Archive

Posts Tagged ‘corporate practices’

IIW XIII: Sneaky Bastards

October 18th, 2011
1 comment

Renée Lloyd’s talk on how VRM disrupts and liberates legal practice. VRM challenges how legal practice is executed.  What if new businesses had to negotiate with her? What messages are people giving us? Agreement making in a human style: sharing thoughts, contextual, ceremonies and expressions vary. Contrast: agreement corporate style (hand cuffs, “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” -Goethe)

Clickwrap “agreements” are what we call Contracts of Adhesion: no negotiations, take it or leave it. Should not be assumed that we always want a fast track. Look especially in employment contracts, very restrictive. Makes sense in certain contexts but should not be a universal solution. Even if you’re the 800 pound gorilla, you don’t always have to act like one. The processes are insidious, things start small but quickly spread into areas where it’s impossible to right any wrongs.

Lawyers use existing terms from contracts to create new, limit liability. Nothing new: no innovation is allowed (social media prohibited). Caveat emptor: problematic because consumers can’t “be aware.” FTC expects that markets create innovation, expected that it will help protect. But no plain english rules, effective regulation that’s reactive (because bad things happen) produces unworkable constraints and rules.  System is out of balance. “No number of legal victories, tech tools or whitepapers–however well-intended or important–are going to convince people to take ownership of agreement-making back from lawyers and companies.” It’s about people, not lawyers. We need to bring the balance back, help people to take ownership.

Time for a change of attitude! What do you do when the most economic solution is a data exploiter for the big companies? What if there was a trusted voice? For example, what if the Terms of Use on a site, instead of the pages you see now, told you this (video) [x] Cede your rights? No site has fair terms right now. Or what if you had a “sneaky bastards” prompt that took your selected text, marked it up, turned it into a visual games? (Sue for emotional distress: Amazon’s terms at 80 pages and Renée didn’t have it all, PLUS they can change those terms anytime. Outrageous.) Activities to bind parties, even if they don’t understand, includes individual initialing every page. New advice in legal community is to make it clearer that they knew. Relaxed formality standards.

 ThoseSneakyBastard.org – starter site with Renée’s rants, hall of shame, hall of fame, etc. Learning, doing, kicking butt, giving props, pure ferocious fun! Data on collaborative law shows less law suits in case where people/individuals are consulted about change. Innovation: minimum viable contracts, curate, track and assess new contract models, etc. Check the site for things to develop.

[del.icio.us] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Ma.gnolia] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Email] More »

future, history, records, tools , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Take Back Your Self

January 7th, 2009
No comments

On my Identities Overview page, I talk about the different forms of identities that we have. One of those forms is a digital you: the email and online accounts that you have, the mailing lists and databases that you’re part of. In reality, much of this identity reaches into our other identity forms, such as our economic profile and our citizenship.

Renowned security expert Bruce Schneier wrote an essay last May 15, 2008, called Our Data, Ourselves. In it he pointed out that:

Who controls our data controls our lives.

It’s true. Whoever controls our data can decide whether we can get a bank loan, on an airplane or into a country. Or what sort of discount we get from a merchant, or even how we’re treated by customer support. A potential employer can, illegally in the U.S., examine our medical data and decide whether or not to offer us a job. The police can mine our data and decide whether or not we’re a terrorist risk. If a criminal can get hold of enough of our data, he can open credit cards in our names, siphon money out of our investment accounts, even sell our property. Identity theft is the ultimate proof that control of our data means control of our life.

We need to take back our data.

Our data is a part of us. It’s intimate and personal, and we have basic rights to it. It should be protected from unwanted touch.

Schneier calls for the passage of a comprehensive data privacy law with real penalties for violations. I’m all for this, and given our new administration’s commitment to expanding broadband in America, it’s time to start talking about this now.

Coaching Moment: Recently many people on Twitter were stung by a series of “click here” phishing attempts to take over their accounts. One third-party company collected many twitter usernames and passwords while offering a momentarily helpful service, but then turned around and sold his database for a reported $1200. On a higher but related level, financial identity theft is (still) on the rise.

I hope you have not been a victim. Chances are increasing that you will be. What concerns you the most about losing your privacy or control over your digital destiny? I’d love to know.

[del.icio.us] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Ma.gnolia] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Email] More »

future, records, tools , , , , , , , , , ,

U.S., Canadian firms: worlds apart on Privacy (2004)

May 24th, 2004
No comments

Lemme see… customer loyalty or legislative compliance. As a business, which would I choose? Seems Canadian firms go with the former, while U.S. firms prefer the latter. Do the same people that make this decision also wonder why the American “consumer” market doesn’t trust many of the companies they do business with?

The study, the first to compare the corporate privacy practices of comparable Canadian and U.S. firms, found that Canadian businesses see their privacy practices as an opportunity to improve relations with customers, while their U.S. counterparts viewed privacy measures more as a way of complying with legislation and avoiding civil lawsuits.

Indeed, 61 per cent of surveyed Canadian companies linked ‘good privacy practices’ to customer trust and brand loyalty, compared to only 17 per cent of U.S. companies.

‘Canadian privacy leaders seem to understand and respect the need for compliance with federal and provincial laws,’ states the study, which was commissioned by the Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner.

‘However, they rarely see compliance as the single goal or mission of privacy management (and) are more likely to hold the view or belief that their role is inextricably tied to information ethics rather than obedience to the law.’

Coaching moment: Privacy and self-determination go hand in hand. The question is NOT whether you have something to hide. It’s whether you have something to lose.

[del.icio.us] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Ma.gnolia] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Email] More »

history , , , , , , , ,

Switch to our mobile site