Policy action group in April

[Elias Bizannes]

Following up on the last Steering teleconference call request, here
are some recent discussions on Policy. Some interesting discussions
have occurred recently, and hopefully people can step up (like
Greenberg) to drive this action group.

------------------

BRADY SUGGESTING WE TALK ABOUT TOS
[14/04/2008 6:35:41 PM] Brady Brim-DeForest says: Anyone talking about
legal TOS ramifications of data portability adoption by vendors?
[14/04/2008 6:36:17 PM] greenbes says: No, but I should
[14/04/2008 6:36:38 PM] Brady Brim-DeForest says: That would be
excellent Steve.
[14/04/2008 6:36:56 PM] greenbes says: Want to set up a group or
something?
[14/04/2008 6:37:05 PM] Brady Brim-DeForest says: Sure, would love to.
[14/04/2008 6:37:08 PM] greenbes says: k
[14/04/2008 6:37:17 PM] Phil Wolff | Skype Journal | Oakland,
California says: sounds like a good topic for the data sharing summit
[14/04/2008 6:37:23 PM] Brady Brim-DeForest says: Absolutely.
[14/04/2008 6:37:25 PM] greenbes says: Indeed
[14/04/2008 6:37:54 PM] greenbes says: I will only be able to attend
the first day, so I will need everyone to speak as fast as they can
[14/04/2008 6:38:05 PM] Brady Brim-DeForest says: Lol. Great idea.
[14/04/2008 6:38:13 PM] greenbes says: "No time for politeness, just
everyone start yelling at once, please"
[14/04/2008 6:38:18 PM] greenbes says: Oh wait...
[14/04/2008 6:53:31 PM] Elias Bizannes says: count me in - would love
to hear the output of your discussions so we can continue them online
[19/04/2008 4:22:44 AM] Brady Brim-DeForest says: Last Day to Vote:
If you haven't yet voted, please get out and cast your ballot for the
new DataPortability Logo: http://dataportability.techcrunch.com/


ON THE PARALLELS BETWEEN NUMBER PORTABILITY AND DATA PORTABILITY
[19/04/2008 7:08:25 PM] *** larre27 joined this chat
***
[19/04/2008 7:14:33 PM] larre27 says: hi
[19/04/2008 9:27:32 PM] Elias Bizannes says: G'day! Want to introduce
yourself?
[19/04/2008 9:28:31 PM] Elias Bizannes says: Want to propose an idea
that Paul Jones of the technical action group proposed to me - which
is to create policy specs like the technical specs. Any thoughts by
people?
[19/04/2008 9:32:28 PM] larre27 says: Elias: Ismail, Following the
project with interest as i have been involved in similar projects in
telecoms (Mobile number portability)
[19/04/2008 9:33:16 PM] Elias Bizannes says: nice
[19/04/2008 9:33:32 PM] Elias Bizannes says: The policy action group
has been low of activity of late, but that
[19/04/2008 9:34:08 PM] Elias Bizannes says: will change soon. A lot
of the people active here have had their time taken up by work in the
other action groups
[19/04/2008 9:34:35 PM] Elias Bizannes says: where are you based?
[19/04/2008 9:34:52 PM] larre27 says: Currently based in the UAE
[19/04/2008 9:35:49 PM] larre27 says: how far have you guys gone with
the project and has there been involvement from people outside of the
US?
[19/04/2008 9:36:35 PM] Elias Bizannes says: Project as in within this
action group (there is also the technical, steering, evangelism
acstion groups) or generally speaking?
[19/04/2008 9:36:46 PM] larre27 says: generally speaking
[19/04/2008 9:38:18 PM] Elias Bizannes says: Chris Saad is based in
Brisbane Australia; I am based in Sydney Australia. Triona Carey is
based UK forget where; Christian Scholz is based in Germany; John
Breslin UK; Marjolein Hoekstra Den Haag (Nertherlands)
[19/04/2008 9:38:54 PM] Elias Bizannes says: Generally speaking, we
have a roadmap and we are progressing nicely
[19/04/2008 9:39:21 PM] Elias Bizannes says: Current phase of the
roadmap is to "research". Next phase will be to "design" our
solutions.
[19/04/2008 9:39:21 PM] larre27 says: Cool, well i am willing to offer
my views and assistance where required
[19/04/2008 9:39:35 PM] larre27 says: as we rolled out mobile number
portability in South africa
[19/04/2008 9:39:38 PM] larre27 says: was a huge pain
[19/04/2008 9:39:41 PM] larre27 says: but it worked
[19/04/2008 9:40:14 PM] larre27 says: Dataportability on the net is an
entirely diff beast
[19/04/2008 9:40:24 PM] larre27 says: though there will be some
overlapp in concepts
[19/04/2008 9:51:17 PM] Elias Bizannes says: oh no, thats some
valuable experience. definately relevant
[19/04/2008 9:51:32 PM] Elias Bizannes says: what exactly do you mean
you rolled out number portability?
[19/04/2008 9:55:46 PM] Ismail D says: part of the steering group
between the diff operators
[19/04/2008 9:56:31 PM] Ismail D says: though the policy/technical
specifications etc was driven by the regulation of goverment
[19/04/2008 9:56:50 PM] Elias Bizannes says: what were the biggest
hurdles?
[19/04/2008 9:56:55 PM] Ismail D says: the operators had to draft the
tech specs etc and business rules / processes etc.
[19/04/2008 9:57:37 PM] Ismail D says: the biggest hurdles were
getting concensus on issues between the operators
[19/04/2008 9:57:39 PM] Ismail D says: and
[19/04/2008 9:57:58 PM] Ismail D says: getting the teams from the
operators to work together
[19/04/2008 9:57:59 PM] Ismail D says: also
[19/04/2008 9:58:14 PM] Ismail D says: i found that when you have a
big player
[19/04/2008 9:58:19 PM] Ismail D says: as part of the group
[19/04/2008 9:58:28 PM] Ismail D says: they try to influence things in
their favour
[19/04/2008 9:59:01 PM] Ismail D says: p.s this should not be
published this is from my experience and i am no longer working with
the company
[19/04/2008 9:59:07 PM] Ismail D says: for example
[19/04/2008 9:59:23 PM] Ismail D says: we had 2 very large operators
with a smaller newer operator
[19/04/2008 9:59:26 PM] Elias Bizannes says: no worries - but do be
aware this is a public chat
[19/04/2008 9:59:45 PM] Ismail D says: o
[19/04/2008 9:59:46 PM] Ismail D says: ok :)
[19/04/2008 9:59:54 PM] Ismail D says: then i would rather not
[19/04/2008 10:00:13 PM] Elias Bizannes says: The DataPortability is
public e-mails, chat etc - but happ to take this to private
conversation :) Either way, you can still share without revealing too
much detail I suppose
[19/04/2008 10:00:15 PM] Ismail D says: though will either post to the
groups my thoughts or a blog post
[19/04/2008 10:00:51 PM] Ismail D says: I want to review the documents
you guys currently have
[19/04/2008 10:01:03 PM] Ismail D says: before making any comment
[19/04/2008 10:01:34 PM] Elias Bizannes says: cool
[19/04/2008 10:02:46 PM] Elias Bizannes says: well like I said, things
with this group are still embryotic
[19/04/2008 10:03:10 PM] Elias Bizannes says: We have mutiple views on
things. Here is a view I have written with my research:
http://wiki.dataportability.org/x/RgkR
[19/04/2008 10:03:17 PM] Ismail D says: well it's a step in the right
direction
[19/04/2008 10:03:32 PM] Ismail D says: and usually the people that
are most scared of of this
[19/04/2008 10:03:36 PM] Ismail D says: are the incumbants
[19/04/2008 10:03:40 PM] Ismail D says: the old players in the market
[19/04/2008 10:03:47 PM] Ismail D says: as they realise with
portability
[19/04/2008 10:04:16 PM] Ismail D says: you cant own the customer by
locking them in (in mobile its with the mobile number / Internet its
data) ...
[19/04/2008 10:04:29 PM] Elias Bizannes says: for sure. Any power
structure - the dominant want to keep it to maintain the status quo;
others want to change it to change the dynamics of the dominants.
[19/04/2008 10:04:35 PM] Ismail D says: it has to be based on the
services & products you offer
[19/04/2008 10:04:44 PM] Ismail D says: in the end
[19/04/2008 10:04:56 PM] Ismail D says: its the consumer / end user
that wins as they have more choice
[19/04/2008 10:05:03 PM] Elias Bizannes says: that's such a good
historical precedent, we should use it more often. Can't believe I
never thought about it.
[19/04/2008 10:05:11 PM] Elias Bizannes says: yes - that is exactly
how I see it.
[19/04/2008 10:06:11 PM] Elias Bizannes says: what drove number
portability? because it seems to be it just happened, and it affected
the global industry
[19/04/2008 10:06:39 PM] Elias Bizannes says: was it customer pressure
channeled through a group?
[19/04/2008 10:07:02 PM] Ismail D says: it was consumer pressure and
goverment regulation as well
[19/04/2008 10:07:22 PM] Ismail D says: and the fact that the bigger
players who had got in early
[19/04/2008 10:07:35 PM] Ismail D says: were controlling the market on
account of the lock in
[19/04/2008 10:07:53 PM] Elias Bizannes says: we really need to look
into this more and document this precendent. some massive parallels.
[19/04/2008 10:08:17 PM] Ismail D says: it's called Mobile Number
Portability
[19/04/2008 10:08:30 PM] Ismail D says: several countries have started
implementing regulation on this
[19/04/2008 10:09:36 PM] Ismail D says: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_number_portability
[19/04/2008 10:11:05 PM] Ismail D says: with telecoms its complicated
in that ROUTING has to be taken care of, and trust me just with 3
players in the market it took over 2 years to implement
[19/04/2008 10:11:37 PM] Ismail D says: the scale of DP is huge when
you consider the number of companies out there
[19/04/2008 10:12:24 PM] Elias Bizannes says: true
[19/04/2008 10:13:53 PM] Elias Bizannes says: I think 2008 is when we
organise ourselves with a solution to the vision (which if we stick to
the roadmap, we will). It may take years to get everyone on board, but
that's fine. Change is gradual. With time, we can do more and more -
but we need baby steps with simple quick wins and generate momentum of
these small wins.
[19/04/2008 10:14:15 PM] Ismail D says: entirely correct
[19/04/2008 10:14:39 PM] Ismail D says: i believe the group should
concentrate on small milestones and as you say gradual change
[19/04/2008 10:15:28 PM] Elias Bizannes says: and unfortunately, we've
done a poor job communicating it, as people think we will develop a
solution and implement things within three months. It's not like that.
[19/04/2008 10:18:32 PM] Ismail D says: yep
[19/04/2008 10:19:25 PM] Ismail D says: i am off to do some reading :)
chat again soon, are there regular chat sessions (akin to meetings) or
is it just as an when people log on?
[19/04/2008 11:39:27 PM] Elias Bizannes says: for policy, not yet -
best to just post to the mailing list. Inn the next few weeks once I
can shake off some other things I am working on, I want to start
driving more activity within policy - so maybe conference calls


