  To my surprise, the idea [not necessarily the terminology just yet] had support.  So I’m encouraged that we may start to get more exposure to and vetting of our core ideas. 
 
Lisa


Re: RFC 6973

Cam Geer
 

That it great news Lisa!

On Aug 6, 2020, at 4:01 PM, Lisa LeVasseur via groups.io <lisa.levasseur@...> wrote:

I’m sure many (most?  All?) of you are already familiar with this IETF RFC 6973 – Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols (2013):
 
It was new to me, and I learned about it today because it’s being used as a baseline for the PING (Privacy Interest Group) W3C Privacy Threat Model document.  It’s a fascinating approach, clearly modeled from security practices.  But one can (and several did, including me) question whether the terminology and the approach were appropriate for privacy.  Also, as we would expect, in the review of the W3C work today, the question of “what do we mean by privacy” naturally occurred.  
 
I floated the notion that the Me2B Relationship state was a crucial context to evaluate the riskiness or harmfulness of behavior.  To my surprise, the idea [not necessarily the terminology just yet] had support.  So I’m encouraged that we may start to get more exposure to and vetting of our core ideas. 
 
Lisa


RFC 6973

Lisa LeVasseur
 

I’m sure many (most?  All?) of you are already familiar with this IETF RFC 6973 – Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols (2013):

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6973#section-5.2.2

 

It was new to me, and I learned about it today because it’s being used as a baseline for the PING (Privacy Interest Group) W3C Privacy Threat Model document.  It’s a fascinating approach, clearly modeled from security practices.  But one can (and several did, including me) question whether the terminology and the approach were appropriate for privacy.  Also, as we would expect, in the review of the W3C work today, the question of “what do we mean by privacy” naturally occurred. 

 

I floated the notion that the Me2B Relationship state was a crucial context to evaluate the riskiness or harmfulness of behavior.  To my surprise, the idea [not necessarily the terminology just yet] had support.  So I’m encouraged that we may start to get more exposure to and vetting of our core ideas.

 

Lisa


Re: Henrietta Lacks and Her Remarkable Cells Will Finally See Some Payback - The Wall Street Journal.

Doc Searls
 

Great points.

Some of us here know people on the inside of CRM, CX, customer service and related corporate work—or are there ourselves. What I'm hearing from them is that these fields find themselves in a moment when, finally, they are beginning to realize that the B's need to engage Me's who are independently equipped to deal with B's at scale using tools and methods of their own. 

The B's are also coming to realize that Push isn't enough, and that Pull isn't the whole story on the Me's side. There is also what happens after the sale. Which, by the way, is nearly all the experience we, as me's, have with what we buy. As Estaban Kolsky puts it, the customer journey isn't just one circular cycle. It's a figure-8: a buy cycle and an own cycle. And the latter is far larger, for all of us. 

We visited this at some length on the ProjectVRM blog back in 2013, in Turning the customer journey into a virtuous cycle. As we see now, it was at least seven years ahead of its time.

But the time is now. Finally. 

I think it is especially helpful, now that the time is here, to move past the selling frame where adtech and all the bad acting around personal information happens.

We're making a new future here, where Me's have new power and B's have new contexts and ways of relating to and respecting the Me's of the world. Let's model that, discuss that, organize that, certify that. 

I'd say more but dinner awaits...

Doc



On Aug 3, 2020, at 2:42 PM, John Philpin <john@...> wrote:

As it happens  - i will be staying in Taupo on Wednesday night - I will talk to the locals and report back!

more seriously 
" if we’d stop using the word sell and replace it with Deal or exchange I would suspect the conversation would come closer to a centered agreement. “

absolutely 100% SPOT ON

Sadly it is more often true that corporate focus is on their sales process - scant thought given to a prospects buying process. As for the 'customer journeys' that they attempt to map out over and over again … they barely recognize that the prospect regularly ‘journies’ to places not under their control and not on their map.

Meanwhile companies have sales and marketing ‘targets' that need to be ‘hit’ when they ‘attack’ markets …. I should write a book on how aggressive language used internally by corporations  in their customer facing departments will always hold them back as they try to communicate externally how the customers come first and that they want to work with us.

If language used in public is so different to language use behind closed doors … which do you think best represent the values of that organization?

Language leaks.

… all of which continues to point to the fact that their understanding that a sale is an exchange or a mutually benefit deal will fall on lost ears.

Language is important - and the continual use of the 'language of war' inside companies about how they are going to ‘attack’ a market … doesn’t augur well.


Kindest Regards … John - People First

Let's Plan To Talk On Zoom

Read My Newsletter



On Aug 4, 2020, at 2:08 AM, Jim Pasquale via groups.io <jim@...> wrote:

Still think we’re talking about Nitrogen, and element in the periodic table. Data, meta data, information of one, too information about many. The drawings are a good depiction and if we’d stop using the word sell and replace it with Deal or exchange I would suspect the conversation would come closer to a centered agreement.  IF a centered agreement is what these threads are after??  IDK. Seems a bit unclear and somewhat convoluted at certain points of intersections. 

To Cam’s point the Alliance has to be the catalyst for a tectonic shift only felt by a Super Volcano, problem is we’ve never felt one before, Taupo the last recorded one erupted 22,600 years ago and is the most recent super eruption on Earth.

Still the crazy guy thinking crazy thoughts.

On Aug 3, 2020, at 3:42 AM, Cam Geer via groups.io <camgeer@...> wrote:

Hi All,

Following this thread closely....

