Larry Dignan over at ZDNET wrote a post today entitled “Google ramps up its data portability as a weapon push” which discusses the further roll-out of Google’s Data Portability initiatives. Good stuff to be sure, and I hope it doesn’t end there.
My comment:
“Nobody seems to care about Data Portability until they need it and are denied access. Companies support Data Portability when it is good for them and it doesn’t conflict with their larger agendas, otherwise it is mostly ignored. And, of course, all of this changes on a moment’s notice and subject to the prevailing wind.
The real power of true Data Portability lies in its ability to extend and enhance not only existing services like Google and Facebook, but to facilitate entire ecosystems that reward innovation, value-add, and usefulness while chastising the walled gardens and private silos – or at the very least keeping them in their place.”
--Steve Repetti
Chairman, DataPortability.org
www.radwebtech.com
Showing posts with label DataPortability. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DataPortability. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Data Portability Applauds US CIO, Mourns Departure
Today, friends of Data Portability lost an ally in their cause when the Federal CIO, Vivek Kundra, announced he will be leaving his post in August. Mr. Kundra was the first-ever Chief Information Officer of the United States. During his tenure, Mr. Kundra championed the use of open standards, cloud computing, accessibility, and data portability through a variety of initiatives but lately saw his budgets slashed almost to the point of ineffectiveness. The irony of this is that his cost-saving initiatives netted the Government billions in savings, yet he was unable to save his own projects.
We are at a time when information is instantaneous and permeates every aspect of our lives. Data portability, privacy, and accessibility are the heart of the matter and leadership in this area is game changing on a global scale. If we screw this up we become second fiddle to those that do get it. Mr. Kundra was on the right path, and we at the Data Portability organization applaud his efforts as he re-enters the private sector. We wish him well at his new post at Harvard and hope his voice and passion never lose their strength.
Through this all, our Federal Government and politicians would do well to reassess the importance of the initiatives brought forth by real-world need and championed by Mr. Kundra, for failure to do so will be the real loss felt by the people and businesses of this country.
--Steve Repetti, Chairman, DataPortability.org
We are at a time when information is instantaneous and permeates every aspect of our lives. Data portability, privacy, and accessibility are the heart of the matter and leadership in this area is game changing on a global scale. If we screw this up we become second fiddle to those that do get it. Mr. Kundra was on the right path, and we at the Data Portability organization applaud his efforts as he re-enters the private sector. We wish him well at his new post at Harvard and hope his voice and passion never lose their strength.
Through this all, our Federal Government and politicians would do well to reassess the importance of the initiatives brought forth by real-world need and championed by Mr. Kundra, for failure to do so will be the real loss felt by the people and businesses of this country.
--Steve Repetti, Chairman, DataPortability.org
Friday, January 7, 2011
Data Portability 2011 - Call to Action++
If you’ve read my blog before, you know that I have been advocating the principals behind data portability for some time. More so, I am quite active in the organized effort surrounding data portability – first as a general participant in the International non-profit, then as a board member, officer, and most recently vice-chair.
Now, I am honored and humbled to have been elected as the 2011 Chairman of the Silicon Valley-based non-profit DataPortability organization (http://www.dataportability.org). I have big shoes to fill as the result of all of the good that has come from the efforts of my predecessors, but I am excited, energized, and surrounded by terrific folks who share the passion and vision of data portability.
2011 is poised to be a banner year in the world of data portability. Increasingly the subject commands leading headlines as the Facebooks and Googles of the world run head-on into the will of their users. And, prior DP efforts, including the DPP-initiative “Portability Policy”, are on the verge of hitting mainstream. Exciting times. Truly. And I for one consider myself fortunate to be on the front line of all of this. But so too can you. Join us in this effort. Effect a change. Influence a direction. Solidify a policy. Join the data portability movement today!
Regards,
Steve Repetti
DataPortability Chairman
Now, I am honored and humbled to have been elected as the 2011 Chairman of the Silicon Valley-based non-profit DataPortability organization (http://www.dataportability.org). I have big shoes to fill as the result of all of the good that has come from the efforts of my predecessors, but I am excited, energized, and surrounded by terrific folks who share the passion and vision of data portability.
2011 is poised to be a banner year in the world of data portability. Increasingly the subject commands leading headlines as the Facebooks and Googles of the world run head-on into the will of their users. And, prior DP efforts, including the DPP-initiative “Portability Policy”, are on the verge of hitting mainstream. Exciting times. Truly. And I for one consider myself fortunate to be on the front line of all of this. But so too can you. Join us in this effort. Effect a change. Influence a direction. Solidify a policy. Join the data portability movement today!