ON FUTURE INTENTIONS
[20/04/2008 9:49:37 PM] Elias Bizannes says: Hi everyone - Paul Jones
has suggested an idea that he is implementing for the technical action
group and he e-mailed me to make a similar pish within the policy
group.
[20/04/2008 9:50:47 PM] Elias Bizannes says: The idea is we start
working towards creating actual documents, broken down by issue. You
can see the approach here, which aims to break down things into small
issues to get agreement easily, and isloate disagreements:
http://wiki.dataportability.org/display/dpmain/Technical+Specifications
[20/04/2008 9:51:00 PM] Elias Bizannes says: So what do people think
of adopting that as a process. Maybe
[20/04/2008 9:52:13 PM] Elias Bizannes says: we can do something like
"DP-POL-001: Definition of data" "DP-POL-002: Scope of portability"
"DP-POL-003: Definition of privacy" etc
[20/04/2008 10:24:33 PM] Christian Scholz says: of course I again
would like to have more pragmatic questions answered ;) like how do I
control who can see which's friend I am
[20/04/2008 10:47:53 PM] Elias Bizannes says: fair enough - what not
draft a list of questions we as a group need to answer? maybe they can
be a the blueprints we produce?
[20/04/2008 10:48:46 PM] Elias Bizannes says: Although I think having
a theoretical view, and an implementation view, would be more
consistent. The questions to scenarios being the latter
[20/04/2008 10:57:03 PM] Christian Scholz says: I hope that I find
some time to put a more complex use case together. this might raise
some questions in the technical and policy areas I think
[20/04/2008 10:57:38 PM] Christian Scholz says: but we are also having
a Plone release this week so I first need to get some bugfixes out for
that
[20/04/2008 11:10:34 PM] Elias Bizannes says: Happy to work with you
on this. I'm pretty busy with work as well as need to tackle the
workflow issue in steering, so suits me to push this back.
[23/04/2008 3:28:55 AM] Chris Saad says: Christian we need to solve
simple use cases first
[23/04/2008 3:29:01 AM] Chris Saad says: like discovering a list of
services the user uses
[23/04/2008 3:29:06 AM] Chris Saad says: and getting their known
formats securely
[23/04/2008 3:29:15 AM] Chris Saad says: that's what paul's docs
outline
[23/04/2008 3:34:34 AM] Christian Scholz says: Chris, I was talking
about these specs ;)
[23/04/2008 3:34:39 AM] Christian Scholz says: they migth raise some
questions already ;)
[23/04/2008 3:35:17 AM] Christian Scholz says: btw, big discussions on
trust in a world-wide grid now at the Second Life meeting about the
interoprability protocol for SL


[23/04/2008 5:18:36 AM] *** Marjolein Hoekstra left this chat
***
[23/04/2008 2:41:33 PM] identitywoman says: Data Sharing Workshop
Report is up
[23/04/2008 2:41:34 PM] identitywoman says: http://www.identitywoman.net/?p=759
[24/04/2008 3:09:22 AM] *** Ryan Merket joined this chat
***
[24/04/2008 8:14:07 PM] Brady Brim-DeForest says: The Legal Entity
Taskforce has officially been formed.

You can read about it here:
http://wiki.dataportability.org/display/dpmain/DataPortability+Legal+Entity+Taskforce
Join the Skype Chatroom: http://tinyurl.com/4ht8mw
Join the Discussion Group: http://groups.google.com/group/dataportabilityorg
[24/04/2008 8:14:15 PM] Brady Brim-DeForest says: Come join in the
dialogue!


NITIN'S SUGGESTION WHICH BEGAN A EXCELLENT STORM!!
[27/04/2008 5:24:22 PM] Nitin Borwankar says: Hi all, bumped into our
fearless leader Chris Saad, at Web 2.0 expo on Thurs and had a short
chat about an interesting TOS agreemengt that I saw on a web site
called Wesabe - wesabe.com - I see it as very close to an ideal
template for a TOS that respects user data rights. Without a TOS that
grants these rights the rest of the stuff we do is useless - so take a
look at this page and lets discuss what we feel about making a TOS
template a part of the best practices in the DP effort -
https://www.wesabe.com/page/security
[27/04/2008 6:37:23 PM] Phil Wolff | Skype Journal | Oakland,
California says: you should blog about it on the wiki
[27/04/2008 6:37:38 PM] Phil Wolff | Skype Journal | Oakland,
California says: good find
[27/04/2008 7:16:29 PM] Elias Bizannes says: Good one.
[27/04/2008 7:16:36 PM] Elias Bizannes says: But I don't agree that
users own their data
[27/04/2008 7:17:57 PM] Phil Wolff | Skype Journal | Oakland,
California says: can you explain more about why you disagree?
[27/04/2008 7:20:19 PM] Elias Bizannes says: well there's a few
reasons
[27/04/2008 7:35:48 PM] Elias Bizannes says: If you own data, you need
to define "own" and "data".

Ownership implies complete control, which can be problematic. What a
user wants, is rights over that data, not property ownership. This
enables multiple parties to use the same data, not dealing with the
complicated issue of ownership, but instead framing it with what
rights a user has over their data, what rights a vendor has. The
reason a user wants control over their data is not so they can amass a
title deed, but so they can get 'value' over that data. They want
economic ownership, not legal ownership - with the former being more
in line with a user getting economic value out of the data, But I shy
from calling economic ownership "owning" because it implies legal
ownership - hence I prefer the word control

Data, depends on how you define it. I've researched this, and using
the definition I extracted from a subject I did at university on
database theory, datum is an object thay is inherently meaningless,
whereas information is the connection of different data to generate
meaning. The value of of data comes from the ability to connect it
with other data to generate unique information.

So this all hinges on how we define these terms, which to date,
everyone has avoided. I've attempted here with references and context
to other areas: http://wiki.dataportability.org/x/RgkR

So with the above, what essentially a user wants is accessibility of
that data - which is about being able to use that data in different
contexts - without necessarily having to export and import. It also
recognises in the value chain, raw data is useless but it only
valueable when used in a certain way. Therefore, companies competitive
advantage is not on how much data they store, but how much
innovatation they generate by using different datasets

Again - using the above definition of data, which is supported in
multiple places, no one can actually "own" data. It's like someone
owns the noun "year". Information is when you connect "1960" "year"
"birthday" and "John" - different data objects connected together to
generate meaning. No one owns that data, but a person has rights over
the usage of that data, as it is a form of information - it is data
used in a way to make a representation of someones identity. Users
control their identity, and under the protection of privacy regulation
which is adopted by countries worldwide, a person has the rights to
determine how that information is presented to other people. But the
actual data itself - without context - is useless.
[27/04/2008 7:41:10 PM] Elias Bizannes says: Thinking in the industry
to date has been about locking of a user and their data. But people
have wrongly understood, the advantage their company has over others,
isn't the actual data but how they use it. In a DataPortability world,
the data stores are accessible by all applications. Everyone has the
same data inputs - but not everyone has the same innovation to use
that data creatively. I use facebook not for my data, but because they
have smart technology, that knows how to turn data I've provided into
something valuable for me.
[27/04/2008 7:49:58 PM] Elias Bizannes says: Here is another
perspective I wrote on my blog, how accessibility is not always
desireable, but control in the sense of "rights" and "usage".
http://liako.biz/2008/03/control-doesnt-necessarily-mean-access/

The example I give is health information, which without a qualified
doctor, can be dangerous for a patient to 'self diagnose'. You
shouldn't have access to that health information - but you should have
the right to determine that other doctors can use that information.
[28/04/2008 2:27:36 AM] Phil Wolff | Skype Journal | Oakland,
California says: a thoughtful response. thank you, elias.
[28/04/2008 3:39:15 AM] Christian Scholz says: Second Life meetup
starting in 20 mins: http://groups.google.com/group/dataportability-public/browse_thread/thread/a4a0489bb9411c9c
[28/04/2008 4:26:00 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: Hi Elias, aside from
getting into definitions and legalities, I think it's hugely
presumptious of anyone else to tell a user what they want. The user
creates the data - the user owns the data. When I write an article I
own it - period - it is commonly know as "Intellectual Property" which
is very well understood. Now just becuase someone calls it "data" my
ownership does not magically disappear. It's still property -
Intellectual Property. Now if *I* choose to give it away that's fine
but I certainly don't want someone else to tell me I must do that.
It is this verbal confusion that has allowed the large vendors to
usurp user data ownership rights en masse all across the Internet. I
am puzzled and amazed to find Data Portability Policy Working group
members suggest that somehow we know what users want and oh yes they
don't want ownership - how many users have been polled to come to that
conclusion? Are users lining up to give up the houses they own just
so they can get permission to rent them? I think in the middle of all
the busy activity over technology we are forgetting that this is a
social issue with well established precedent in the real world. Your
model of usage suggests that users are dumb in general and will harm
themselves if allowed to use their property - so we need wise third
parties to administer our property for us. The "dumb user" model you
are suggesting may be a hasty extrapolation from an edge case. Yes a
few people will self diagnose - but that is a case of being too smart
for your own good and not too stupid. Most users will not self-
diagnose simply becuase they own the data, they self diagnose anyway
independent of whther they own their data, often just not going to the
doctor when they should. So while the argument appears logical it has
some questionable premises. I think it's very very dangerous to
suggest that because users may self diagnose users shouldn't own their
medical information. What next - because users may electrocute
themselves they shouldn't be allowed to open their computers? And
because users may scramble their source code by mistake all source
code should be closed ? I would really urge you to rethink your "dumb
user" premise - it leads to places we don't want to go and where the
vendors will be happy for us to go and lead the masses behind us. the
Opne Source movement has established than when power is put in the
hands of the community good things happen. Suggesting somehow that the
same does not apply to "data" whatever that may be is very very
disturbing as well as logically questionable. I prefer to call
everything digital that I create "Intellectual Property" (whether a
photo or my financial information) just so there is none of this
confusion. Could we rework your argument starting with "Intellectual
Property" instead of "data" and see where it leads ? I suspect we'll
come to slightly different conclusions.
[28/04/2008 4:59:58 AM] Phil Wolff | Skype Journal | Oakland,
California says: Thanks, Nitin.
[28/04/2008 5:03:27 AM] Phil Wolff | Skype Journal | Oakland,
California says: Most site operators I talk with concede that data
created explicitly by a user belongs to that user - mostly. In a
social space, like a bulletin board, removing a user's posts can ruin
threads and disrupt communal memory. one way of thinking about that
kind of data is that you've given some of your rights to the
community, a la GPL or cc or perhaps conditionally.
[28/04/2008 5:11:12 AM] Phil Wolff | Skype Journal | Oakland,
California says: A second class of data is highly structured data, of
the type found in white page or yellow page listings. laws vary by
jurisdiction, but many of them say that you can copyright the
collection but not the individual datums. there are many businesses
that aggregate structured data and publish the collections.
[28/04/2008 5:13:30 AM] Phil Wolff | Skype Journal | Oakland,
California says: Tacit data is a subject for the attention xml people.
They claim you own the data resulting from your behavior. The counter
argument is that the business going to the trouble to collect the data
owns it; after all while it is your behaviour, it is their
observation.
[28/04/2008 5:20:39 AM] Phil Wolff | Skype Journal | Oakland,
California says: Data derived from your explicit or tacit or
structured data is its own thing. Google page rank. flickr
interestingness. algorithms that dervive ethnicity, location, social
proximity, etc.