Ask a kid in America with their own smart what their data is, they are likely to say it’s all my app activity when not connected to Wi-Fi. It’s not my texts, except when I share videos or pictures. And it’s not my voice calls when my mom calls me, but it’s probably my FaceTime. 

The wireless carriers have habituated over 200 million people in the US on the definition of the word data. 

Now sure that data is made into math to flow through the network per Doc’s comment, but in the kid’s mind it’s likely to be the pictures, videos, likes, game scores, product views and app purchases, etc. 

Can we agree that data itself is a loaded word and it’s meaning is in the eye of the beholder? 

Having got to know each of you on this thread in varying degrees over the last year, there is way more common ground here than any need to fuss over the 4-letter word...data. 

What this thread shows me is we all have work to do to get to a shared understating of how the word — data — will shift in context. 

It will shape-shift between writer and reader, speaker and listener. 

Let’s be diligent in our empathy. 

Cheers...Cam


On Aug 2, 2020, at 21:02, John Philpin via groups.io <john@...> wrote:

Or as @GapingVoid has it ….

<Gaping Void - 00012.jpeg>



On Aug 3, 2020, at 1:55 PM, Adrian Gropper <agropper@...> wrote:

Data tends to be specific to an individual. Information (in the sense of cleaned and categorized data) can still be about an individual or not. Knowledge, is derived from information but no longer linked to the specific data of one or more individuals. 

HeLa cells have contributed immensely to medical knowledge. Has that knowledge harmed Lacks or her relatives in some way? Maybe, but I’m not sure how. The problem is that Lacks’ data was processed without consent as is the data from all of us when it is processed through surveillance capitalism. 

Processing data without informed consent, even if anonymized, is a taking and needs to be illegal. Informing Lacks or us today of the implications, good and bad, of processing our personal data is almost impossible but we have to try. 

- Adrian 





<Gaping Void - 00012.jpeg>



Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorised to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and advise the sender.

.


On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 9:26 PM Milton Pedraza <mpedraza@...> wrote:
And thank you that’s a clear distinction 

Milton Pedraza
CEO
Luxury Institute, LLC
917-657-4988


On Aug 2, 2020, at 9:18 PM, Doc Searls via groups.io <doc=searls.com@groups.io> wrote:

 
Milton, is your hypothesis about data? Or is it about information?

Information has been for sale for a long time. Wisdom has been for sale. Legal and medical advice have been for sale.

Nobody calls those offerings data, even though in the digital world they are built of data.

I think what you're talking about is information about ourselves. What are the markets for different kinds of information about ourselves, and our property? Who should be in those markets and how? How can any of us prevent the gathering of that information?

In the pre-digital world, we could containerize information into books, recordings, and agreements that advice be accepted in confidence. All of these forms were leaky in different ways—books xeroxed, recordings dubbed, secrets violated—but containerizing the information was still possible, and we relied on those containers because in the physical world leaking information took some work. You needed to make other containers of existing ones.

In the digital world, everything (we should have a word for every not-things) is comprised of data, which is binary math—ones and zeroes—and easily duplicated; especially since, as Kevin Kelly put it a decade ago, the Internet is a copy machine. This email you're reading is a copy of the one I'm writing. The effort and cost to make that copy is roughly zero.

This fact of digital existence has made gathering information about people simple and easy. And, since there are markets for information about people, it is easy to imagine ways of getting in on those markets.

But let's be clear that we're talking about information markets here. When we say "personal data" we are talking about personal information. Not just data.

There are lots of approaches to containerizing personal data into forms of useful information that are not easily leaked. Self-sovereign identity (SSI), for example, limits information leakage to what individuals—as sovereign sources—present as a verifiable credentials. It also formalizes what institutions (schools, banks, whatever) issue to individuals as credentials.

There are markets in that. A school might charge for a verifiable credential saying the student graduated from there, or that what the student presents to a recipient is a valid transcript of the student's performance at the school. But that market is one for information, not for data.

Henrietta Lacks' cancer cells are not data. They are physical cells that contain useful information of value to science and—rightfully—to her heirs. Calling those cells data alone ignores their nature as physical things and as containers of useful information that has both moral and transactional value.

So, to sum up, I think we're on more solid ground if we're talking about information rather than data.

Doc


On Aug 2, 2020, at 3:34 PM, Milton Pedraza <mpedraza@...> wrote:

Ok thank you and I am honestly not sure about it. It’s not a conviction. More of a hypothesis that needs to be tested. 

Milton Pedraza
CEO
Luxury Institute, LLC
917-657-4988


On Aug 2, 2020, at 6:32 PM, Lisa LeVasseur <lisa.levasseur@...> wrote:


Hi Milton, 
 
I didn’t mean to imply that you should withdraw.  I felt it was important to be clear about the current Me2BA position.
 
I appreciate diversity of opinion—it forces one to keep thinking, keep open.  I also think it’s valuable to model how people with different points of view can coexist and respectfully debate.
 
Lisa  
 
From: main@Me2BAlliance.groups.io <main@Me2BAlliance.groups.io> On Behalf Of Milton Pedraza
Sent: Sunday, August 2, 2020 2:45 PM
To: main@me2balliance.groups.io
Cc: Me2BAlliance@groups.io
Subject: Re: [Me2BAlliance] Henrietta Lacks and Her Remarkable Cells Will Finally See Some Payback - The Wall Street Journal.
 
I respect that. Does that mean that because I have a different view of data that I should withdraw ? I will abide by your decision since it’s your organization. 
 
