Date   

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

John Philpin
 

Or as @GapingVoid has it ….




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
 






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

Adrian Gropper
 

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
 



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

Milton Pedraza
 

And thank you that’s a clear distinction 

Milton Pedraza
CEO
Luxury Institute, LLC
917-657-4988
mpedraza@...


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

Milton Pedraza
 

I think I have to consider your feedback seriously and internalize it. I am a bit of a slow learner so let me get back on that please. 

Milton Pedraza
CEO
Luxury Institute, LLC
917-657-4988
mpedraza@...


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

Doc Searls
 

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.

Milton Pedraza
 

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
mpedraza@...


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.

Lisa LeVasseur
 

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.

Milton Pedraza
 

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
mpedraza@...


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.

Lisa LeVasseur
 

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

 


Reminder of bi-monthly Me2B Alliance call tomorrow 8am PDT

Lisa LeVasseur
 

Hi friends,

 

I hope this note finds you all enjoying your weekends.  In case you missed the flip of the calendar page, it’s August.    

 

As a reminder, we have a full alliance call tomorrow morning at 8am PDT. 

 

Going forward, we’ll have alternating full alliance calls and webinars on the first Monday of the month at 8am PT.

 

Starting off immediately with an exception for our next webinar, a repeat (and refined) presentation of the Me2B 101 webinar, which will be on 9/14/20, due to the US holiday on Monday on 9/7/20). 

 

Logistics for the call below.

 

Thanks and see you all soon!

Lisa

 

 

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

 


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

Milton Pedraza
 

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
mpedraza@...


Re: Selling personal data -- an experiment

Milton Pedraza
 

What if: a person of limited financial means had a genetic makeup that a few dozen labs globally would like to access to address a medical challenge. Could a data fiduciary represent that individual and make the genetic data available to all or most labs with legal, ethical and fair value representation? Can value exchange be fair, or does it all come down to pimping? Are we all pimping because we exchange fair value? 

Milton Pedraza
CEO
Luxury Institute, LLC
917-657-4988
mpedraza@...


On Jul 31, 2020, at 6:56 PM, Phil Wolff <pevanwolf@...> wrote:


Assumption: poor people don't have high value data about being a consumer. If they did, they'd be pimping it by now. 


Re: Selling personal data -- an experiment

Phil Wolff
 

Assumption: poor people don't have high value data about being a consumer. If they did, they'd be pimping it by now. 


Updated Event: Me2B Alliance Monthly Call #cal-invite

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

Me2B Alliance Monthly Call

When:
Monday, 3 August 2020
8:00am to 9:00am
(UTC-07:00) America/Los Angeles
Repeats: Every 2 months on the first Monday

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: Selling personal data -- an experiment

Iain Henderson
 

Agreed James, although I suspect the steady state for ‘considered purchases’ won’t need/ benefit from intermediaries. Individuals (demand) will have standardised API’s as will the manufacturers, distributors and retailers (supply).

If you look at considered purchases in more detail, Google, Facebook and Amazon don’t actually try to do too much in those spaces other than hand off to sector level experts after the search phase. For example, if you do a google search for ’new car’ you get intermediaries at the top of the list as below. Behind the scenes the manufacturers are happy to let the intermediaries separate the wheat from the chaff (unless the search mentions them specifically).

Iain



On 25 Jul 2020, at 12:06, James A (One.Thing.Less) <James@...> wrote:

I agree with Iain‘s example below. One of the most difficult aspects to address though will be how to overcome the market dominance of the established players (e.g. Google, Facebook, Amazon). Under pressure they could offer a functionality as part of their services where a Me can do better intent casting (potentially also incentivized as they have deep pockets) and at the same time offer the B‘s an integrated solution that tracks the successful conversions.

Concrete example: Google offers a Me looking for a car (based on browsing behavior) USD 10 to participate in a 10-20 question survey regarding the details of the Me‘s car requirement (spec, brands, timing, budget etc.) and consent to share with car manufacturers / retailers. Then Google offers that information and the possibility to hand in an offer for USD 20 to 20 manufacturers and 20 car dealers, making USD 400 in revenues with that bit of information if everyone buys. Google might even use AI to browse the online inventories of manufacturers and retailers to select only those who would love to get a car (working capital) off their lot ASAP... 

