Digital ID Coach » Google

PII 2011: Social Sharing and the Data-Driven Economy

coach — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 21:48:59 +0000

On this panel: Kara Swisher, All Things D, moderates panel with Jim Adler, Chief Privacy Officer, Intellus, David Glazer, Director of Engineering at Google (Plus), Roger McNamee, musician and Elevation Partners, and Fred Wilson, Union Square Ventures.

Kara: We’ll be talking about implications of social sharing for business. Where is the business of social sharing? Fred: Facebook plus, FB is the largest platform but not the only. There will continue to be lots of important social platforms outside of FB. Roger: period of rapid adoption for first 2 years, FB has won the largest share. Cost of entry is high, social is everywhere. David: once things are that way they tend to stay that way? We didn’t name Google Plus “new, now, here” – two things we wanted to do: existing products could be done better, we saw a lot of our products would be better with baked-in sharing. Wanted to improve overall connected state. Jim: things swing from open to closed and back. Fred: top things include Tumblr, wouldn’t be in the picture but for… Mobile is really important. It’s not game over. FB is dominant but market is not devoid of opportunities. Roger: web as an app, number is going to 70% (of what?). Who is going to control the user experience? Things are not shipping on mobile. FB for many people is going to be the platform; connect then identity. Jim: we’re in the process of mapping humanity online. This is a big one. It really does a disservice to say it’s done. How are we mapping? What’s appropriate? rights? mapping social rituals. Of course there will be platforms, and we’re just getting started.

Kara: what are the key critical trends? Jim: we’re going through a new reality, reputation online, a 360 view. You can now reach across time/space. It takes a village, and we’re doing this one hut at a time, building intimate connections. David: I agree with mobile, always on. Shift to living in a world where we’re always on, leaking and sharing, what do we do with that? Kara; continuous partial attention? David: yes, how subconscious should we be? Shift to assuming the camera is always rolling. Jim: this is something we need to get use to. David: there are “many publics” (Kevin Marks said this first). Fred: Tablet is interesting. People are starting to build natively for tablets. More companies are coming to us where FB is the only login experience. This will accrue tremendous value to FB, that’s not really a good thing, especially for the developer (or the users!).

Kara: mobile platforms? Roger: Facebook and Yelp as mobile. Time to market. The thing that really scares me: we’ve lived in a world where people have not been honest with each other for too long. Income gap based on proprietary access to opportunities. Big corps (including telcos) are absolutely using our data. Jim: we’re moving through a threshold. FB is assumed to be public but it’s mostly private. (?) Social media has been like Lake Wobegone, was powerful but there’s going to be interesting consequences: what do people know about me? New product where people can know what we know about them. Too voyeuristic, not narcissistic enough.

Kara: what is sharing now? Fred: when you go out on Friday night, there’s a tremendous amount of sharing going on. Social media is doing the sort of the same thing. This morning was sad about Zucotti Park, human nature to want to share. My kids are much more aware of how to use the technology. David: the way my kids use “stalker” has become a casual term. Fred: I stalk my kids on FB every day, they know it. Jim: Kids know the difference between public and public/private spaces, they’re much more nuanced about how they approach the world. Fred: we’re doing this hire, looking at all of the social media resources of potential candidates. Next generation is using tools to make “resumes” more interesting.

Kara: If FB is the main stalking platform, what are the main business opportunities? Roger: social is today what “new media” is in 1987. My sense: new environment (half cell phones, half computers) is “hypernet” with totally different economic players. Running out of wireless bandwidth, need to replace infrastructure in cellular. Apple’s position is really unstable, capturing the value through hardware. HTML5 has opportunities to change the rules of the game. Safari gets 100% of development today, but notion of one company capturing all the value needs to change. Gigantic change wave of the hypernet, based on whitespace and digital TV spectrum. Instagram is fun but not important.