Best

Milton 

Milton Pedraza 
CEO
Luxury Institute, LLC
917-657-4988
 


On Aug 2, 2020, at 5:29 PM, Lisa LeVasseur <lisa.levasseur@...> wrote:

 
Hi Milton,
 
Your sharing of this article and your earlier thread suggest that you view data as a type of property.  The Me2B Alliance does not support the idea that data is a type of property. 
 
Also, from the Me2BA organizational perspective, we are not advocating for or supporting the direct selling by individuals of (a) data, (b) information, or even (c) rights to data or information.
 
I recognize that there is much movement [globally] in and around the idea of data markets, data economies, data dividends, etc.  Our position may evolve over time as system modeling and research evolves around “personal data markets”, but it’s not a part of the current ethos.  
 
Lisa
 
 
From: main@Me2BAlliance.groups.io <main@Me2BAlliance.groups.io> On Behalf Of Milton Pedraza
Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2020 11:55 PM
To: Me2BAlliance@groups.io
Subject: [Me2BAlliance] Henrietta Lacks and Her Remarkable Cells Will Finally See Some Payback - The Wall Street Journal.
 

This is what happens to people, especially people of limited means and minorities when they don’t have any strong legal and fiduciary representation for their personal data or human cells. Exploitation. 

I thought you would be interested in the following story from The Wall Street Journal.

Henrietta Lacks and Her Remarkable Cells Will Finally See Some Payback

 

Download the Wall Street Journal app here: WSJ.

 

Milton Pedraza 
CEO
Luxury Institute, LLC
917-657-4988
 






Re: Henrietta Lacks and Her Remarkable Cells Will Finally See Some Payback - The Wall Street Journal.

John Philpin
 

As it happens  - i will be staying in Taupo on Wednesday night - I will talk to the locals and report back!

more seriously 
" if we’d stop using the word sell and replace it with Deal or exchange I would suspect the conversation would come closer to a centered agreement. “

absolutely 100% SPOT ON

Sadly it is more often true that corporate focus is on their sales process - scant thought given to a prospects buying process. As for the 'customer journeys' that they attempt to map out over and over again … they barely recognize that the prospect regularly ‘journies’ to places not under their control and not on their map.

Meanwhile companies have sales and marketing ‘targets' that need to be ‘hit’ when they ‘attack’ markets …. I should write a book on how aggressive language used internally by corporations  in their customer facing departments will always hold them back as they try to communicate externally how the customers come first and that they want to work with us.

If language used in public is so different to language use behind closed doors … which do you think best represent the values of that organization?

Language leaks.

… all of which continues to point to the fact that their understanding that a sale is an exchange or a mutually benefit deal will fall on lost ears.

Language is important - and the continual use of the 'language of war' inside companies about how they are going to ‘attack’ a market … doesn’t augur well.


Kindest Regards … John - People First

Let's Plan To Talk On Zoom

Read My Newsletter



On Aug 4, 2020, at 2:08 AM, Jim Pasquale via groups.io <jim@...> wrote:

Still think we’re talking about Nitrogen, and element in the periodic table. Data, meta data, information of one, too information about many. The drawings are a good depiction and if we’d stop using the word sell and replace it with Deal or exchange I would suspect the conversation would come closer to a centered agreement.  IF a centered agreement is what these threads are after??  IDK. Seems a bit unclear and somewhat convoluted at certain points of intersections. 

To Cam’s point the Alliance has to be the catalyst for a tectonic shift only felt by a Super Volcano, problem is we’ve never felt one before, Taupo the last recorded one erupted 22,600 years ago and is the most recent super eruption on Earth.

Still the crazy guy thinking crazy thoughts.

On Aug 3, 2020, at 3:42 AM, Cam Geer via groups.io <camgeer@...> wrote:

Hi All,

Following this thread closely....

Ask a kid in America with their own smart what their data is, they are likely to say it’s all my app activity when not connected to Wi-Fi. It’s not my texts, except when I share videos or pictures. And it’s not my voice calls when my mom calls me, but it’s probably my FaceTime. 

The wireless carriers have habituated over 200 million people in the US on the definition of the word data. 

Now sure that data is made into math to flow through the network per Doc’s comment, but in the kid’s mind it’s likely to be the pictures, videos, likes, game scores, product views and app purchases, etc. 

Can we agree that data itself is a loaded word and it’s meaning is in the eye of the beholder? 

Having got to know each of you on this thread in varying degrees over the last year, there is way more common ground here than any need to fuss over the 4-letter word...data. 

What this thread shows me is we all have work to do to get to a shared understating of how the word — data — will shift in context. 

It will shape-shift between writer and reader, speaker and listener. 

Let’s be diligent in our empathy. 

Cheers...Cam


On Aug 2, 2020, at 21:02, John Philpin via groups.io <john@...> wrote:

Or as @GapingVoid has it ….

<Gaping Void - 00012.jpeg>



On Aug 3, 2020, at 1:55 PM, Adrian Gropper <agropper@...> wrote:

Data tends to be specific to an individual. Information (in the sense of cleaned and categorized data) can still be about an individual or not. Knowledge, is derived from information but no longer linked to the specific data of one or more individuals. 

HeLa cells have contributed immensely to medical knowledge. Has that knowledge harmed Lacks or her relatives in some way? Maybe, but I’m not sure how. The problem is that Lacks’ data was processed without consent as is the data from all of us when it is processed through surveillance capitalism. 