It would be very hard (but not impossible with the right financial backing) to compete with the big ones, ending most likely in an acquisition by one of the big players and being integrated in Google search...

My 2 cents.
James


On 25 Jul 2020, at 01:16, Iain Henderson via groups.io <iain.henderson@...> wrote:

 I’d disagree, it is very easy to illustrate what is currently happening in the market and how that can be bettered.

That said, I think selling personal data is the wrong framing; that’s not how it is going to work. It will work through reciprocity - i.e. mutually beneficial relationships.

* Who are you? (Industry, product, …)

I am a mid range, mass market car manufacturer, currently paying a range of intermediaries between £100 and £200 per qualified lead; i.e. people who are actively in the market for things like that which I sell.

* What data do you want to buy from me?

I want to buy the details of your requirement (spec, timing, optional points, price sensitivity)

* How is receiving that data from me materially going to improve your business? 

If you can get me that data either ’same data bit cheaper’, or ‘better data, same price’ or, ‘much more qualifying data at higher price’ then it would be economically stupid of me not to buy from you.

* How is buying that data from me better for you than the alternatives? (e.g. asking nicely :-))

As above - same date but cheaper, or better data same price; or much better data, higher price 

* How are you avoiding being gamed?

I only pay out when the purchase has been made and verified (either through myself or a competitor)

I could fill in the above very easily for about 30 different sectors in which paying for qualified leads is absolutely business as usual.

This article might be also useful background.


Cheers

Iain



On 24 Jul 2020, at 23:58, Milton Pedraza <mpedraza@...> wrote:

Three aren’t any. It’s up to us to step up and create them for people. 

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


On Jul 24, 2020, at 6:51 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>

<indie-computing-logo-01.png>



Re: Selling personal data -- an experiment

Iain Henderson
 

Hi Johannes, as you say we are agreeing here; I don’t think this market will emerge through people wishing to directly sell their data. But as Susan says, one should not rule that out in some scenarios.

The scenarios you outline below are just not going to happen as they do not make economic sense for either party.

Iain

On 25 Jul 2020, at 00:53, Johannes Ernst <jernst@...> wrote:

On Jul 24, 2020, at 16:16, Iain Henderson <iain.henderson@...> wrote:

I’d disagree,

Excellent :-)

But … (below)

it is very easy to illustrate what is currently happening in the market and how that can be bettered.

That said, I think selling personal data is the wrong framing; that’s not how it is going to work. It will work through reciprocity - i.e. mutually beneficial relationships.

(Re-reading before hitting Send I realize you are actually making my point here. Providing, yes, please. Selling, not so much. So you may agree with much that I typed below.)

* Who are you? (Industry, product, …)

I am a mid range, mass market car manufacturer, currently paying a range of intermediaries between £100 and £200 per qualified lead; i.e. people who are actively in the market for things like that which I sell.

* What data do you want to buy from me?

I want to buy the details of your requirement (spec, timing, optional points, price sensitivity)

* How is receiving that data from me materially going to improve your business? 

If you can get me that data either ’same data bit cheaper’, or ‘better data, same price’ or, ‘much more qualifying data at higher price’ then it would be economically stupid of me not to buy from you.

* How is buying that data from me better for you than the alternatives? (e.g. asking nicely :-))

As above - same date but cheaper, or better data same price; or much better data, higher price 

Can you describe the mechanics by which this is supposed to work?

In our example, You are trying to market a car to Me. You want to focus your marketing dollars on people who are likely going to buy that car, and not on those who aren’t. So far, so good. 

You currently pay a third party for identifying prospects, such as Me, to You. You hand them money. They hand you a list of prospects. Ok. But you want to take that third party out of the equation, right?

So how do you identify prospects such as Me? Are you going to offer “everybody" some money to provide their requirements to you, and then you market your car only to those people whose data matches? Or …? (Because if so, I doubt that you’ll end up with less spend on lead generation. At least the math is not obvious.)

And how do you solve the problem of even communicating the “money for your data” offer to everybody? Don’t you have a similar marketing problem there, just for a different product (data, rather than car)?