derivatives are commonly thought to be owned by the deriver, sometimes
by the organization that makes the tools of derivation.
[28/04/2008 5:22:22 AM] Phil Wolff | Skype Journal | Oakland,
California says: my point is that ownership in the legal sense
matters. but so does sweat equity and moral authority.
[28/04/2008 5:25:03 AM] Phil Wolff | Skype Journal | Oakland,
California says: finding that balance in practical terms is one of the
goals of the dataportability movement
[28/04/2008 6:41:16 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: agreed - I am not
suggesting that data ownership implies I take my data and leave - in
fact I am suggesting that as far as my rights are not violated I will
find it more convenient to stay - why would I want to take my data off
a site like Wesabe - it's counter intuitive almost like the opposite
of the Groucho Marx line "I wouldn't want to join a club which would
have me as its member" - in this case it's "I would love to stay
indefinitely at a site that would allow me to leave any time I
wanted" it's also the reason why business users stay with vendors
that don't enforce lock in and so on .....
[28/04/2008 6:45:02 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: I think the logic that
says "users will get nasty with their data ownership if you let them
assert it" is just wrong on so many levels. For one data ownership
rights are not ours to give to the user, for another I woud rather
model the user as an intelligent, benevolent, self-interest-practising
and discerning being rather than a dumb, hostile, malevolent and
ignorant one. And in my model users will not hurt themselves just to
assert their rights, nor will they hurt vendors just becuase they have
the power to.
[28/04/2008 6:50:24 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: Now consider the case
where I have written a book and I take my draft in to Kinko's to make
a copy, or I keep it in a safe deposit vault. Does Kinko's or my bank
automatically gain rights to benefit from royalties on my book? Not
at all - why because I pay them explicitly for the service they offer
me and for nothing else. By being lured into "free" services
( "free' = zero $ but really expensive in terms of all our rights)
users are being made to believe that they are getting a good deal.
So the "free" service is the "little bird in the sky" that is pointed
to and when the baby looks at it the candy is stolen.
[28/04/2008 6:51:28 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: In the real world if I
walk into Kinko's and use their computer to write an original poem
does Kinko's own it?
[28/04/2008 6:52:16 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: If I use their computer
to create my Facebook social graph why does Facebook have rights on it
and not Kinko's whose computer I used to create the data?
[28/04/2008 6:55:59 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: So user ownership of
data is not modulated by whose tools you use to create the data. If
you assume so you are putting all online users into the role of
digital serfs while the Facebook's and Google's of this world own the
"land" the plough and the horses so they own the grain. This is a
model that was obsoleted in the real world a few centuries ago - will
we need to re-create the Magna Carta at a new level everytime
technology creates new means of production?
[28/04/2008 6:58:52 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: And as far as the
business going to the trouble - i am willing to pay them for their
trouble if they keep their grubby hands off my data - except they
don't want to provide a paid service because a) it's hard to create a
billing system (to that I say - then stay out of the business) and b)
they will then not get aggregated value from all the data without
having to compensate me for access to my data.
[28/04/2008 7:05:09 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: So I am sorry but I
don't buy the "they are going to all the trouble ....." argument -
there is a currency for compensating them for their trouble it's
called money. If we take the "free" (ie zero $ but it's cost yoo all
your rights) business model as an axiom then yes a lot of the current
mess can be derived almost mathematically from that - but I don't take
the "free" (zero $ + all your rights) model as an axiom and I didg
deeper than the superficial analysis that ends up justifying the
status quo and I end up with "what happended to the good old 'I pay
you, you provide me value'" business model? Somewhere along the line
we seem to have forgotten that.
[28/04/2008 7:06:53 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: If we want balance then
we need to balance the ill effects of the "free" (zero $ + all your
rights) model with the positive effects of the paid business model and
allow both into our discussions. Currently I see an implicit
assumption that we are only discussing "free" (zero $ + all your
rights) business models.
[28/04/2008 9:23:41 AM] Elias Bizannes says: Hi Nitin - thanks for
that. I by no means am representing anyone else, and this policy group
is still immature - it's positive to see you contributing so we can
actually discuss these issues which are not black and white. I hope
this is the start of a robust dialogue by everyone here - I am happy
you have challenged me and willing to change my perspective if it's
logical.

My entire perspective however, is not based on a user being dumb, but
rather praticality. You own your social graph right? So by definition,
that's your identity linked to another identity. Does that mean you
have 50% ownership? What happens if the other side of the
relationship, your facebook friend, does not want you to recognise you
are friends elsewhere (ie, a porn site). But you do - what's the point
of enforcing your "ownership" there giving the decision is split?

The issue of ownership, is complicated because it can get very
confusing and bogged down. What I advocate is we look at what rights
ownership entitles to someone, and we talk about those rights, not the
concept of ownership. Data being a virtual thing, it makes more sense
talk about the rights to usage and not just the rights to store.

You used an example about you writing an article. If you were
commissioned, you've handed over that 'copyright'. However when we
talk about piece of media, copyright law kicks in, and so ownership
rights are clearly defined. I totally agree about just because a tool
helped your create something, doesn't mean they own it - I've posted
that argument with a different scenario before in the public forums
only recently so no diagreement there.

However it is just as presumptous to say users want ownership. What's
that supposed to mean? Demanding users own their data, without
actually defining what that means, means what? I am sure if we ran a
similar poll, the emotive response of someone owning something will
get people to react, but ownership is a battle that may be more than
what we need. What I am doing, is analysing the benefits of ownership
- value to a user - and putting it in the context of that. Value in my
eyes is protecting and enchancing their socil and economic value.

In the context of heath, I used that as an illustration. You could use
the example of psychiatric health notes when consumed by a patient -
they are not dumb, and they would love to see what was written about
them, but doing so may not be in the publics greater good. You are
associating everything as being about the user, but we should also use
other social precedents that what's good for one person, may hurt
another. We cannot take a narrow approach to defining user rights,
when those rights may infact impact the life of another person. An
interviewer giving an honest opinion about someone, forced to give
those notes, can be ridiculed in public - they may have been doing
their job (ie, "I don't think their attitude fits with our team for
x,y,z"), but because of an ego senstive job reject, the career of the
interviwer would now be tarnished. Rather than hammer my examples,
which are sure to have holes, recognise the point I am making. What is
one persons "rights" may infringe on another persons "rights". People
have "freedom" but we restrict them when it comes to "killing" because
that's impacting someone else.
[28/04/2008 2:05:46 PM] greenbes says: To me, the key concepts you're
using to frame your argument are obsolete. The idea of "ownership" of
intellectual property is not applicable to all kinds of data in the
way that it is to things like a novel.
[28/04/2008 2:06:35 PM] greenbes says: For the vast majority of data
on the web, there is no scarcity so the concept of "ownership" is far
harder to define.
[28/04/2008 2:08:10 PM] greenbes says: Take this example: Elias adds
my home phone number to his Plaxo address book. This is information
that I have marked as private in my own. If ownership includes the
ability to decide usage (and it's hard for me to see an applicable
model that doesn't), who can be said to own the data?
[28/04/2008 2:08:59 PM] greenbes says: It's my personal information so
it's mine, right? But Elias expended the effort to gather it and
enter it into the site... so it's his.
[28/04/2008 2:09:20 PM] greenbes says: But Plaxo provided some kickass
tools that aggregate things and add structure... so they kind of own
part of it, too
[28/04/2008 2:09:37 PM] greenbes says: My take is that nobody owns it.
[28/04/2008 2:11:18 PM] greenbes says: ... and everyone does.
Intellectual property is only analagous to real property when there is
scarcity. That's why it falls apart so quickly when we're talking
about products whose duplication cost approaches zero.
[28/04/2008 2:12:57 PM] greenbes says: So here is my point: Forget the
nouns and focus on the verbs.
[28/04/2008 2:14:20 PM] greenbes says: Yes, there are limited cases
where ownership matters, but they're the edge cases
[28/04/2008 2:14:42 PM] rmerket says: ;)
[28/04/2008 2:15:37 PM] rmerket says: i think the term "ownership"
refers to any type of data that the user might come across
[28/04/2008 2:16:13 PM] greenbes says: Ownership is relevant in two
contexts: (1) Economic benefit, (2) Control over how other people use
it
[28/04/2008 2:16:28 PM] greenbes says: Both of those are only relevant
in cases where there is scarcity
[28/04/2008 2:16:35 PM] greenbes says: Who owns the air?
[28/04/2008 2:16:37 PM] greenbes says: Who owns the ocean?
[28/04/2008 2:16:41 PM] greenbes says: Everyone does.
[28/04/2008 2:16:43 PM] greenbes says: and noone does
[28/04/2008 2:16:51 PM] greenbes says: We work out ways to share those
things
[28/04/2008 2:16:53 PM] rmerket says: if both users consent to the
publcity of said information
[28/04/2008 2:16:55 PM] greenbes says: (more or less)
[28/04/2008 2:16:56 PM] rmerket says: i consider it public
[28/04/2008 2:17:04 PM] rmerket says: and ownership depenedent on who
owns it
[28/04/2008 2:17:10 PM] rmerket says: physically or virtually
[28/04/2008 2:17:16 PM] greenbes says: Ownership depends on who owns
it? That's a tautology
[28/04/2008 2:17:50 PM] rmerket says: sure
[28/04/2008 2:18:01 PM] greenbes says: Ownership is the wrong approach
[28/04/2008 2:18:08 PM] greenbes says: *Control* is what matters.
[28/04/2008 2:18:11 PM] greenbes says: Verbs
[28/04/2008 2:18:12 PM] greenbes says: not nouns
[28/04/2008 2:18:27 PM] rmerket says: but if I said my address is
avaible to friends on Facebook
[28/04/2008 2:18:30 PM] rmerket says: to do with what they please
[28/04/2008 2:18:40 PM] greenbes says: But what if you didn't?
[28/04/2008 2:18:46 PM] greenbes says: What if Elias just found it?
[28/04/2008 2:18:54 PM] rmerket says: if Elias = friend
[28/04/2008 2:19:00 PM] rmerket says: whatever they please is fine
[28/04/2008 2:19:14 PM] rmerket says: is they need if for wedding
invites
[28/04/2008 2:19:17 PM] rmerket says: use it is
[28/04/2008 2:19:17 PM] rmerket says: then please
[28/04/2008 2:19:20 PM] rmerket says: use it*
[28/04/2008 2:19:25 PM] greenbes says: But what if he decides to give
it to a spammer?
[28/04/2008 2:19:33 PM] rmerket says: **Disclaimer: I have had a few
drinks **
[28/04/2008 2:19:41 PM] rmerket says: then he does
[28/04/2008 2:19:51 PM] rmerket says: and i am no longer friends with
him
[28/04/2008 2:20:01 PM] rmerket says: or her
[28/04/2008 2:20:03 PM] greenbes says: That's not a policy
approach :)
[28/04/2008 2:20:13 PM] rmerket says: ;)
[28/04/2008 2:20:24 PM] rmerket says: im still very new to this
[28/04/2008 2:20:26 PM] greenbes says: There is no ownership without
scarcity
[28/04/2008 2:20:37 PM] rmerket says: define that statement
[28/04/2008 2:20:47 PM] rmerket says: please
[28/04/2008 2:21:14 PM] greenbes says: And attempting to apply the IP
model -- which is arguably relevant for movies or novels -- to all
data is simply out of whack
[28/04/2008 2:21:36 PM] greenbes says: Ownership is about two things
(1) deriving economic benefit from something, and (2) controlling how
other people use it
[28/04/2008 2:21:45 PM] greenbes says: that's ownership
[28/04/2008 2:21:50 PM] greenbes says: you have a problem with that?
[28/04/2008 2:21:58 PM] rmerket says: i think the real benefit of
having data portability is to have the ability to take your
information form one container to another
[28/04/2008 2:22:04 PM] rmerket says: because said information belongs
to you
[28/04/2008 2:22:10 PM] greenbes says: That's portability, not
ownership
[28/04/2008 2:22:18 PM] rmerket says: hence the name?
[28/04/2008 2:22:22 PM] greenbes says: What does it mean to say that
something "belongs to you" {as phil wolff edits this IM message by
Steve}
[28/04/2008 2:22:31 PM] rmerket says: when 3rd part websites access
said resource
[28/04/2008 2:22:36 PM] rmerket says: for your data
[28/04/2008 2:22:42 PM] greenbes says: No, no, you're missing my point
[28/04/2008 2:22:42 PM] rmerket says: not you entering it at sign up
[28/04/2008 2:23:05 PM] rmerket says: belongs to you means that it can
tie to you
[28/04/2008 2:23:06 PM] rmerket says: factually
[28/04/2008 2:23:12 PM] rmerket says: my address
[28/04/2008 2:23:15 PM] rmerket says: cell phone
[28/04/2008 2:23:16 PM] greenbes says: Huh?
[28/04/2008 2:23:17 PM] rmerket says: email addres
[28/04/2008 2:23:24 PM] rmerket says: those are mine
[28/04/2008 2:23:27 PM] rmerket says: i set them
[28/04/2008 2:23:31 PM] rmerket says: they belong to me
[28/04/2008 2:23:37 PM] greenbes says: Why?
[28/04/2008 2:23:47 PM] rmerket says: they define communication
channeles
[28/04/2008 2:23:49 PM] rmerket says: for me
[28/04/2008 2:23:50 PM] Phil Wolff | Skype Journal | Oakland,
California says: data associated with me? what about if someone else
says my eyes are blue? is that my data or their data?
[28/04/2008 2:23:50 PM] greenbes says: You own them because you typed
them in?
[28/04/2008 2:24:03 PM] greenbes says: It's nobody's
[28/04/2008 2:24:05 PM] rmerket says: no, they are dependent on what i
set
[28/04/2008 2:24:06 PM] greenbes says: and everybody's
[28/04/2008 2:24:23 PM] greenbes waves to Phil {and Phil waves back
inappropriately}
(Edited by Phil Wolff | Skype Journal | Oakland, California, 2:24:47
PM)