Processing data without informed consent, even if anonymized, is a taking and needs to be illegal. Informing Lacks or us today of the implications, good and bad, of processing our personal data is almost impossible but we have to try. 

- Adrian 





<Gaping Void - 00012.jpeg>



Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorised to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and advise the sender.

.


On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 9:26 PM Milton Pedraza <mpedraza@...> wrote:
And thank you that’s a clear distinction 

Milton Pedraza
CEO
Luxury Institute, LLC
917-657-4988


On Aug 2, 2020, at 9:18 PM, Doc Searls via groups.io <doc=searls.com@groups.io> wrote:

 
Milton, is your hypothesis about data? Or is it about information?

Information has been for sale for a long time. Wisdom has been for sale. Legal and medical advice have been for sale.

Nobody calls those offerings data, even though in the digital world they are built of data.

I think what you're talking about is information about ourselves. What are the markets for different kinds of information about ourselves, and our property? Who should be in those markets and how? How can any of us prevent the gathering of that information?

In the pre-digital world, we could containerize information into books, recordings, and agreements that advice be accepted in confidence. All of these forms were leaky in different ways—books xeroxed, recordings dubbed, secrets violated—but containerizing the information was still possible, and we relied on those containers because in the physical world leaking information took some work. You needed to make other containers of existing ones.

In the digital world, everything (we should have a word for every not-things) is comprised of data, which is binary math—ones and zeroes—and easily duplicated; especially since, as Kevin Kelly put it a decade ago, the Internet is a copy machine. This email you're reading is a copy of the one I'm writing. The effort and cost to make that copy is roughly zero.

This fact of digital existence has made gathering information about people simple and easy. And, since there are markets for information about people, it is easy to imagine ways of getting in on those markets.

But let's be clear that we're talking about information markets here. When we say "personal data" we are talking about personal information. Not just data.

There are lots of approaches to containerizing personal data into forms of useful information that are not easily leaked. Self-sovereign identity (SSI), for example, limits information leakage to what individuals—as sovereign sources—present as a verifiable credentials. It also formalizes what institutions (schools, banks, whatever) issue to individuals as credentials.

There are markets in that. A school might charge for a verifiable credential saying the student graduated from there, or that what the student presents to a recipient is a valid transcript of the student's performance at the school. But that market is one for information, not for data.

Henrietta Lacks' cancer cells are not data. They are physical cells that contain useful information of value to science and—rightfully—to her heirs. Calling those cells data alone ignores their nature as physical things and as containers of useful information that has both moral and transactional value.

So, to sum up, I think we're on more solid ground if we're talking about information rather than data.

Doc


On Aug 2, 2020, at 3:34 PM, Milton Pedraza <mpedraza@...> wrote:

Ok thank you and I am honestly not sure about it. It’s not a conviction. More of a hypothesis that needs to be tested. 

Milton Pedraza
CEO
Luxury Institute, LLC
917-657-4988


On Aug 2, 2020, at 6:32 PM, Lisa LeVasseur <lisa.levasseur@...> wrote:


Hi Milton, 
 
I didn’t mean to imply that you should withdraw.  I felt it was important to be clear about the current Me2BA position.
 
I appreciate diversity of opinion—it forces one to keep thinking, keep open.  I also think it’s valuable to model how people with different points of view can coexist and respectfully debate.
 
Lisa  
 
From: main@Me2BAlliance.groups.io <main@Me2BAlliance.groups.io> On Behalf Of Milton Pedraza
Sent: Sunday, August 2, 2020 2:45 PM
To: main@me2balliance.groups.io
Cc: Me2BAlliance@groups.io
Subject: Re: [Me2BAlliance] Henrietta Lacks and Her Remarkable Cells Will Finally See Some Payback - The Wall Street Journal.
 
I respect that. Does that mean that because I have a different view of data that I should withdraw ? I will abide by your decision since it’s your organization. 
 
Best

Milton 

Milton Pedraza 
CEO
Luxury Institute, LLC
917-657-4988
 


On Aug 2, 2020, at 5:29 PM, Lisa LeVasseur <lisa.levasseur@...> wrote:

 
Hi Milton,
 
Your sharing of this article and your earlier thread suggest that you view data as a type of property.  The Me2B Alliance does not support the idea that data is a type of property. 
 
Also, from the Me2BA organizational perspective, we are not advocating for or supporting the direct selling by individuals of (a) data, (b) information, or even (c) rights to data or information.
 
I recognize that there is much movement [globally] in and around the idea of data markets, data economies, data dividends, etc.  Our position may evolve over time as system modeling and research evolves around “personal data markets”, but it’s not a part of the current ethos.  
 
Lisa
 
 
From: main@Me2BAlliance.groups.io <main@Me2BAlliance.groups.io> On Behalf Of Milton Pedraza
Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2020 11:55 PM
To: Me2BAlliance@groups.io
Subject: [Me2BAlliance] Henrietta Lacks and Her Remarkable Cells Will Finally See Some Payback - The Wall Street Journal.
 

This is what happens to people, especially people of limited means and minorities when they don’t have any strong legal and fiduciary representation for their personal data or human cells. Exploitation. 

I thought you would be interested in the following story from The Wall Street Journal.

Henrietta Lacks and Her Remarkable Cells Will Finally See Some Payback

 

Download the Wall Street Journal app here: WSJ.