Kara to David: Google Plus? Tried to have a quiet debut. “We shipped plus, now we’re shipping the Google.” Two things we want to solve: one is how can we make YouTube, Blogger better by making it more social. Fred: Socialization of Google and mobile apps: eventually they’ll get it right but it’s crazy to think of it as a Facebook killer. Roger: maybe a Twitter killer, because they captured the “twitteratti” early on. Costs zero to add a Plus button. Jim: the big opportunity is what you can do with data. Focus on private data becoming public: more frictionless sharing. Understanding data is hugely disruptive. Use cases, danger is in inappropriate use. How do we use the public data to infer amazing things about each other?

Kara: Are you investing in data companies? Fred: we like to invest in platforms that have a lot of data and can use it to do things natively on the platform. We’re not investing in capturing data for 3rd party things. Kara: How do you look at Twitter? Fred: my favorite platform of all, but not as an investor–I connect to people there (@FredWilson has over 200K followers). It’s all public, everyone knows that.

Roger: two things that Apple did wrong: 1) fight with amazon over one-click, 2) if they get AppleTV right, all they have to do is in-app purchases back. Fire is not a great tablet. Fred: it’s a Kindle with the web on it. Roger: yeah. Nook is much cooler.

Questions.

Real Names

coach — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 08:01:54 +0000

Danah Boyd is an insightful researcher. She just wrote a post called “Real Names” Policies Are an Abuse of Power in which she takes Google to task for their changing policies and rather abrupt practice of kicking people off of Google Plus. I agree that being arbitrary is an abuse of power when it affects people so strongly (disabling an account removes the use of all services, not just Google Plus). However, there are two kinds of power: shared, and proprietary.

Google, along with Facebook, Twitter, and in fact nearly all Internet-based services (Amazon, eBay, your Internet service provider, etc.), are proprietary. These services are run by companies that:

are private or beholden to shareholders (their “business model”),
have one-sided Terms of Service and Policy documents that users are required to agree to, and
are based on the selective delivery of their user base to their customers (usually advertisers).

A striking characteristic of these businesses is that they have a practice of reducing things to black and white. Our chosen (registered) name “is” or “is not” really us. See Doc’s post A Sense of Bewronging for more thought on this. In a simplified (business) sense, it is an abuse of social power to declare that many of us are not who we say we are, even if we’re known to many others by our chosen registered name.

Contrast this with a shared power model, like a commons, or services that are implemented according to open standards. The underlying Internet protocols (the apache web server, sendmail, TCP/IP, etc.) are not owned by anyone, everybody can use them, and anybody can improve them. These resources are shared—no terms of service is required to use the Internet or email with any device you choose, with any compatible software, from any location that has access. “Commons” is where you can be who you are, no matter what name you go by.

Coaching moment: This may be a non-issue for some. I have friends that use their name to create a “brand” for themselves—so people will recognize them everywhere, and know what they’re about. However, that’s not an option for people in sensitive situations. Think of it this way: Everyone has a moment when they choose not to disclose some bit of information to the world. Sometimes it’s a name. That’s not a bad thing, and it should be a choice.

Open Data Partnership

coach — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 19:49:03 +0000

When the government threatened to regulate an industry that has for some time been playing fast and loose with people’s personal data, the industry proposed to open their databases–at least a little. The Open Data Partnership is claimed to be a “market-wide collaboration that allows consumers to gain more control over the information that companies have collected about their interests in one easy-to-use portal.”

SmartPlanet quoted Mike Zaneis, Senior Vice President and General Counsel for the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB), who explained:

Better Advertising’s Open Data Partnership is exactly the kind of initiative that will enable us to remain self-regulated as an industry. The more transparency we can provide consumers that enables them to retain control over their own data, the more trusted our ecosystem becomes – to the benefit of everyone.

Interestingly, many of the big data tracking companies have already signed on. (Hubspot, which just received an infusion of $32M from Google and Salesforce, are all missing from the list.)

With predictions for a sharp increase in analytics and data mining in 2011, the window offered by the Open Data Partnership is an interesting third option to “Do Not Track” or laissez-faire. It gives people better understanding and control over what they’re sharing and why. That said, it’s still about advertising (in which people are the product, not the customers).