[28/04/2008 2:24:55 PM] rmerket says: what's missing is a data
portability API, that will allow people to set a central controlling
interface
[28/04/2008 2:24:57 PM] greenbes says: I want to move the conversation
away from ownership and towards control, because that's the real
issue. Ownership is a red herring
[28/04/2008 2:25:03 PM] greenbes says: GAH!
[28/04/2008 2:25:04 PM] greenbes says: No no no
[28/04/2008 2:25:10 PM] rmerket says: why?
[28/04/2008 2:25:11 PM] greenbes says: Centralized == Bad
[28/04/2008 2:25:26 PM] rmerket says: what if it was by a non-profit
[28/04/2008 2:25:26 PM] greenbes says: A common set of criteria, and a
way to describe what you want... that's good
[28/04/2008 2:25:34 PM] greenbes says: who cares?
[28/04/2008 2:25:43 PM] rmerket says: well
[28/04/2008 2:25:44 PM] greenbes says: Centralized == bad
[28/04/2008 2:25:55 PM] rmerket says: right now, Facebook wants to own
the social graph and everything that defines you
[28/04/2008 2:26:00 PM] greenbes says: I want to see a set of Creative
Commons definitions for Data Portability
[28/04/2008 2:26:06 PM] greenbes says: Nah, they don't
[28/04/2008 2:26:08 PM] rmerket says: what if a centralized agency was
created to store that info
[28/04/2008 2:26:13 PM] greenbes says: They have the same data that
I've entered into ten other sites
[28/04/2008 2:26:25 PM] greenbes says: How can you say that Facebook
owns data that is also on MySpace?
[28/04/2008 2:26:27 PM] rmerket says: not the majority of users
[28/04/2008 2:26:38 PM] greenbes says: 2/3 of Facebook users are also
active myspace users
[28/04/2008 2:26:40 PM] rmerket says: they own more virals
[28/04/2008 2:26:43 PM] rmerket says: vitals*
[28/04/2008 2:26:44 PM] greenbes says: So?
[28/04/2008 2:26:53 PM] greenbes says: nah, a temporary cluster
[28/04/2008 2:26:56 PM] rmerket says: 2/3? like to see that stat
[28/04/2008 2:27:04 PM] Phil Wolff | Skype Journal | Oakland,
California says: i'd love to abandon the notion that structures must
be agreed upon a priori to make things work. we can discover new
structures and make them our own with little pain. but that's a
slightly different topic, for the technical room.
[28/04/2008 2:27:08 PM] greenbes says: Comscore. Been consistent
since FB launched
[28/04/2008 2:27:21 PM] rmerket says: Facebook has more international
users
[28/04/2008 2:27:31 PM] rmerket says: international > US
[28/04/2008 2:27:43 PM] rmerket says: == morenon-Faceobok users
[28/04/2008 2:27:47 PM] greenbes says: Yes, Phil. I just want to see
a way that users can express their preferences
[28/04/2008 2:27:51 PM] Phil Wolff | Skype Journal | Oakland,
California says: Perhaps if we talk in terms of freedoms.
Free to...
Free from...
[28/04/2008 2:27:54 PM] greenbes says: Ryan, who cares?
[28/04/2008 2:28:29 PM] rmerket says: who cares? Myspace == US
[28/04/2008 2:28:32 PM] greenbes says: In the same way that a site can
say, "things posted here are assumed to be CC, Non-derivative, for
attribution"
[28/04/2008 2:28:48 PM] rmerket says: Facebook has said publicly that
they want to own the social graph
[28/04/2008 2:29:07 PM] greenbes says: I want users to see a badge on
sites that say, "Information entered here is DP, one-way sync,
download, no graph"
[28/04/2008 2:29:14 PM] greenbes says: Who cares what they say?
[28/04/2008 2:29:14 PM] rmerket says: what if there was a service that
own the social contact info? address, email, phone, etc
[28/04/2008 2:29:21 PM] rmerket says: and ha d an open API?
[28/04/2008 2:29:31 PM] rmerket says: 100% open
[28/04/2008 2:29:38 PM] rmerket says: for all social networks
[28/04/2008 2:29:44 PM] rmerket says: email clients
[28/04/2008 2:29:48 PM] rmerket says: OS's
[28/04/2008 2:29:53 PM] greenbes says: They can say all that stuff but
it doesn't matter because there are also Google, Yahoo, Microsoft,
MySpace, AOL, Bebo, Hi5, Plaxo, LinkedIn, and a zillion others with
*the same data*
[28/04/2008 2:29:55 PM] rmerket says: iPhone
[28/04/2008 2:30:11 PM] greenbes says: They all have the same data
[28/04/2008 2:30:20 PM] rmerket says: no
[28/04/2008 2:30:21 PM] rmerket says: they dont
[28/04/2008 2:30:26 PM] greenbes says: because address book importers
make it trivial to move from one to another
[28/04/2008 2:30:29 PM] rmerket says: i dont share my address on
myspace
[28/04/2008 2:30:32 PM] rmerket says: ot my phone numbers
[28/04/2008 2:30:34 PM] rmerket says: or
[28/04/2008 2:30:52 PM] rmerket says: i dont have the same friends
list on Myspace
[28/04/2008 2:30:56 PM] rmerket says: then i do on Facebook
[28/04/2008 2:31:05 PM] rmerket says: i dont have the same anything
[28/04/2008 2:31:10 PM] rmerket says: my Myspace == virtual workd
[28/04/2008 2:31:11 PM] rmerket says: world
[28/04/2008 2:31:16 PM] greenbes says: Nah
[28/04/2008 2:31:22 PM] rmerket says: Facebook is more true to my real
connections
[28/04/2008 2:31:28 PM] rmerket says: is this example
[28/04/2008 2:31:31 PM] rmerket says: could be different
[28/04/2008 2:31:32 PM] greenbes says: A coincidence.
[28/04/2008 2:31:42 PM] rmerket says: that's the way Facebook was
created
[28/04/2008 2:31:52 PM] rmerket says: that was an essential goal for
Facebook
[28/04/2008 2:31:54 PM] rmerket says: to have real connections
[28/04/2008 2:32:01 PM] rmerket says: so they can own the social graph
[28/04/2008 2:32:03 PM] greenbes says: Yes, it was also the same goal
for LinkedIn and Plaxo
[28/04/2008 2:32:13 PM] greenbes says: Yes, this is what Facebook is
trying to do. But they can't.
[28/04/2008 2:32:25 PM] rmerket says: Facebook goes out of their way
to make sure that all accounts are actual people
[28/04/2008 2:32:32 PM] rmerket says: and a true node in the social
graph
[28/04/2008 2:32:45 PM] greenbes says: This is the *exact* same
strategy that Yahoo and AOL were pursuing in 2002. Except they were
obsessed with control of the Address Book.
[28/04/2008 2:32:54 PM] greenbes says: But address book importers came
along and blew it up
[28/04/2008 2:32:57 PM] rmerket says: do you use Facebook/
[28/04/2008 2:32:59 PM] rmerket says: ?
[28/04/2008 2:33:02 PM] rmerket says: My Mom uses Facebook
[28/04/2008 2:33:02 PM] greenbes says: Yup
[28/04/2008 2:33:05 PM] rmerket says: my brother
[28/04/2008 2:33:07 PM] rmerket says: my cousins
[28/04/2008 2:33:08 PM] greenbes says: So?
[28/04/2008 2:33:11 PM] rmerket says: my aunt and uncle
[28/04/2008 2:33:16 PM] rmerket says: they are doing a pretty good job
[28/04/2008 2:33:17 PM] rmerket says: thus far
[28/04/2008 2:33:18 PM] greenbes says: Present trends *never* continue
[28/04/2008 2:33:25 PM] greenbes says: Never. Never. Never.
[28/04/2008 2:33:34 PM] Phil Wolff | Skype Journal | Oakland,
California says: there are places in europe that say you have privacy
rights to information third parties post about you. so you can compell
a company to delete all descriptors of you (name, age, address, etc.)
from their sales or accounting database.