Regards,
Steve Repetti
DataPortability Chairman
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Facebook Data Portability Takes First Step into the Light
Today’s announcement from Facebook represents the most important statement from them to-date regarding Data Portability. But to be clear, it is by no means the ultimate solution we all seek. Still, it represents major movement in the right direction.
First, you literally can draw a line on the calendar and say “prior to this date it was virtually impossible to get meaningful information out of Facebook without being a programmer” – that has now changed. Is it everything we could want? No, but it’s a pretty good start. It’s not so much what you can do with the information today, rather that it is available and will absolutely fuel innovation tomorrow. Sure, other services will use this information, but Facebook is showing leadership as well as responding to the will of its user base – to the benefit of us all.
Secondly, and more importantly in my mind, this announcement shows the elevation in importance of openness and standardization. More than a few of us scratched our heads when open-source guru David Recordon joined the walled-garden giant not so long ago. So it is with great excitement we learned today that David’s efforts (along with all of his cohorts and team members) have succeeded from the inside where so many others have failed from the outside.
From a pure data portability perspective, there is still much more that Facebook can do, but I applaud their direction and effort. This is way more than PR, this is policy that has grown from within and is now escaping into the light. Today’s announcement is the beginning; the Sleeper is waking; and openness lives on with more on the way.
Kudos.
First, you literally can draw a line on the calendar and say “prior to this date it was virtually impossible to get meaningful information out of Facebook without being a programmer” – that has now changed. Is it everything we could want? No, but it’s a pretty good start. It’s not so much what you can do with the information today, rather that it is available and will absolutely fuel innovation tomorrow. Sure, other services will use this information, but Facebook is showing leadership as well as responding to the will of its user base – to the benefit of us all.
Secondly, and more importantly in my mind, this announcement shows the elevation in importance of openness and standardization. More than a few of us scratched our heads when open-source guru David Recordon joined the walled-garden giant not so long ago. So it is with great excitement we learned today that David’s efforts (along with all of his cohorts and team members) have succeeded from the inside where so many others have failed from the outside.
From a pure data portability perspective, there is still much more that Facebook can do, but I applaud their direction and effort. This is way more than PR, this is policy that has grown from within and is now escaping into the light. Today’s announcement is the beginning; the Sleeper is waking; and openness lives on with more on the way.
Kudos.
–Steve Repetti
Vice-chair, DataPortability.org
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
DataPortability 2010
As many of you know, I am a big-time proponent of Data Portability. That simple concept that enables the free-flow of information in intuitive, secure, and informed ways has been a pet project of mine for some time. In fact, many of the products I have developed over the years, including Zude, Scrapplet, FGL, and xWinLib just to name a few, posses significant components of (and hopefully important contributions to) data portability.
I have been fortunate to be associated with the Data Portability Project (http://www.dataportability.org), the International non-profit spearheading the charge of Data Portability. My involvement has grown from “just a member” to a corporate officer and member of the Board of Directors. I am humbled by the caliber of folks that I get to work with in this group and others that share a mutual passion and vision for data portability. Today, the Data Portability organization counts among its members and participants many of the thought-leaders in the technology world and related organizations including: Facebook, MySpace, Google, Plaxo, Microsoft, Adobe, and more.
It is with this in mind that I am honored to have been elected as 2010 Vice-Chairman of the DataPortability organization and again member of the board. This is especially meaningful knowing all of the good things ahead for data portability and the consumers and producers of information. I look forward to the year ahead and am excited at the prospect of positive change that data portability will bring to us all!
--Steve Repetti
www.radwebtech.com
I have been fortunate to be associated with the Data Portability Project (http://www.dataportability.org), the International non-profit spearheading the charge of Data Portability. My involvement has grown from “just a member” to a corporate officer and member of the Board of Directors. I am humbled by the caliber of folks that I get to work with in this group and others that share a mutual passion and vision for data portability. Today, the Data Portability organization counts among its members and participants many of the thought-leaders in the technology world and related organizations including: Facebook, MySpace, Google, Plaxo, Microsoft, Adobe, and more.
It is with this in mind that I am honored to have been elected as 2010 Vice-Chairman of the DataPortability organization and again member of the board. This is especially meaningful knowing all of the good things ahead for data portability and the consumers and producers of information. I look forward to the year ahead and am excited at the prospect of positive change that data portability will bring to us all!
--Steve Repetti
www.radwebtech.com
Thursday, October 22, 2009
I Love the Founder's Fund -- even when they put their foot in their mouth....