Coaching moment: This is an interesting situation. If you could know more about yourself by looking at the data being collected, would you? Once you saw this information, would you be inclined to help correct it? If not, why?

What They Know

coach — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 00:31:31 +0000

The information sharing industry is pretty opaque to most people. We have no idea what “they” know about us. Moreover, it can be infuriating when certain companies make assumptions about us that are clearly erroneous. It can be absolutely unnerving when total strangers strike a little too close to the bone.

It’s instructive to find out what they know! Several years ago (2006), my friends at Privacy Rights Clearinghouse wrote a post called For the New Year, Resolve to Check Yourself Out that will help you do this. Their list of resources will help you understand who you are from the perspectives of your:

Credit history
Medical Information
Bank account history
Insurance claims
Public records
Search engines

I’d add one point to their last bullet. If you have an account on Google, you can now go into your Google Account Settings (look for the link in the upper right corner to Settings). Under Personal Settings, look for Dashboard: View Data Stored with this Account. It’s a view of what Google knows about you.

Coaching moment: It can be both overwhelming and empowering to know this much about your world. Fortunately, the overwhelming feeling can be countered by putting the story together and taking control of the problems. You’re creating a story, a narrative of who you are. Fix your problems if you can. Imagine a world in which you controlled your own information and others came to you for it. That world might be highly customizable in ways that were unique to you. What would that look and feel like?

On Data and Disclosure

coach — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:25:11 +0000

I like to think about ways to customize my world, and the digital world writ large, in ways that support and help us explore our unique selves. It is in our very diversity that individual strengths can play out to become our personal best, to help each other grow, and create fertile new worlds.

However, under the guise of “increased security,” we are increasingly surrounded by tools and technologies that minimize and standardize us, including video surveillance and data storage and analysis. About that last link to Google, CEO Eric Schmidt recently said “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.”

This indiscriminate personal data hoarding is both an individual and a societal problem. Schmidt’s argument that we shouldn’t have anything to hide is specious (not to mention a double standard: it doesn’t apply to Schmidt). In a 2007 paper called ‘I’ve Got Nothing to Hide’ and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy, George Washington University Law School’s Daniel J. Solove convincingly critiques that argument. Indeed we have many things to hide, like our passwords and credit card numbers, certain personal habits and preferences, things that contribute to human dignity and respect. As noted security expert Bruce Schneier writes in his essay The Eternal Value of Privacy, “Too many wrongly characterize the debate as “security versus privacy.” The real choice is liberty versus control.”

Ironically, Gary Wolf and Kevin Kelly host a blog called The Quantified Self where they report about people exploring ways to keep track of themselves. It’s a significant difference between curiosity, personal need, and voluntary disclosure that’s driving data sets, and corporate ventures like Facebook (nod to jerking you around again with recent privacy policy changes), Google (Schneier’s response to Schmidt’s quote above), and damned near every corporate site you make an account with and that tracks your every move these days.

I’m looking for examples of sites that encourage liberty and demonstrate some respect for its users/clients. I will be reporting on what I find. If you have suggestions, I welcome them.

Coaching moment: Here’s a little thought exercise. Think about a typical day in your life.

What kind of things do you do in private? These might be taking a shower, brushing your teeth, thinking about the day. Some things might be really private as in just you by yourself, and other things may be private in some context, like thinking about your day out loud with your spouse or partner. Once you get a good list, which of those things would make you uncomfortable if they were made public in some way?

Now think of the kind of things you do in public, like driving to work or the store, walking around, having a conversation over lunch. Think about stories that might be told about you from the perspective of not knowing what you were really doing. You might take clues from signs that you walk by, or maybe other people (posture, groupings, facial expressions). Can you think of any stories that are not only wrong but might hurt you?

Finally, think about your online tools. Have you actually looked at the Terms of Service or Privacy Policies that you’re agreeing to? If you knew they were disrespectful to you or even abusive of your personal self and liberty, would you stop using them? Since the answer is “probably not,” what would you suggest these companies change?