* How are you avoiding being gamed?

I only pay out when the purchase has been made and verified (either through myself or a competitor)

So You are telling Me, in our example: “Please provide this data to me, and if you buy a car within 3 months, I will give you $50” (or whatever the price).

I have a hard time seeing that I would do that. For one, the amount is small compared to the eventual price of the car, so I’d much rather resolve to negotiate a better purchase price if I indeed buy that car within 3 months. Also, I am quite certain I would come away with the impression that if You make offers like this, You most likely also just raised the prices of your cars by $50 which is not a good start if you want to sell me something.


I could fill in the above very easily for about 30 different sectors in which paying for qualified leads is absolutely business as usual.

I agree that if this car example can be made to work, it will likely also work for other sectors. If...

To be clear, I believe in customer-provided data. I just don’t see that selling such data has any incremental, substantial benefits for these kinds of interactions beyond providing for free as part of a relationship.

Cheers,


Johannes.




Johannes Ernst

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


<indie-computing-logo-01.png>



Re: Selling personal data -- an experiment

James A (One.Thing.Less)
 

I agree with Iain‘s example below. One of the most difficult aspects to address though will be how to overcome the market dominance of the established players (e.g. Google, Facebook, Amazon). Under pressure they could offer a functionality as part of their services where a Me can do better intent casting (potentially also incentivized as they have deep pockets) and at the same time offer the B‘s an integrated solution that tracks the successful conversions.

Concrete example: Google offers a Me looking for a car (based on browsing behavior) USD 10 to participate in a 10-20 question survey regarding the details of the Me‘s car requirement (spec, brands, timing, budget etc.) and consent to share with car manufacturers / retailers. Then Google offers that information and the possibility to hand in an offer for USD 20 to 20 manufacturers and 20 car dealers, making USD 400 in revenues with that bit of information if everyone buys. Google might even use AI to browse the online inventories of manufacturers and retailers to select only those who would love to get a car (working capital) off their lot ASAP... 

It would be very hard (but not impossible with the right financial backing) to compete with the big ones, ending most likely in an acquisition by one of the big players and being integrated in Google search...

My 2 cents.
James


On 25 Jul 2020, at 01:16, Iain Henderson via groups.io <iain.henderson@...> wrote:

 I’d disagree, it is very easy to illustrate what is currently happening in the market and how that can be bettered.

That said, I think selling personal data is the wrong framing; that’s not how it is going to work. It will work through reciprocity - i.e. mutually beneficial relationships.

* Who are you? (Industry, product, …)

I am a mid range, mass market car manufacturer, currently paying a range of intermediaries between £100 and £200 per qualified lead; i.e. people who are actively in the market for things like that which I sell.

* What data do you want to buy from me?

I want to buy the details of your requirement (spec, timing, optional points, price sensitivity)

* How is receiving that data from me materially going to improve your business? 

If you can get me that data either ’same data bit cheaper’, or ‘better data, same price’ or, ‘much more qualifying data at higher price’ then it would be economically stupid of me not to buy from you.

* How is buying that data from me better for you than the alternatives? (e.g. asking nicely :-))

As above - same date but cheaper, or better data same price; or much better data, higher price 

* How are you avoiding being gamed?

I only pay out when the purchase has been made and verified (either through myself or a competitor)

I could fill in the above very easily for about 30 different sectors in which paying for qualified leads is absolutely business as usual.

This article might be also useful background.


Cheers

Iain



On 24 Jul 2020, at 23:58, Milton Pedraza <mpedraza@...> wrote:

Three aren’t any. It’s up to us to step up and create them for people. 

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


On Jul 24, 2020, at 6:51 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>

<indie-computing-logo-01.png>


Re: Selling personal data -- an experiment

Milton Pedraza
 

I will take your points into account. Thank you 

Milton Pedraza
CEO
Luxury Institute, LLC
917-657-4988
mpedraza@...


On Jul 25, 2020, at 6:37 AM, 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: Selling personal data -- an experiment

susan morrow <susan.morrow@...>
 

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: Selling personal data -- an experiment

Milton Pedraza
 

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
mpedraza@...


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>