 

Milton Pedraza 
CEO
Luxury Institute, LLC
917-657-4988
 





Me2B Alliance Monthly Call - Mon, 08/03/2020 8:00am-9:00am #cal-reminder

main@Me2BAlliance.groups.io Calendar <main@...>
 

Reminder: Me2B Alliance Monthly Call

When: Monday, 3 August 2020, 8:00am to 9:00am, (GMT-07:00) America/Los Angeles

View Event

Organizer: Megan Bekolay

Description:

Lisa LeVasseur is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.
 
Topic: Me2B Alliance
Time: Mar 2, 2020 08:00 AM Pacific Time (US and Canada)
        Every month on the First Mon, until Aug 3, 2020, 6 occurrence(s)
        Mar 2, 2020 08:00 AM
        Apr 6, 2020 08:00 AM
        May 4, 2020 08:00 AM
        Jun 1, 2020 08:00 AM
        Jul 6, 2020 08:00 AM
        Aug 3, 2020 08:00 AM
Please download and import the following iCalendar (.ics) files to your calendar system.
Monthly: https://zoom.us/meeting/vpMoce6qqDkph3jl_ajkRgY0KikqhW7ZHQ/ics?icsToken=98tyKuqvqz0tGNKXs1_Hf6kqE9r8b9_qknkdoK9inRXuMSdqMij_PfNKBeVFOOmB
 
Join Zoom Meeting
https://zoom.us/j/375672623
 
Meeting ID: 375 672 623
 
One tap mobile
+16699006833,,375672623# US (San Jose)
+14086380968,,375672623# US (San Jose)
 
Dial by your location
        +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
        +1 408 638 0968 US (San Jose)
        +1 646 876 9923 US (New York)
Meeting ID: 375 672 623
Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/acUTI5Weo
 


Re: Henrietta Lacks and Her Remarkable Cells Will Finally See Some Payback - The Wall Street Journal.

Jim Pasquale <jim@...>
 

Still think we’re talking about Nitrogen, and element in the periodic table. Data, meta data, information of one, too information about many. The drawings are a good depiction and if we’d stop using the word sell and replace it with Deal or exchange I would suspect the conversation would come closer to a centered agreement.  IF a centered agreement is what these threads are after??  IDK. Seems a bit unclear and somewhat convoluted at certain points of intersections. 

To Cam’s point the Alliance has to be the catalyst for a tectonic shift only felt by a Super Volcano, problem is we’ve never felt one before, Taupo the last recorded one erupted 22,600 years ago and is the most recent super eruption on Earth.

Still the crazy guy thinking crazy thoughts.

On Aug 3, 2020, at 3:42 AM, Cam Geer via groups.io <camgeer@...> wrote:

Hi All,

Following this thread closely....

Ask a kid in America with their own smart what their data is, they are likely to say it’s all my app activity when not connected to Wi-Fi. It’s not my texts, except when I share videos or pictures. And it’s not my voice calls when my mom calls me, but it’s probably my FaceTime. 

The wireless carriers have habituated over 200 million people in the US on the definition of the word data. 

Now sure that data is made into math to flow through the network per Doc’s comment, but in the kid’s mind it’s likely to be the pictures, videos, likes, game scores, product views and app purchases, etc. 

Can we agree that data itself is a loaded word and it’s meaning is in the eye of the beholder? 

Having got to know each of you on this thread in varying degrees over the last year, there is way more common ground here than any need to fuss over the 4-letter word...data. 

What this thread shows me is we all have work to do to get to a shared understating of how the word — data — will shift in context. 

It will shape-shift between writer and reader, speaker and listener. 

Let’s be diligent in our empathy. 

Cheers...Cam


On Aug 2, 2020, at 21:02, John Philpin via groups.io <john@...> wrote:

 Or as @GapingVoid has it ….

<Gaping Void - 00012.jpeg>



On Aug 3, 2020, at 1:55 PM, Adrian Gropper <agropper@...> wrote:

Data tends to be specific to an individual. Information (in the sense of cleaned and categorized data) can still be about an individual or not. Knowledge, is derived from information but no longer linked to the specific data of one or more individuals. 

HeLa cells have contributed immensely to medical knowledge. Has that knowledge harmed Lacks or her relatives in some way? Maybe, but I’m not sure how. The problem is that Lacks’ data was processed without consent as is the data from all of us when it is processed through surveillance capitalism. 

Processing data without informed consent, even if anonymized, is a taking and needs to be illegal. Informing Lacks or us today of the implications, good and bad, of processing our personal data is almost impossible but we have to try. 

- Adrian 




On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 9:26 PM Milton Pedraza <mpedraza@...> wrote:
And thank you that’s a clear distinction 

Milton Pedraza
CEO
Luxury Institute, LLC
917-657-4988


On Aug 2, 2020, at 9:18 PM, Doc Searls via groups.io <doc=searls.com@groups.io> wrote:


Milton, is your hypothesis about data? Or is it about information?

Information has been for sale for a long time. Wisdom has been for sale. Legal and medical advice have been for sale.

Nobody calls those offerings data, even though in the digital world they are built of data.

I think what you're talking about is information about ourselves. What are the markets for different kinds of information about ourselves, and our property? Who should be in those markets and how? How can any of us prevent the gathering of that information?

In the pre-digital world, we could containerize information into books, recordings, and agreements that advice be accepted in confidence. All of these forms were leaky in different ways—books xeroxed, recordings dubbed, secrets violated—but containerizing the information was still possible, and we relied on those containers because in the physical world leaking information took some work. You needed to make other containers of existing ones.