Future Imperfect

coach — Fri, 15 May 2009 19:12:34 +0000

This post is going all geeky on you. There’s a mission and a method to my madness, and I mean madness in the most forward thinking way. After all, if we don’t have a vision or a dream, what makes up the color in our future?

First up is Fred Wilson’s presentation from a talk that he gave at Google. Note that even though these are just the slides, Wilson gives you a clear idea that there’s something disruptive going on.

Second up is a report from JD Lasica and the Aspen Institute entitled Identity in the Age of Cloud Computing (PDF, purchase). Lasica points out that the disruption is all about identity, personal empowerment, and benefits to society and commerce all around. From his report:

Excerpt: Why the Cloud Matters

According to Newsweek: “At the end of August [2008], as Hurricane Gustav threatened the coast of Texas, the Obama campaign called the Red Cross to say it would be routing donations to it via the Red Cross home page. Get your servers ready—our guys can be pretty nuts, Team Obama said. Sure, sure, whatever, the Red Cross responded. We’ve been through 9/11, Katrina, we can handle it. The surge of Obama dollars crashed the Red Cross website in less than 15 minutes.”

The New York-based tech start-up Animoto, which lets users create professional-quality, MTV-style videos using their own images and licensed music, was averaging 5,000 users a day until it suddenly received a burst of new users who discovered it through Facebook. Its traffic surged to 750,000 visitors over three days. The number of servers Animoto was running on jumped from 50 to 3,500 during that span of time. “It was just numbers we never imagined we would ever see,” chief technology officer Stevie Clifton told a Seattle newspaper. “It was fun and scary and pretty cool.” Thanks to AmazonWeb Services, Animoto’s servers did not crash, because Animoto does not have any servers. It outsources its computing power to Amazon.comand pays only for what it uses. The ten-employee company is now expanding. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos touts Animoto as the poster company for cloud computing.

The tales of the Red Cross and Animoto neatly sum up the contrast between the former economy and the emerging cloud economy. If the Internet economy is an apt descriptor of the changes taking place around us today, then the term cloud economy could justly be ascribed to the still larger global disruptions ahead. Google CEO Eric Schmidt has called this “the cloud computing age.”

Coaching moment: Sometimes people I talk with say that they feel like a lone wolf howling at the moon. Most of the time these people are visionaries or idealists that don’t have a common public voice. The crowd hasn’t discovered the conversation yet. Identity is one of those conversations. It’s a relatively small group talking about a subject that everyone will be impacted by, and that the future will be shaped by (one way or another).

If you’re one of the lone wolves, take heart. Keep up the good work. The more we tell the story, the better we get. The better the story becomes, the more people will want to hear it. The time is good to explore, discover, think, discuss, and practice telling the story. Not everyone is ready to hear it yet, which is ok. All things in time.

Reputation Management

coach — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 02:48:05 +0000

We have many ways to view our identity. One way that we are known is by our reputation. Our friends and colleagues know who we are. They know us from our acts and activities. They know generally what kind of person we are. For example, we might be known as a kind or loving person, or maybe a jerk, a know-it-all, or a scoundrel.

For a business, the employees are the first line of the company’s reputation. Sometimes employees are not the most diplomatic representatives. In one recently publicized case, a video posted to YouTube by two playful employees caused a public relations nightmare for the company (and later regrets by the ex-employees).

It’s worth noting that while one event can do damage, it’s not the entire picture. Our real reputation is made up of what we do and say over time, what we are consistent about.

Coaching moment: There’s a great lifehacker article, The Importance of Monitoring Your Online Reputation, that talks about this:

These days, if you want to know more about someone, the first thing most of us do is Google them. It shouldn’t come as a surprise, then, that monitoring your online reputation is extraordinarily important.

Go ahead and Google and Yahoo yourself, see what’s out there. Note how much is about someone whose name you share. What picture does this paint? Are you happy with it?

You can’t change the past, but you can change your future reputation. What will you do to paint a better picture of yourself?