and in other jurisdictions, sunshine laws trump privacy, compelling
disclosure of all sorts of private, intimate information about public
officials.

the united states has law that governs at which point you cease to be
a private person and become a public celebrity, where your private
life and likeness can be made public with little recourse.
[28/04/2008 2:33:36 PM] rmerket says: proof?
[28/04/2008 2:33:49 PM] greenbes says: Again, the key issue is
control.
[28/04/2008 2:34:18 PM] rmerket says: give the users control
[28/04/2008 2:34:49 PM] greenbes says: Proof of what? In 1999, AOL
was the most important digital media company in the world. In 2002,
Friendster was the future. In 2004, MySpace was taking over the
world. Then Facebook showed up. Is history over?
[28/04/2008 2:34:50 PM] rmerket says: if there was a centralized place
to store the information, and give users control over how much is
shared...
[28/04/2008 2:35:15 PM] greenbes says: Shut the internet down,
Facebook is here. Nobody will ever displace them or make a good
product. Thanks for coming, everybody. Tip your waitresses.
[28/04/2008 2:35:22 PM] rmerket says: Friendster had major scale
issues, Myspace jumped in and took over
[28/04/2008 2:35:35 PM] rmerket says: Myspace was having spam/true
social graph issues
[28/04/2008 2:35:40 PM] rmerket says: then Facebook jumped in
[28/04/2008 2:35:48 PM] rmerket says: with hopes of creating a true
social graph
[28/04/2008 2:35:52 PM] greenbes says: Yup. And one thing we know is
that facebook will do everything perfectly forever
[28/04/2008 2:35:53 PM] rmerket says: now here they are
[28/04/2008 2:35:57 PM] rmerket says: still trying
[28/04/2008 2:36:01 PM] rmerket says: and imho
[28/04/2008 2:36:05 PM] rmerket says: doing a great job
[28/04/2008 2:36:10 PM] greenbes says: So?
[28/04/2008 2:36:16 PM] rmerket says: so?
[28/04/2008 2:36:20 PM] greenbes says: Facebook is a very nice
product. I don't remember every saying otherwise
[28/04/2008 2:36:30 PM] greenbes says: But present trends never
continue. Ever.
[28/04/2008 2:36:32 PM] rmerket says: they are trying to do what
Myspace couldnt
[28/04/2008 2:36:39 PM] greenbes says: *trying*
[28/04/2008 2:36:46 PM] rmerket says: and suceeding
[28/04/2008 2:36:47 PM] greenbes says: Are they guaranteed of success?
[28/04/2008 2:37:01 PM] rmerket says: no
[28/04/2008 2:37:10 PM] rmerket says: but who are we to say they wont?
[28/04/2008 2:37:13 PM] greenbes says: Are you absolutely certain that
there aren't two kids in a dorm room with a better idea? Or Andy
Dale?
[28/04/2008 2:37:23 PM] rmerket says: they are open to data
portability
[28/04/2008 2:37:29 PM] greenbes says: Well, only the accumulated
history of the human race that says nothing ever succeeds forever
[28/04/2008 2:37:43 PM] rmerket says: myspace went to the way of ads,
bottom line
[28/04/2008 2:37:44 PM] greenbes says: GM isn't the world's biggest
cat company anymore. IBM isn't the biggest computer company.
[28/04/2008 2:37:51 PM] rmerket says: and make as much $$$$ as
possible for news corp
[28/04/2008 2:37:56 PM] greenbes says: Microsoft has stumbled.
[28/04/2008 2:37:56 PM] rmerket says: currently facebook is private
[28/04/2008 2:38:02 PM] greenbes says: Yahoo stumbled
[28/04/2008 2:38:09 PM] greenbes says: AOL practically evaporated
[28/04/2008 2:38:11 PM] rmerket says: and you know what?
[28/04/2008 2:38:22 PM] rmerket says: everyone learns for the failures
[28/04/2008 2:38:28 PM] rmerket says: we are living in a time that is
moving so fat
[28/04/2008 2:38:28 PM] greenbes says: Facebook is only three years
old.
[28/04/2008 2:38:30 PM] rmerket says: fast
[28/04/2008 2:38:37 PM] rmerket says: EXTREMELY FAST
[28/04/2008 2:38:45 PM] greenbes says: Really? Wow, I hadn't noticed.
[28/04/2008 2:38:49 PM] rmerket says: everyone learning from everyone
[28/04/2008 2:39:06 PM] rmerket says: you dont think that Facebook has
learned from Yahoo?
[28/04/2008 2:39:08 PM] rmerket says: or Microsoft?
[28/04/2008 2:39:12 PM] rmerket says: or Google/
[28/04/2008 2:39:16 PM] greenbes says: So that somewho makes
facebook's position secure?
[28/04/2008 2:39:20 PM] rmerket says: for now?
[28/04/2008 2:39:23 PM] rmerket says: yes
[28/04/2008 2:39:28 PM] rmerket says: they are the leader
[28/04/2008 2:39:28 PM] greenbes says: *for now*
[28/04/2008 2:39:36 PM] greenbes says: This year, sure
[28/04/2008 2:39:39 PM] rmerket says: sure
[28/04/2008 2:39:43 PM] greenbes says: Everybody gets their time in
the sun
[28/04/2008 2:39:49 PM] rmerket says: yup
[28/04/2008 2:39:59 PM] greenbes says: But Facebook will never own
your socail graph. No matter how hard they try.
[28/04/2008 2:40:07 PM] rmerket says: they do now
[28/04/2008 2:40:10 PM] rmerket says: so FAIl
[28/04/2008 2:40:11 PM] rmerket says: FAIL
[28/04/2008 2:40:13 PM] greenbes says: Read the Magid Millenials
studies.
[28/04/2008 2:40:20 PM] greenbes says: Read the Pew Internet Life
studies.
[28/04/2008 2:40:38 PM] rmerket says: right now they are the only
social network with the most accurate social graph that i have
[28/04/2008 2:40:58 PM] greenbes says: Users of social network
products are active on an average of 3, and have accounts on 10.
[28/04/2008 2:41:21 PM] greenbes says: They move back and forth.
Discuss hockey on this one, beer on that one, movies on another.
[28/04/2008 2:41:24 PM] rmerket says: most of my friends are on
Facebook
[28/04/2008 2:41:26 PM] rmerket says: and the number is growing
[28/04/2008 2:41:28 PM] greenbes says: These friends are over here,
those like Hi5
[28/04/2008 2:41:30 PM] rmerket says: by about 5 per week
[28/04/2008 2:41:42 PM] greenbes says: And one thing we know is that
everyone in the world is exactly like you, and that present trends
only continue
[28/04/2008 2:41:43 PM] rmerket says: fastest growing nation for
Facebook?
[28/04/2008 2:41:53 PM] rmerket says: Canada, where almost 20% is on
facebook
[28/04/2008 2:42:02 PM] rmerket says: and growing
[28/04/2008 2:42:11 PM] rmerket says: that's alot
[28/04/2008 2:42:15 PM] rmerket says: for 3 years
[28/04/2008 2:42:21 PM] greenbes says: So what? Cyworld had over 90%
of the population of South Korea. Yes, that number is correct. Check
it. 90% of the entire farging population
[28/04/2008 2:42:25 PM] rmerket says: and almost 1.5 years in Canada
[28/04/2008 2:42:26 PM] greenbes says: Check that
[28/04/2008 2:42:34 PM] greenbes says: It does not matter
[28/04/2008 2:42:38 PM] rmerket says: sure it does
[28/04/2008 2:42:43 PM] rmerket says: North America dictates the
internet
[28/04/2008 2:42:46 PM] greenbes says: Yahoo has more than 350M active
email accounts. So farging what?
[28/04/2008 2:43:11 PM] rmerket says: People like you crack me up
[28/04/2008 2:43:11 PM] greenbes says: Yahoo and MSFT each have more
than 200M active US email accounts.
[28/04/2008 2:43:17 PM] rmerket says: you want to hang on tot this
thread
[28/04/2008 2:43:17 PM] greenbes says: Like me?
[28/04/2008 2:43:21 PM] rmerket says: that Facebook is nothing
[28/04/2008 2:43:24 PM] rmerket says: and not going anywhere
[28/04/2008 2:43:35 PM] rmerket says: it's entertaining
[28/04/2008 2:43:35 PM] greenbes says: Wow, that's a radical
interpretation of the text.
[28/04/2008 2:43:35 PM] rmerket says: i have conversation like this
with Linux admins at my work
[28/04/2008 2:43:40 PM] greenbes says: I suggest that you have another
drink and go to bed.
[28/04/2008 2:43:50 PM] rmerket says: will do
[28/04/2008 2:43:52 PM] rmerket says: thans
[28/04/2008 2:43:53 PM] rmerket says: ciao
[28/04/2008 2:43:53 PM] rmerket says: thanks
[28/04/2008 2:47:46 PM] greenbes says: ... now, where was I?
[28/04/2008 2:51:19 PM] greenbes says: The point Ryan was making
before the conversation spiraled out of control was that I own the
data when it uniquely describes me. My phone number, my address, my
vital stats, my favorite books.
[28/04/2008 2:51:55 PM] greenbes says: I don't agree with this point,
but it's defensible. I argue that it's also a fairly segment of the
data
[28/04/2008 2:55:09 PM] greenbes says: My question is this: When I
enter data into a web site, they get some limited percentage of the
ownership. I allow them to derive economic gain from that data (they
show web pages to people who want to see data about me), and to reuse
it in limited ways (show it on search pages, aggregate for advertising
purposes, etc)
[28/04/2008 2:56:21 PM] greenbes says: Oops, I meant to say above that
"it's a fairly SMALL segment of the data"
[28/04/2008 2:57:06 PM] greenbes says: anyway... my question is
whether the criteria of ownership still apply when I've provided the
data freely and made it available in so many places
[28/04/2008 2:57:51 PM] greenbes says: The answer might be yes, but we
can provide real value by giving structure to the conversation
[28/04/2008 2:58:15 PM] greenbes says: A GPL for your data... or some
sort of Creative Commons
[28/04/2008 2:58:33 PM] greenbes says: Shared terms that let users
declare how things can be used
[28/04/2008 2:59:52 PM] greenbes says: In my world view, there are
three kinds of data relevant to this conversation: (1) Things I
directly provide and nobody else does, (2) Things that I provide and
somebody else also independently provides, (3) Derived data from 1 and
2
[28/04/2008 3:11:43 PM] greenbes says: Oh... and just for the record,
I think that Facebook is a great product and I use it. I wish them
nothing but continued success and hope that they all get rich. I
don't think, however, that they're building an impenetrable wall that
will last forever. Feel free to point and laugh when I'm wrong.
[29/04/2008 2:45:12 AM] Phil Wolff | Skype Journal | Oakland,
California says: I have an idea.