In the digital world, everything (we should have a word for every not-things) is comprised of data, which is binary math—ones and zeroes—and easily duplicated; especially since, as Kevin Kelly put it a decade ago, the Internet is a copy machine. This email you're reading is a copy of the one I'm writing. The effort and cost to make that copy is roughly zero.

This fact of digital existence has made gathering information about people simple and easy. And, since there are markets for information about people, it is easy to imagine ways of getting in on those markets.

But let's be clear that we're talking about information markets here. When we say "personal data" we are talking about personal information. Not just data.

There are lots of approaches to containerizing personal data into forms of useful information that are not easily leaked. Self-sovereign identity (SSI), for example, limits information leakage to what individuals—as sovereign sources—present as a verifiable credentials. It also formalizes what institutions (schools, banks, whatever) issue to individuals as credentials.

There are markets in that. A school might charge for a verifiable credential saying the student graduated from there, or that what the student presents to a recipient is a valid transcript of the student's performance at the school. But that market is one for information, not for data.

Henrietta Lacks' cancer cells are not data. They are physical cells that contain useful information of value to science and—rightfully—to her heirs. Calling those cells data alone ignores their nature as physical things and as containers of useful information that has both moral and transactional value.

So, to sum up, I think we're on more solid ground if we're talking about information rather than data.

Doc


On Aug 2, 2020, at 3:34 PM, Milton Pedraza <mpedraza@...> wrote:

Ok thank you and I am honestly not sure about it. It’s not a conviction. More of a hypothesis that needs to be tested. 

Milton Pedraza
CEO
Luxury Institute, LLC
917-657-4988


On Aug 2, 2020, at 6:32 PM, Lisa LeVasseur <lisa.levasseur@...> wrote:


Hi Milton, 
 
I didn’t mean to imply that you should withdraw.  I felt it was important to be clear about the current Me2BA position.
 
I appreciate diversity of opinion—it forces one to keep thinking, keep open.  I also think it’s valuable to model how people with different points of view can coexist and respectfully debate.
 
Lisa  
 
From: main@Me2BAlliance.groups.io <main@Me2BAlliance.groups.io> On Behalf Of Milton Pedraza
Sent: Sunday, August 2, 2020 2:45 PM
To: main@me2balliance.groups.io
Cc: Me2BAlliance@groups.io
Subject: Re: [Me2BAlliance] Henrietta Lacks and Her Remarkable Cells Will Finally See Some Payback - The Wall Street Journal.
 
I respect that. Does that mean that because I have a different view of data that I should withdraw ? I will abide by your decision since it’s your organization. 
 
Best

Milton 

Milton Pedraza 
CEO
Luxury Institute, LLC
917-657-4988
 


On Aug 2, 2020, at 5:29 PM, Lisa LeVasseur <lisa.levasseur@...> wrote:

 
Hi Milton,
 
Your sharing of this article and your earlier thread suggest that you view data as a type of property.  The Me2B Alliance does not support the idea that data is a type of property. 
 
Also, from the Me2BA organizational perspective, we are not advocating for or supporting the direct selling by individuals of (a) data, (b) information, or even (c) rights to data or information.
 
I recognize that there is much movement [globally] in and around the idea of data markets, data economies, data dividends, etc.  Our position may evolve over time as system modeling and research evolves around “personal data markets”, but it’s not a part of the current ethos.  
 
Lisa
 
 
From: main@Me2BAlliance.groups.io <main@Me2BAlliance.groups.io> On Behalf Of Milton Pedraza
Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2020 11:55 PM
To: Me2BAlliance@groups.io
Subject: [Me2BAlliance] Henrietta Lacks and Her Remarkable Cells Will Finally See Some Payback - The Wall Street Journal.
 

This is what happens to people, especially people of limited means and minorities when they don’t have any strong legal and fiduciary representation for their personal data or human cells. Exploitation. 

I thought you would be interested in the following story from The Wall Street Journal.

Henrietta Lacks and Her Remarkable Cells Will Finally See Some Payback

 

Download the Wall Street Journal app here: WSJ.

 

Milton Pedraza 
CEO
Luxury Institute, LLC
917-657-4988
 





<Gaping Void - 00012.jpeg>



Disclaimer

The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorised to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and advise the sender.

.


Re: Selling personal data -- an experiment

Lubna Dajani
 


As usual I agree with Susan. 

We must re-examine the framing; step out of the context of today’s failed models where personal data is being used and abused for the sake of short term profits and think of what and how it is that we will actually (technically and in practice) establish new framing rather than bandaids and workarounds reenforcing the same framing and foundation which we know will leading down a misguided path.

Let’s  ask ourselves how do we enable individuals (person or entities) to be transparently, anonymously and “fairly” compensated for the value of their data that they chose to make available for exchange in the market place, free from considerations of how it is done today?

Can we step back from today’s models?   

The use case discussed here about marketing products to targeted individuals using their data to manipulate their behavior to further feed a false need and desire to over consume and waste so we can sell more faster, all for the economic benefit of shareholders at all coasts to environment and  other stakeholders. 

How can we begin to frame a new way and rational for exchange and commerce? 

In the marketing/advertising example used in the trail suggests that the current models will remain and I don’t believe we or the planet can afford to continue enabling consumerism and the ways of today. 

I believe it’s our obligation at technologist and thought leaders to envisage and establish a new way of sharing and exchanging that have regenerative and functional basis. We know each and every individual has a unique value to offer in this life and we need to think about what we can do to facilitate meaningful exchange.  