So, I was happily minding my own business --- coding away on the next greatest thing – when I was rudely interrupted by the most ridiculous statement I have seen in a while. Kudos to TechCrunch for running it, and Google Alerts for instantly bringing it to my attention – distraction and all.
I for one believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion, and if Sean Parker over at the Founder’s Fund wants to use words like “red-herring” when describing data portability – well, he is entitled to that comment, just as I am entitled to vehemently disagree! Here’s the full article that raised my ire, and here’s my response:
“To be clear, he thinks Google will stay huge and relevant, but it’s dominance will go down because collecting data is less valuable than connecting people, he said.”
Uh… that’s assuming we can FIND the connecting people – and it is for that very reason that Google has a phenomenal opportunity to encroach on the Facebook’s of the world. Google is trying to be the 411 of ALL information – and they are aggressively moving into the world of real-time integration — how long is it before searching Google for your friends yields status updates with links in and beyond Facebook and Twitter?
As for Data Portability being a “red-herring” – WOW! Data Portability is not just about technology, but about process, rights, and mindset. Without that so-called red-herring, the investment you make in creating, refining, updating, and enhancing all of your data would be “owned” by someone else.
@sean: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
-- Steve.
I for one believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion, and if Sean Parker over at the Founder’s Fund wants to use words like “red-herring” when describing data portability – well, he is entitled to that comment, just as I am entitled to vehemently disagree! Here’s the full article that raised my ire, and here’s my response:
“To be clear, he thinks Google will stay huge and relevant, but it’s dominance will go down because collecting data is less valuable than connecting people, he said.”
Uh… that’s assuming we can FIND the connecting people – and it is for that very reason that Google has a phenomenal opportunity to encroach on the Facebook’s of the world. Google is trying to be the 411 of ALL information – and they are aggressively moving into the world of real-time integration — how long is it before searching Google for your friends yields status updates with links in and beyond Facebook and Twitter?
As for Data Portability being a “red-herring” – WOW! Data Portability is not just about technology, but about process, rights, and mindset. Without that so-called red-herring, the investment you make in creating, refining, updating, and enhancing all of your data would be “owned” by someone else.
@sean: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
-- Steve.
Friday, July 10, 2009
POWER.COM Serves FACEBOOK a PR HEADACHE, Thrusts DATA PORTABILITY into LEGAL Spotlight
Yesterday, social aggregator POWER.COM filed a countersuit against Facebook that raises some thorny issues for Facebook and adds some interesting defenses for the case of data portability and personal data ownership. It is not yet clear from reading the pleadings whether either party will win in this escalating case (there are some key issues and concepts on both sides that a Court will have to wade through), but it is clear the issue of Data Portability comes center stage.
Jason Kincaid over at TechCrunch released an interesting article on the subject, “Power.com Countersues Facebook over Data Portability,” along with a copy of the counter-suite.
In their opening salvo, Power steps up to the soap box and discusses “a borderless Internet where users have the right to own and control their own data” and goes on to present their recently adopted “Internet User Bill of Rights:”
This is great stuff for users and data portability, and in many ways mirrors much of our work over at the Data Portability Project (http://www.dataportability.org), however it has little to do with what Facebook is doing in the context of their site or their lawsuit. It does, however, place Facebook in a position of having to answer why it does not agree with these principals.
Thus far, Facebook has tread cautiously as it relates to user data and rights therein. They do not wish to give away the store or proprietary and competitive advantage, nor do they wish to (further) incur the wrath of its users by inflicting too many restrictions. Many of us hoped that a number of Facebook’s recent initiatives signaled their willingness to explore a leadership role in this highly important area. Unfortunately, the pleadings conflict with this hoped for direction.
From Facebook’s perspective, Power.com violated Facebook’s stated terms and conditions; the contract that establishes the relationship between the parties for the use of the site. Every Facebook user has agreed to this (or they wouldn’t be using the site), but, like virtually every other “terms and conditions” document, it is overly broad, highly protective, filled with legalese, and generally ignored by most actual users. It is merely the lack of enforcement by the provider (in this case Facebook) that keeps these things out of court more often. (The standardization and simplification of this topic is also the subject of much work over at Data Portability and other advocacy organizations).
Power.com counters by saying they are doing nothing that Facebook isn’t already doing themselves, and, besides, theirs (they believe) is the right way anyway. It is clear that Facebook does not agree with this position but now is in the difficult position of explaining why many of the good points that Power.com raises are not valid within Facebook.
Still, Facebook is a privately held company and they get to decide what is allowed or not. No court, other than the one of public opinion, can force them to do what they do not want to do – unless the legal line is crossed.