We have a list on the wiki of about a dozen stakeholders in user-
related data.

Would it be useful to walk through a cross-impact matrix of all the
stakeholders (A-B, A-C, A-D, etc.), comparing their interests in
"ownership", "control", "privacy", "value", "IP", etc. Looking for
conflicts and common ground. That's about 70-80 interactions. If we
gave each pair 10 minutes or so, we could walk through them in a day.

perhaps for the data sharing summit in May?
[29/04/2008 3:35:29 AM] Stephen Kelly says: sounds like a good idea
phil -
[29/04/2008 3:35:44 AM] Stephen Kelly says: but i dont think most ppl
will have one [complete] day to 'give' to it
[29/04/2008 3:39:00 AM] Phil Wolff | Skype Journal | Oakland,
California says: we have a one day summit coming up. and there will be
a policy workshop this fall.
[29/04/2008 3:40:52 AM] Stephen Kelly says: but you wont be able to do
the summit and this exercise as well in one day
[29/04/2008 3:40:59 AM] Stephen Kelly says: where is this summit ?
[29/04/2008 3:41:28 AM] Phil Wolff | Skype Journal | Oakland,
California says: mountain view.
http://datasharingsummit.org
[29/04/2008 3:42:01 AM] greenbes says: take your pick, they seem to be
de rigeur these days
[29/04/2008 3:42:49 AM] greenbes says: all the cool kids are having
summits. There are two in my basement right now. Convened for the
single purpose of not inviting Canter (only to see whether I can get
him to blog about not being invited)
[29/04/2008 3:43:12 AM] Stephen Kelly says: ;)
[29/04/2008 3:43:40 AM] greenbes says: People think that performance
art died with Spy Magazine in the early 90s, but in truth it just
became Web 2.0 Expo
[29/04/2008 4:15:53 AM] Phil Wolff | Skype Journal | Oakland,
California says: http://datasharingsummit.com/ (sorry, wrong link
before)
[29/04/2008 4:52:34 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: Hi Elias, Ryan,
greenbes, et al
[29/04/2008 4:55:31 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: as I mentioned in my
article on Gigaom, this issue is not just about social graphs and not
just about free services. This is about data on the net even that
which is created outside social networks and just by individulas
merely creating data for their own benefit but posting it on the net
for other's consumption.
[29/04/2008 4:55:47 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: say by creating a web
page on an ISP site.
[29/04/2008 4:58:43 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: It is unfortunately
myopic to look at everything from the tunnel vision of the social
graph. To me as far as data on the net is concerned the social graph
is just one use case and a use case which falls in the interpersonal-
data and shared data realm. There are two dimensions here - 1) scope
which has values personal, and interpersonal and 2) visibility
private, shared, public
[29/04/2008 4:59:45 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: social netwrok data is
in the interpersonal and shared area of thei 2 dimensional matrix - to
just consider that and come up with solutions without a deliberate
consideration of other possibilities is where the myopia comes in
[29/04/2008 5:01:32 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: Another area of short
sightedness is to only assume the free services in our analysis and to
assume that any services worth considering must be free - and then
implicitly assume that since they are providing us with value we must
provide them with something in return which now must be some control
over our data since what else do we have to offer them in return.
[29/04/2008 5:02:06 AM] greenbes says: I think that you're reading
more into our arguments than is there
[29/04/2008 5:02:17 AM] greenbes says: There is an agreement between
the user and the site
[29/04/2008 5:02:54 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: So to that I see the
need to add paid services where the service guarantees me full control
of all my data as I see fit - may or may not provide tools to create
the data, but at no point do I have to give any rights at all to the
service since I am compensasting them other wise
[29/04/2008 5:03:16 AM] greenbes says: Free sites (as are most of the
ones we're talking about right now) generally hold the opinion that,
in exchange for providing you with some service or other, they get to
monetize the data you provide and the pages you view
[29/04/2008 5:03:29 AM] greenbes says: Pay services could have a
completely different set of agreements
[29/04/2008 5:03:45 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: yes and where are we
discussing those up till now ?
[29/04/2008 5:03:55 AM] greenbes says: That is why the approach I
advocate is to create a standard set of agreements so that users know
what they're agreeing to
[29/04/2008 5:04:19 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: even if the standard is
to give away data rights ?
[29/04/2008 5:04:37 AM] greenbes says: As long as the user agrees,
that's up to them.
[29/04/2008 5:04:59 AM] greenbes says: The site says, "this is what we
do". The user can then agree or not, as they see fit
[29/04/2008 5:05:20 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: I would suggest a two
pronged approach - one for those willing to consciously give away data
rights in return for a free service and another for those wnating to
retain all rights to the data but who are willing to pay for it
[29/04/2008 5:05:22 AM] greenbes says: But we need to get away from
every site having a separate policy because managing that is too much
to expect from a ser
[29/04/2008 5:05:51 AM] greenbes says: It's not a two-pronged
approach... it's directly analagous to the various creative commons
licenses
[29/04/2008 5:05:53 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: DP is currently focusing
only on the free services and by implication those are the only one's
worth discussing it would seem
[29/04/2008 5:06:12 AM] greenbes says: I think that you're reading too
much into the fact that this is as far as we've gotten
[29/04/2008 5:06:29 AM] greenbes says: we've had these discussions,
but it's a very large problem and we're just getting our arms around
it
[29/04/2008 5:06:42 AM] greenbes says: Anyway, have you looked at the
various CC versions?
[29/04/2008 5:07:13 AM] greenbes says: I'd like there to be pre-
defined agreements, so the user knows what they're getting into
[29/04/2008 5:07:46 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: Yes agreed but we have
gone sufficiently along only on one direction so it is safe to say
that we have at least ignored the other possibility - I am not
suggesting it is deliberate by any means - it is just very one sided
and we need to balance it out
[29/04/2008 5:08:26 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: yes I am familiar with
CC in its various forms I use a CC license on tagschem.com
[29/04/2008 5:08:30 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: tagschema.com
[29/04/2008 5:08:38 AM] greenbes says: Well, the issues are the same
in either case. The site offers a service in exchange for some
value. That value may be derived entirely from what the user does, or
it may include money as well
[29/04/2008 5:08:59 AM] greenbes says: I keep ending up back in the
same place
[29/04/2008 5:09:34 AM] greenbes says: There are 3 sorts of data (1)
Data I enter, (2) Data that somebody else enters but which is related
to something I own, (3) Data that is derived from 1 and 2, but
generated by a 3rd party
[29/04/2008 5:09:39 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: welll here's where the
huge difference is being glossed over - the issues are moost certaily
not the same - and if we spent even one day discussing it it would be
come a lot clearer
[29/04/2008 5:10:02 AM] greenbes says: In what way are the issues
different?
[29/04/2008 5:10:21 AM] greenbes says: In the end, we're talking about
2 things: Who has control over how the data is used, and who can make
money from it
[29/04/2008 5:10:25 AM] greenbes says: Is there anything else?
[29/04/2008 5:10:55 AM] greenbes says: Commercial services and free
services come up with different answers for those questions, but I
think that they are the same questions
[29/04/2008 5:11:16 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: In a paid service I am
not monetizing my data and that is the huge difference and so all of
the various compromises that need to be made with free services do not
have to be made with paid services
[29/04/2008 5:11:31 AM] greenbes says: Right, but those are just terms
of the agreement
[29/04/2008 5:11:36 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: so the conversation
doesn't need to assume that we must compromise our data rights to be
able to play
[29/04/2008 5:11:38 AM] greenbes says: You ask the same questions but
get a different answer
[29/04/2008 5:11:44 AM] greenbes says: I'm not assuming that
[29/04/2008 5:12:35 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: well let me suggest that
a single agreement format for all sites will never work - we will need
a graded set of TOS agreements like CC
[29/04/2008 5:13:01 AM] greenbes says: Isn't that what I've just said
five times?
[29/04/2008 5:13:21 AM] greenbes says: Yes, a set of standard
agreements analagous to how CC does it.
[29/04/2008 5:13:37 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: well with all due
respect could I ask for an example of a paid service that DP has been
talking to ?
[29/04/2008 5:13:49 AM] greenbes says: Sorry?
[29/04/2008 5:13:56 AM] greenbes says: You'll need to talk to Chris
Saad about that
[29/04/2008 5:14:17 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: well let me suggest zero
[29/04/2008 5:14:23 AM] Chris Saad says: sorry?
[29/04/2008 5:14:43 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: how many paid services
have been involved in the conversation with DP
[29/04/2008 5:15:06 AM] greenbes says: I sold enterprise software for
ten years both into commercial companies and the government. I have
worked at four startups, three huge companies, and a bunch in the
middle. I've done free software, pay software, and some hybrid
models.
[29/04/2008 5:15:14 AM] greenbes says: I have a basic idea of the
issues, thanks.
[29/04/2008 5:15:32 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: yes but these are not
web services -0 I think your answering the wron question
[29/04/2008 5:15:37 AM] greenbes says: We need to have a basic
framework that we bring to them for comment.
[29/04/2008 5:15:40 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: you're
[29/04/2008 5:16:08 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: I am talking about
services like amazon ec2 etc which offer paid web services where users
save their data
[29/04/2008 5:16:10 AM] greenbes says: It will take several rounds of
negotiation, but starting with a blank sheet of paper is a guarantee
of failure.
[29/04/2008 5:16:17 AM] Chris Saad says: guys i am super swamped so
can't read back right now - but please make sure u are summerizing
discussions in the forums yeah? :)
[29/04/2008 5:16:17 AM] greenbes says: So am I.
[29/04/2008 5:16:23 AM] Chris Saad says: so i can try to catch up! :P
[29/04/2008 5:17:10 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: hmm and the blank sheet
of paper refers to what ...?
[29/04/2008 5:17:28 AM] greenbes says: We need to go to them with a
proposal.
[29/04/2008 5:17:41 AM] greenbes says: A suggestion of how we think
things should work
[29/04/2008 5:18:05 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: them being ... ?
vendors users ?
[29/04/2008 5:18:09 AM] greenbes says: Companies will have comments
and want changes, but the negotiations need to start from a known
point
[29/04/2008 5:18:28 AM] greenbes says: "Them" being anyone who is
interested in adopting standard terms and policies for data
portability
[29/04/2008 5:19:09 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: I think its important to
be clear whose interests we represent - if it is the user's then we
need to be clear what classes of users there are and what are their
needs
[29/04/2008 5:19:32 AM] greenbes says: But it's a very large and
complicated question. I'm sorry that we're not moving fast enough for
you. I'm sorry that we didn't ask exactly the people you wanted us to
exactly the questions you wanted us to.
[29/04/2008 5:20:17 AM] greenbes says: We don't represent one side or
the other. Businesses are good. Users are good. The best possible
outcome is to get to an agreement between the two that removes
roadblocks.
[29/04/2008 5:20:26 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: uhhh this is not an
accusation - its a conversation I have been having with Chris, Elias
and others for the last couple of months online and in person ... so
this isn't something that came out of the blue
[29/04/2008 5:20:41 AM] greenbes says: What do you want me to say?
[29/04/2008 5:21:27 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: I am trying topoint out
that if we don't consciously segment the user base and t he vendor
base and make sure we cover all important segments we will be missing
out on large sections of users and vendors
[29/04/2008 5:21:49 AM] greenbes says: And I am trying to make the
point that I am in complete, utter, 100% agreement with you
[29/04/2008 5:22:28 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: and currently we are
missing out on users who are willing to pay to have 100% control over
their data
[29/04/2008 5:23:09 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: and we are doing worse
by saying things like "users want access , not ownership ...."
"ownership is not really important ...."
[29/04/2008 5:23:15 AM] greenbes says: I wasn't aware that any policy
guidance had been released
[29/04/2008 5:24:15 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: no but maybe I am
expecting too much but to me it is quite surprising that one would
even suggest something as sweeping as those statements ....
[29/04/2008 5:24:27 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: in these conversations
[29/04/2008 5:24:36 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: and that's where I
reacted strongly
[29/04/2008 5:25:03 AM] greenbes says: Why not? The concept of
intellectual property is deeply flawed. Applying it blindly where it
is broken makes things worse, not better
[29/04/2008 5:25:28 AM] greenbes says: IP makes perfect sense for some
kinds of data, but is less than useless for others
[29/04/2008 5:26:01 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: well here we go again -
is that a policy statement or your poersonal opinion - the IP being
deeply flawed concept ?
[29/04/2008 5:26:31 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: and what are those
classification boundaries
[29/04/2008 5:26:45 AM] greenbes says: This is a conversation, as you
said. Why is it that I am not allowed to advocate for a position I
hold?
[29/04/2008 5:27:04 AM] *** J. Trent Adams joined this chat
***
[29/04/2008 5:27:09 AM] greenbes says: I'm sorry to have to confront
you with ideas that you disagree with.
[29/04/2008 5:27:40 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: no worries - I am
perfectly comfortable with creative conflict so that is not a problem,
really
[29/04/2008 5:28:18 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: the issue here is that
many points of view are being represented and the center of gravity is
way over on the side of free services, social networks, IP makes no
sense
[29/04/2008 5:28:37 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: so it is fair to ask
whetehr that represents the emerging DP consensus
[29/04/2008 5:28:48 AM] greenbes says: But the IP regime has gotten us
(a) software patents that stifle rather than encourage innovation, (b)
a copyright regime so complicated that nobody really understands it,
etc, etc
[29/04/2008 5:29:34 AM] greenbes says: Yes, that would be a fair
question. If anyone were to ask it, that'd be great.
[29/04/2008 5:30:14 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: well I am familiar with
the usual arguments and we don't need to rehash them - I think they
are all somewhat extreme both on the side of the large corporate
interests and on the side of those who would summarily do away with
them
[29/04/2008 5:30:16 AM] greenbes says: This is a collection of unpaid
volunteers who care deeply about issues affecting uses and businesses
on the internet
[29/04/2008 5:30:39 AM] greenbes says: And I believe that I have
advocated for neither of those, so maybe I'm not making one of the
standard arguments
[29/04/2008 5:30:57 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: yes I meant the IP
regime issues not the stuff we are talking about here
[29/04/2008 5:31:21 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: i.e. the extremes are
represented by music companies and the pirates
[29/04/2008 5:31:41 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: not meaning tosay that
there are extremes in the DP - sorry for the confusion
[29/04/2008 5:31:56 AM] greenbes says: Yes, I understand. The key to
my point is that the music companies and the pirates are asking the
wrong questions and arriving at the wrong answers.
[29/04/2008 5:32:16 AM] greenbes says: But that's neither here nor
there, as regards DP
[29/04/2008 5:33:35 AM] greenbes says: From a DP standpoint, we need a
spectrum of standard agreements. On one end is your fully paid
service where the user controls everything. On the other is a fully
free service where the take the data and do with it what they please.
[29/04/2008 5:34:08 AM] Chris Saad says: im not sure the level of fees
should dictate the level of freedom the user enjoys with their data
should it?
[29/04/2008 5:34:11 AM] greenbes says: This, of course totally leaves
aside the question of what to do with data that the service generates
about you without your involvement.
[29/04/2008 5:34:33 AM] greenbes says: Hi, Chris. You're coming in
late -- that's not the point
[29/04/2008 5:34:34 AM] *** Mary Trigiani joined this chat
***
[29/04/2008 5:34:40 AM] Chris Saad says: ok
[29/04/2008 5:34:48 AM] Chris Saad says: dont mind me :)
[29/04/2008 5:34:57 AM] greenbes says: The point is that we need to
have a spectrum of standard agreements, akin to the ones that Creative
Commons has.
[29/04/2008 5:35:10 AM] greenbes says: The user knows what they're
agreeing to, the site knows what's expected of them
[29/04/2008 5:35:19 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: as far as paid services
are concerned they don't calibrate the price based on data usage at
all - jsut whether they are making a profit based on their expenses
with no ads being served
[29/04/2008 5:35:23 AM] greenbes says: and nobody has to read twenty
pages of boilerplate EULA
[29/04/2008 5:35:51 AM] Chris Saad says: can i just make to key
observations
[29/04/2008 5:35:51 AM] greenbes says: Yes, but I think that it should
be possible to create one or two standard agreements that we can get
people to accept
[29/04/2008 5:35:55 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: yes agreed 100% about
the EULA
[29/04/2008 5:36:00 AM] greenbes says: The key point is that it's
understood up front
[29/04/2008 5:36:03 AM] greenbes says: No, shut up
[29/04/2008 5:36:23 AM] J. Trent Adams ROFL