I also wonder about our labels and all that comes with them. If I am making my data (Anonymously or otherwise) available for a value then am I not the seller/vendor in this case? And if I am the buyer/consumer be it of data or product/service could it be that we describe what we seek and have that matched to the available products that fit (be the product a car a meal or a data set?)

Could we not level this out so that we creat products they meet the demand rather than using technology and science to manipulate behavior to create artificial demand for needless consumption and waste just to generate short term revenue for “shareholders” at any cost to stakeholders and the planet?
Pardon me the rant 🖖

, so please forgive any typos or autocorrect fumbles 
+1 201-982-0934 International 
+44 (0) 7874 948744 


On Jul 25, 2020, at 12:37 PM, susan morrow <susan.morrow@...> wrote:


Good luck Milton

On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 11:33 AM Milton Pedraza <mpedraza@...> wrote:
It’s not a commodity, it’s a precious resource and the representation of a human life that can be a force for good. That’s the point. Human life and dignity are being devalued as a commodity right now by platforms. And we need to create representation and fair treatment and value for all human beings. The Mes need to be ethically and fairly represented in an asymmetrical digital world where data is the greatest resource. I agree with some that depending on its use, such as finding a cure, data can have high value. Those whose data was used should be fairly compensated. It’s complex, but like poverty and racism, the status quo must be changed. No perfect answers but a positive direction. 

Milton Pedraza
CEO
Luxury Institute, LLC
917-657-4988


On Jul 25, 2020, at 4:51 AM, susan morrow <susiemorrow@...> wrote:


And switching it around to the actual human part of the transaction...

I am a woman with a 3-month old baby and nowhere to live. I am sofa surfing to keep my baby from living on the streets. I use a friend's computers but I still have online accounts because I wasn't always homeless and won't always be so (although I don't know that at the time) - so I do have digital data to sell. I go online using a friend's computer and see that I can now sell my data. Bloody great because I am totally skint and my baby needs a warm coat for the winter. I sell to whoever and however because I do not have the luxury of choice and consent is a joke when there is no choice.

You are creating a dystopian stick to hit people without choice if you make personal data a commodity - I don't like nanny states but this is not about that. If we were working in health or science we'd have to have an ethical framework to work off. Technologists don't seem to care coz it's about the money.

I am going back to my cave.

On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 11:51 PM Johannes Ernst <jernst@...> wrote:
To shed some light about the viability of selling personal data, on a non-trivial scale, by “consumers" to one or more “vendors" — which I think is the scenario being discussed — I suggest a thought experiment.

Let’s say I am willing to sell my personal data (I’m not, but let’s assume I am), any of it, as long as the price is right.

For the purposes of this experiment, let’s also assume that there are no technical hurdles that make this impractical — all relevant data exists in electronic form, is standardized, easily shareable etc.

You are the “vendor” who wants to buy some of that personal data from me:

* Who are you? (Industry, product, …)
* What data do you want to buy from me?
* How is receiving that data from me materially going to improve your business?
* How is buying that data from me better for you than the alternatives? (e.g. asking nicely :-))
* How are you avoiding being gamed?

I’d love to hear some compelling stories. Because so far I haven’t heard any :-)

Cheers,




Johannes.




Johannes Ernst

Encryption preferred. GPG fingerprint: 106E F92A BEBD 0C31 1DAF 7CD8 5726 2658 070F 1088


<indie-computing-logo-01.png>



--
Susan Morrow
Head of R&D Avoco Identity
@avocoidentity
T: 07917507826

Avoco Secure are providers of Cloud Identity, Security and Privacy solutions.

Registered Office: Avoco Secure Ltd., 16 St. Martin's-le-Grand, London EC1A 4EE. Company number : 04778206 - Registered in England and Wales.


Re: Henrietta Lacks and Her Remarkable Cells Will Finally See Some Payback - The Wall Street Journal.

Cam Geer
 

Hi All,

Following this thread closely....

Ask a kid in America with their own smart what their data is, they are likely to say it’s all my app activity when not connected to Wi-Fi. It’s not my texts, except when I share videos or pictures. And it’s not my voice calls when my mom calls me, but it’s probably my FaceTime. 

The wireless carriers have habituated over 200 million people in the US on the definition of the word data. 

Now sure that data is made into math to flow through the network per Doc’s comment, but in the kid’s mind it’s likely to be the pictures, videos, likes, game scores, product views and app purchases, etc. 

Can we agree that data itself is a loaded word and it’s meaning is in the eye of the beholder? 

Having got to know each of you on this thread in varying degrees over the last year, there is way more common ground here than any need to fuss over the 4-letter word...data. 

What this thread shows me is we all have work to do to get to a shared understating of how the word — data — will shift in context. 

It will shape-shift between writer and reader, speaker and listener. 

Let’s be diligent in our empathy. 

Cheers...Cam


On Aug 2, 2020, at 21:02, John Philpin via groups.io <john@...> wrote:

 Or as @GapingVoid has it ….

<Gaping Void - 00012.jpeg>



On Aug 3, 2020, at 1:55 PM, Adrian Gropper <agropper@...> wrote:

Data tends to be specific to an individual. Information (in the sense of cleaned and categorized data) can still be about an individual or not. Knowledge, is derived from information but no longer linked to the specific data of one or more individuals. 