On Connecting with Friends

coach — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 19:11:31 +0000

Yesterday Google announced Friend Connect, and Facebook announced Facebook Connect. These are two different ways of opening the social network. John (The Real) McCrea has a great article on these two services. ReadWriteWeb also has a great article (thanks Alex K for this link).

With some mixed* feelings, I’m implementing Google’s Friend Connect on this blog. In the right column, you’ll see a box…… where friends can join from their other services, and a wall where people can write comments and thoughts. Feel free to test these features out. I’d love to know what happens.

I’m not a developer, so I can’t really make much use of the open tools in Europe yet. See the previous blog post, with pixelsebi’s video, for a glimpse on what those tools might be.

Agreeing to terms of service
*Mixed feelings, yes. I will change my tools (but not my friends or wall comments) when I have a more open alternative.

I have a gripe about Google’s Terms of Service. These terms below are evil to me, and they are contrary to Google’s stated goal of not being evil. However, I recognize that “evil” is a matter of perspective and Google wields non-negotiable power. If I felt like there was ANY negotiation or offer that I was agreeing to instead of the blanket “I agree” button, I would not agree to the following provisions.

4. Service Content

… When you provide your content through the windows and other gadgets constituting the Services, you give Google a perpetual license to copy, distribute, create derivative works based on, perform, display, and otherwise use the content in connection with the Services.

7. Google Proprietary Rights and Software

… If Google provides you with access to downloadable software to enable you to use the Services, the software may include periodic updates which you should always accept and install to continue to use the Services. … (my emphasis)

8. Information Rights

Google may retain and use, subject to the terms of the Google Privacy Policy, all information you provide, including but not limited to Web site demographics and contact information. You agree that Google may transfer and disclose to third parties personally identifiable information about you for the purpose of approving and enabling your use of the Services, including to third parties that reside in jurisdictions with less restrictive data laws than your own. … Google disclaims all responsibility, and will not be liable to you, however, for any disclosure of that information by any such third party. …

Coaching moment: Being someone’s “friend” is a decision based on lots of possible motivations: do you know the person, do you believe in or support that person’s work, is it a cool thing among your peers to be a “friend” in those circles, do you wish you knew the person, etc.

Being a friend is also a matter of timing: are you a friend today? The reality is that many friends come and go. I understand, and this site is open to that.

Being a friend is also a matter of purpose. Are you learning things here and wish to be a part of the conversation? Welcome! Are you a friend because you want to game the system to your own selfish advantage, like spammers and trolls? Not welcome.

What does it mean to you to be someone’s friend?

Google Apps: Problems with Identity

coach — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 07:27:07 +0000

CNN is running an article, The hidden cost of Google Apps, which describes a familiar problem. Seems that due to the combination of cookies, “remember me” settings, and other hidden recall devices, users have a hard time using Google Apps for more than one user, more than one account, or more than one application. This is a serious problem!

The author laments:

The confusion gets worse if you share PCs. For three months, Google Talk was convinced that I was Nick, my assistant. We finally figured out that we had shared that test computer – he had once logged in as himself on the machine that I was now using, and logging in as myself to Google Apps hadn’t cleared out that setting in the browser’s memory. We had to fully wipe the cache to allow me to switch back to … well, me.

Linda, my head of operations, had her personal Google Calendar account swapped for her business identity on my Google Calendar about the same period. Until we figured out the goof, she missed a bunch of meetings. And to this day, after more than six months of using Google Apps, I still get e-mail invitations addressed to Dan, our intern. Somehow, Google thinks I am him. He missed last week’s meeting in part because he never got an invitation.

This problem represents a shift from using your own computer to do all things, to using your computer to do context-sensitive things. For example, are you doing things for work? Personal use? for someone else? You had better remember to stop and log out each time you want to change your context, or better yet (as in Google’s case), never use more than one computer for one user and one purpose. (Ouch!)

Coaching moment: This is another example of a push to define and keep separate our relationships between home and work computing. In practice, our lines are blurred. Have you ever checked your home email while at work? Many people have. Has it ever happened that someone that you know sent an email message from the wrong account? While the learning curve is steep and harsh, the separation isn’t always a bad thing.