[29/04/2008 5:36:36 AM] greenbes says: (umm, I was just kidding...
sorry fearless leader)
[29/04/2008 5:36:55 AM] Chris Saad says: 1. is this not being
discussed elsewhere - something we can adopt or support and import
once they are 'done'

2. if not - perhaps we can spin off such a group or ask that it get
formed by people *like* the CC people

Because remembe we don't want to be inventing too much internally here
at DP - only contextualizing and evangalizing it
[29/04/2008 5:37:02 AM] Chris Saad says: @greenbes kiss the ring :D
[29/04/2008 5:37:16 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: well currently the user
understands that they are being given no rights at all - so I am not
sure that's the main point
[29/04/2008 5:37:25 AM] greenbes says: Well, I'm not aware of it being
discussed elsewhere
[29/04/2008 5:37:39 AM] greenbes says: and I think that it's the
single highest value thing that we can provide
[29/04/2008 5:37:47 AM] greenbes says: A framework for the
conversation
[29/04/2008 5:37:58 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: I would be happy to help
create a DC - data commons - set of licenses
[29/04/2008 5:38:05 AM] greenbes says: ... and it *is* a conversation
[29/04/2008 5:38:12 AM] Chris Saad says: it should perhaps be a
research project to find examples in the wild of this problem being
discussed or examples of real EULAs that represent various steps along
the spectrum
[29/04/2008 5:38:27 AM] greenbes says: I'll work on that one.
[29/04/2008 5:38:34 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: if that needs to be
outside but adjacent to and in step with the DP effort that would be
fine
[29/04/2008 5:38:43 AM] Chris Saad says: just consider that this
should be analogus to the technical best practices - whereby none of
the standards should be designed 'in house'
[29/04/2008 5:38:51 AM] greenbes says: I don't see why it needs to be
outside DP.
[29/04/2008 5:39:11 AM] Phil Wolff | Skype Journal | Oakland,
California says: ..
[29/04/2008 5:39:12 AM] greenbes says: DP can provide a forum for the
conversation and promote the results
[29/04/2008 5:39:33 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: so if this is not being
discussed anywhere on the net and we should not create anything new
inside then where will this set of "license templates" emerge from ?
[29/04/2008 5:39:51 AM] Chris Saad says: 'outside' DP is perhaps not
the point - i'd just rather not re-invent the wheel and I would rather
spend our energies supporting people who are doing it well than trying
to do it again
[29/04/2008 5:40:13 AM] greenbes says: Yes, agreed
[29/04/2008 5:40:21 AM] Chris Saad says: if indeed it is not being
discussed *anywhere* then I think that we, along with perhaps the CC
people and maybe others could create a sort of task force for it
[29/04/2008 5:40:22 AM] greenbes says: I just wasn't aware of anyone
else actually doing it
[29/04/2008 5:40:33 AM] Phil Wolff | Skype Journal | Oakland,
California says: if i may suggest (then run away quickly) let's table
the content of this discussion and focus on describing our desired
deliverables.
[29/04/2008 5:40:51 AM] greenbes says: umm, sadly that's what we *are*
discussing
[29/04/2008 5:41:09 AM] Chris Saad says: haha ok - i will retreat with
phil
[29/04/2008 5:41:12 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: I think greenbes is
saying no one is working on this outside DP - and Chris is saying this
is not something that DP should produce - hence the 'outside' - maybe
I misunderstood something
[29/04/2008 5:41:32 AM] Chris Saad says: i am just not sure the search
has been exhaustive
[29/04/2008 5:41:40 AM] greenbes says: I'm thrilled to let somebody
else do the work -- don't get me wrong on that point
[29/04/2008 5:41:47 AM] greenbes says: Yes, Chris makes a fair point
[29/04/2008 5:41:56 AM] greenbes says: I will check around before
starting on anything
[29/04/2008 5:41:56 AM] Chris Saad says: also - if indeed there is no
one else having this conversation
[29/04/2008 5:42:13 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: I have been seraching
for awhile hence the Wesabe TOS I posted - and yes I am happy to let
someone else do it
[29/04/2008 5:42:18 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: but no one else is
[29/04/2008 5:42:48 AM] greenbes says: Well, ok, if we can't find
anybody working on it then I will do it.
[29/04/2008 5:43:10 AM] Chris Saad says: ok if its not going on
anywhere else - nothing we can adopt
[29/04/2008 5:43:13 AM] greenbes says: But I promise to run away and
hide if I find somebody, and I won't mention your names
[29/04/2008 5:43:14 AM] Chris Saad says: then it falls to us :)
[29/04/2008 5:43:18 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: there is a need for a
DataCommons set of TOS agreements - I brought this up in the first DP
f2f meetup with Trent
[29/04/2008 5:43:51 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: so this is something I
have been seraching for far and wide
[29/04/2008 5:44:01 AM] Chris Saad says: sadly someone owns
datacommons.com already :)
[29/04/2008 5:44:14 AM] greenbes says: yeah, it's something different
[29/04/2008 5:44:23 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: yeah that's fine we can
name it TOScommons or something
[29/04/2008 5:44:31 AM] Chris Saad says: haha
[29/04/2008 5:44:48 AM] J. Trent Adams says: If I remember correctly,
there have been a few blog posts recently about "who owns your data"
[29/04/2008 5:45:00 AM] J. Trent Adams says: Perhaps these could be
found for what they were referencing.
[29/04/2008 5:45:24 AM] greenbes says: honestly, this has been a
conversation since 1997 or so
[29/04/2008 5:45:27 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: I am writing one called
"Its 2008 do you know where your avatar is"
[29/04/2008 5:45:29 AM] J. Trent Adams says: :P
[29/04/2008 5:46:07 AM] Chris Saad says: Greenbes agreed - which is
what DP was designed to stop
[29/04/2008 5:46:10 AM] Chris Saad says: the endless circular
conversation
[29/04/2008 5:46:19 AM] Chris Saad says: we, as a group, need to
document this stuff on a wiki
[29/04/2008 5:46:36 AM] Chris Saad says: the goal has always been to
turn the never-ending, fruitless conversation into documented
knowledge
[29/04/2008 5:46:48 AM] Chris Saad says: something actionable, in a
tidy little bow
[29/04/2008 5:47:22 AM] Chris Saad says: that's why i would encourage
u all, if there is nothing out there already, to publish a best
example (perhaps the one nitin found) to the wiki and then debate each
paragraph section by section
[29/04/2008 5:47:31 AM] Chris Saad says: so we have a deliverable
[29/04/2008 5:47:34 AM] greenbes says: Then stop telling me to do
work :P
[29/04/2008 5:47:43 AM] greenbes says: err, "not to do work" that is
[29/04/2008 5:48:10 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: so i also heard greenbes
say soemthing about TOS templates being a deliverable - my personal
preference is to help with concrete deliverables like that
[29/04/2008 5:48:23 AM] Chris Saad says: yeah
[29/04/2008 5:48:35 AM] greenbes says: /uses his electric deputizer on
nborwankar
[29/04/2008 5:48:37 AM] Chris Saad says: so the first deliverable
could be an expanded version of jsmarr and canter's bill of rights
[29/04/2008 5:48:43 AM] Chris Saad says: post that up to the wiki
[29/04/2008 5:48:49 AM] greenbes uses his electric deputizer on
nborwankar