HeLa cells have contributed immensely to medical knowledge. Has that knowledge harmed Lacks or her relatives in some way? Maybe, but I’m not sure how. The problem is that Lacks’ data was processed without consent as is the data from all of us when it is processed through surveillance capitalism. 

Processing data without informed consent, even if anonymized, is a taking and needs to be illegal. Informing Lacks or us today of the implications, good and bad, of processing our personal data is almost impossible but we have to try. 

- Adrian 




On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 9:26 PM Milton Pedraza <mpedraza@...> wrote:
And thank you that’s a clear distinction 

Milton Pedraza
CEO
Luxury Institute, LLC
917-657-4988


On Aug 2, 2020, at 9:18 PM, Doc Searls via groups.io <doc=searls.com@groups.io> wrote:


Milton, is your hypothesis about data? Or is it about information?

Information has been for sale for a long time. Wisdom has been for sale. Legal and medical advice have been for sale.

Nobody calls those offerings data, even though in the digital world they are built of data.

I think what you're talking about is information about ourselves. What are the markets for different kinds of information about ourselves, and our property? Who should be in those markets and how? How can any of us prevent the gathering of that information?

In the pre-digital world, we could containerize information into books, recordings, and agreements that advice be accepted in confidence. All of these forms were leaky in different ways—books xeroxed, recordings dubbed, secrets violated—but containerizing the information was still possible, and we relied on those containers because in the physical world leaking information took some work. You needed to make other containers of existing ones.

In the digital world, everything (we should have a word for every not-things) is comprised of data, which is binary math—ones and zeroes—and easily duplicated; especially since, as Kevin Kelly put it a decade ago, the Internet is a copy machine. This email you're reading is a copy of the one I'm writing. The effort and cost to make that copy is roughly zero.

This fact of digital existence has made gathering information about people simple and easy. And, since there are markets for information about people, it is easy to imagine ways of getting in on those markets.

But let's be clear that we're talking about information markets here. When we say "personal data" we are talking about personal information. Not just data.

There are lots of approaches to containerizing personal data into forms of useful information that are not easily leaked. Self-sovereign identity (SSI), for example, limits information leakage to what individuals—as sovereign sources—present as a verifiable credentials. It also formalizes what institutions (schools, banks, whatever) issue to individuals as credentials.

There are markets in that. A school might charge for a verifiable credential saying the student graduated from there, or that what the student presents to a recipient is a valid transcript of the student's performance at the school. But that market is one for information, not for data.

Henrietta Lacks' cancer cells are not data. They are physical cells that contain useful information of value to science and—rightfully—to her heirs. Calling those cells data alone ignores their nature as physical things and as containers of useful information that has both moral and transactional value.

So, to sum up, I think we're on more solid ground if we're talking about information rather than data.

Doc


On Aug 2, 2020, at 3:34 PM, Milton Pedraza <mpedraza@...> wrote:

Ok thank you and I am honestly not sure about it. It’s not a conviction. More of a hypothesis that needs to be tested. 

Milton Pedraza
CEO
Luxury Institute, LLC
917-657-4988


On Aug 2, 2020, at 6:32 PM, Lisa LeVasseur <lisa.levasseur@...> wrote:


Hi Milton, 
 
I didn’t mean to imply that you should withdraw.  I felt it was important to be clear about the current Me2BA position.
 
I appreciate diversity of opinion—it forces one to keep thinking, keep open.  I also think it’s valuable to model how people with different points of view can coexist and respectfully debate.
 
Lisa  
 
From: main@Me2BAlliance.groups.io <main@Me2BAlliance.groups.io> On Behalf Of Milton Pedraza
Sent: Sunday, August 2, 2020 2:45 PM
To: main@me2balliance.groups.io
Cc: Me2BAlliance@groups.io
Subject: Re: [Me2BAlliance] Henrietta Lacks and Her Remarkable Cells Will Finally See Some Payback - The Wall Street Journal.
 
I respect that. Does that mean that because I have a different view of data that I should withdraw ? I will abide by your decision since it’s your organization. 
 
Best

Milton 

Milton Pedraza 
CEO
Luxury Institute, LLC
917-657-4988
 


On Aug 2, 2020, at 5:29 PM, Lisa LeVasseur <lisa.levasseur@...> wrote:

 
Hi Milton,
 
Your sharing of this article and your earlier thread suggest that you view data as a type of property.  The Me2B Alliance does not support the idea that data is a type of property. 
 
Also, from the Me2BA organizational perspective, we are not advocating for or supporting the direct selling by individuals of (a) data, (b) information, or even (c) rights to data or information.
 
I recognize that there is much movement [globally] in and around the idea of data markets, data economies, data dividends, etc.  Our position may evolve over time as system modeling and research evolves around “personal data markets”, but it’s not a part of the current ethos.  
 
Lisa
 
 
From: main@Me2BAlliance.groups.io <main@Me2BAlliance.groups.io> On Behalf Of Milton Pedraza
Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2020 11:55 PM
To: Me2BAlliance@groups.io
Subject: [Me2BAlliance] Henrietta Lacks and Her Remarkable Cells Will Finally See Some Payback - The Wall Street Journal.
 

This is what happens to people, especially people of limited means and minorities when they don’t have any strong legal and fiduciary representation for their personal data or human cells. Exploitation. 

I thought you would be interested in the following story from The Wall Street Journal.

Henrietta Lacks and Her Remarkable Cells Will Finally See Some Payback

 

Download the Wall Street Journal app here: WSJ.

 

Milton Pedraza 
CEO
Luxury Institute, LLC
917-657-4988