[29/04/2008 5:48:52 AM] greenbes says: there we go
[29/04/2008 5:48:56 AM] Chris Saad says: then take a great EULA and
discuss it to death to make sure it conforms to the bill of rights
[29/04/2008 5:49:15 AM] Chris Saad says: as well as commercial
interests of course :)
[29/04/2008 5:49:17 AM] greenbes says: Congratulations nborwankar, you
are now Deputy First Class (EULA and TOS)
[29/04/2008 5:49:23 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: My preference is a set
of TOS agreements like CC - "bill of rights " is vague and impractical
[29/04/2008 5:49:30 AM] Mary Trigiani says: Don't forget to check Karl
Marx. (rofl)
[29/04/2008 5:49:49 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: so I will work on a set
of CC like templates - the rest of the stuff I didn't sign up for
sorry ;)
[29/04/2008 5:49:53 AM] greenbes says: A specter is haunting the halls
of Sand Hill Road...
[29/04/2008 5:50:33 AM] greenbes says: the specter of data portability
[29/04/2008 5:50:48 AM] Chris Saad says: well im not saying the bill
of rights is the end product (like CC is)
[29/04/2008 5:50:56 AM] Chris Saad says: i am saying it is a thing
that informs the EULA editing
[29/04/2008 5:51:11 AM] greenbes says: I think that a set of standard
agreements is the right outcome
[29/04/2008 5:51:15 AM] greenbes says: that can be branded and
promoted
[29/04/2008 5:51:27 AM] greenbes says: *analagous* to the CC, but not
identical
[29/04/2008 5:51:33 AM] Chris Saad says: for sure - the
"DataPortability Policy Best Practices and Template EULAs"
[29/04/2008 5:51:40 AM] Chris Saad says: :)
[29/04/2008 5:51:49 AM] greenbes says: Sites can put a badge on their
home page: Here's what we expect from you, here's what you can expect
from us
[29/04/2008 5:52:08 AM] Chris Saad says: @greenbes that's what the DP
logo is for - so we need to decide what the policy part of that
logo's promise is
[29/04/2008 5:52:14 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: Chris, I am saying that
I can contribute a set of CC templates - the beating to death and
comparing with "billof rights" du jour can be something one more
perosn can volunteer to do
[29/04/2008 5:52:26 AM] Nitin Borwankar says: anyway ... need to rucsh
off will check back in an hour ...
[29/04/2008 5:52:29 AM] greenbes says: Sorry, Chris, a single
agreement won't cut it
[29/04/2008 5:52:31 AM] Chris Saad says: sure Nitin - that's fine
[29/04/2008 5:52:41 AM] Chris Saad says: i didnt say a single document
[29/04/2008 5:52:51 AM] Chris Saad says: it a set of documents which
form the 'best practices' and 'template eulas'
[29/04/2008 5:53:17 AM] greenbes says: Well, different businesses will
want different agreements. The logo needs to let the user know at a
glance what is going on
[29/04/2008 5:53:38 AM] greenbes says: maybe this can be related to or
derived from the DP logo (a question to be left for later), but a
single icon won't cut it
[29/04/2008 5:53:46 AM] greenbes says: too much information to encode
in one image
[29/04/2008 5:53:51 AM] *** Data Portability added unodewaal to this
chat
***
[29/04/2008 5:54:41 AM] Chris Saad says: we can wrap the logo in
additional symbols - np
[29/04/2008 5:55:07 AM] unodewaal says: hi everyone, just joined
[29/04/2008 5:55:19 AM] Chris Saad says: i made this a long time ago
http://m2bp.pbwiki.com/
[29/04/2008 5:55:20 AM] greenbes says: thanks for coming, everyone,
that's a wrap
[29/04/2008 5:55:35 AM] greenbes says: ;)
[29/04/2008 5:55:35 AM] Chris Saad says: hi unodewaal - welcome to the
chat
[29/04/2008 5:56:14 AM] Chris Saad says: http://m2bp.pbwiki.com/ could
form a nice basis for a more detailed bill of rights which informs the
way we evaluate the EULA
[29/04/2008 5:56:34 AM] Chris Saad says: although it only briefly
touches on user control of their ata
[29/04/2008 5:56:38 AM] Chris Saad says: data*
[29/04/2008 5:56:52 AM] unodewaal says: I'm from South Africa, work at
24.com. building an identity server for our youth products and
simultaneously working on external dataportability
[29/04/2008 5:56:55 AM] Chris Saad says: actually maybe its not so
useful :)
[29/04/2008 5:57:04 AM] unodewaal says: just so ya'll know where I'm
coming from :)
[29/04/2008 5:57:06 AM] Chris Saad says: great Uno!
[29/04/2008 5:57:25 AM] unodewaal says: so I hope to learn some things
here, and hopefully contribute as well
[29/04/2008 5:57:51 AM] Chris Saad says: Uno this is the discussion
about Policy (EULA that sort of thing) - if u are interested in
technical stuff etc be sure to check out the other action groups
[29/04/2008 5:58:13 AM] unodewaal says: yeah, have talked to marjolein
about that
[29/04/2008 5:58:41 AM] unodewaal says: also interested in the policy
aspects (T&C's etc) so this is a good place for me as well
[29/04/2008 11:36:58 AM] Elias Bizannes says: Good to see some new
people involving themselves
[29/04/2008 11:37:10 AM] Elias Bizannes says: I want to make clear,
that this group is just starting.
[29/04/2008 11:37:30 AM] Elias Bizannes says: Nothing has been
decided, and activity has been lacking, in part because we;ve been
distracted with other areas
[29/04/2008 11:38:10 AM] greenbes says: On the steering call today, I
volunteerd to look into other organizations that might be working on
similar goals
[29/04/2008 11:38:16 AM] greenbes says: I set up a diigo group for
link sharing
[29/04/2008 11:38:22 AM] greenbes says: you're welcome to join if you
like
[29/04/2008 11:43:39 AM] Elias Bizannes says: yes please
[29/04/2008 11:43:55 AM] greenbes says: http://groups.diigo.com/groups/data-portability-policy
[29/04/2008 11:43:59 AM] Elias Bizannes says: apologies I missed the
call - damn client issues
[29/04/2008 11:44:55 AM] greenbes says: no sweat. Turns out that we
need to agree on a legal framework so that we can accept money and
that we need to move forward with policy recommendations
[29/04/2008 11:46:05 AM] Elias Bizannes says: ok - will catch up on
the mp3 later
[1:19:54 AM] identitywoman says: In talking about actually getting
similar to CC things done (have been discussing it for a long time
inside the Identity Community - (presented about it at W3C worksohp
http://www.w3.org/2005/Security/usability-ws/presentations/26-idcommons)-
it will cost several hundred thousands of dollars in legal work to do
(this is why it has not been done yet within the IC community) - it
also needs more thought then the wise legal minds of this list to do.
I am working with some in the Identity Commons community to pull
together a "legal" internet identity workshop within the next 6
months to really move the ball forward on these ideas. It is
unrealistic to think that this DP group is going to come up with good
EULA's I know we think we can do all this stuff 'grass roots' but
really it needs real legal attention to do it right.
[1:21:52 AM] J. Trent Adams says: Anyone know some lawyers willing to
donate some cycles our way? Perhaps some folks at the Berkman Center?
[1:31:05 AM] greenbes says: That was the approach I was thinking of.
I want to get the conversation going, but I'm under no illusion that
we'll be able to do it all by ourselves
[1:31:32 AM] greenbes says: That link doesn't work, Kaliya
[1:32:20 AM] greenbes says: Part of finding the solution is
appropriately describing the problem :)