And while I do not believe that Power.com has a leg to stand on when trying to win based on how much “screen scraping” of data is allowed (Facebook’s terms and conditions say none), they have raised some interesting issues that could inspire both the court of opinion and the hollowed halls of justice.
At the very least, Facebook is highly conflicted. It does not own the copyrights associated with all of the information available on its site; it does use some of the very techniques with 3rd-party sites that it accuses Power.com of using against Facebook; it has moved in the direction of providing greater access to its data; and it is party to litigation that potentially represents a PR quagmire.
More significantly for Facebook, Power.com raises the issues of “Restraint of Trade” and “Restraint on Competition” regarding data portability which both lead to the dreaded “M” word: MONOPOLY. Specifically:
With all of the issues at hand, I predict that there will be chest banging and posturing by both sides, some “interesting” press conferences, followed by a negotiated settlement that washes the issue aside and lets both parties (partially) save face. Regardless, Facebook will likely take a PR “black eye” over this.
But I submit there is another, better, solution: Facebook should not only continue its current efforts of data portability and accessibility, but become the leading player on how to do it right! Users would benefit, Facebook would be crowned a friend to all proponents of Data Portability, and the lawyers would find something else to do! In absence of such, Facebook risks becoming the view in the rear view mirror for the company that actually does get it right.
IMHO.
Jason Kincaid over at TechCrunch released an interesting article on the subject, “Power.com Countersues Facebook over Data Portability,” along with a copy of the counter-suite.
In their opening salvo, Power steps up to the soap box and discusses “a borderless Internet where users have the right to own and control their own data” and goes on to present their recently adopted “Internet User Bill of Rights:”
This is great stuff for users and data portability, and in many ways mirrors much of our work over at the Data Portability Project (http://www.dataportability.org), however it has little to do with what Facebook is doing in the context of their site or their lawsuit. It does, however, place Facebook in a position of having to answer why it does not agree with these principals.
Thus far, Facebook has tread cautiously as it relates to user data and rights therein. They do not wish to give away the store or proprietary and competitive advantage, nor do they wish to (further) incur the wrath of its users by inflicting too many restrictions. Many of us hoped that a number of Facebook’s recent initiatives signaled their willingness to explore a leadership role in this highly important area. Unfortunately, the pleadings conflict with this hoped for direction.
From Facebook’s perspective, Power.com violated Facebook’s stated terms and conditions; the contract that establishes the relationship between the parties for the use of the site. Every Facebook user has agreed to this (or they wouldn’t be using the site), but, like virtually every other “terms and conditions” document, it is overly broad, highly protective, filled with legalese, and generally ignored by most actual users. It is merely the lack of enforcement by the provider (in this case Facebook) that keeps these things out of court more often. (The standardization and simplification of this topic is also the subject of much work over at Data Portability and other advocacy organizations).
Power.com counters by saying they are doing nothing that Facebook isn’t already doing themselves, and, besides, theirs (they believe) is the right way anyway. It is clear that Facebook does not agree with this position but now is in the difficult position of explaining why many of the good points that Power.com raises are not valid within Facebook.
Still, Facebook is a privately held company and they get to decide what is allowed or not. No court, other than the one of public opinion, can force them to do what they do not want to do – unless the legal line is crossed.
And while I do not believe that Power.com has a leg to stand on when trying to win based on how much “screen scraping” of data is allowed (Facebook’s terms and conditions say none), they have raised some interesting issues that could inspire both the court of opinion and the hollowed halls of justice.
At the very least, Facebook is highly conflicted. It does not own the copyrights associated with all of the information available on its site; it does use some of the very techniques with 3rd-party sites that it accuses Power.com of using against Facebook; it has moved in the direction of providing greater access to its data; and it is party to litigation that potentially represents a PR quagmire.
More significantly for Facebook, Power.com raises the issues of “Restraint of Trade” and “Restraint on Competition” regarding data portability which both lead to the dreaded “M” word: MONOPOLY. Specifically:
“Facebook’s conduct restricting users’ ability to access their own data constitutes an unlawful restraint of trade under Section I of the Sherman Act.”
“Facebook’s conduct constitutes monopolization (or attempted monopolization, ed.) of the market for social networking website services in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.”
With all of the issues at hand, I predict that there will be chest banging and posturing by both sides, some “interesting” press conferences, followed by a negotiated settlement that washes the issue aside and lets both parties (partially) save face. Regardless, Facebook will likely take a PR “black eye” over this.
But I submit there is another, better, solution: Facebook should not only continue its current efforts of data portability and accessibility, but become the leading player on how to do it right! Users would benefit, Facebook would be crowned a friend to all proponents of Data Portability, and the lawyers would find something else to do! In absence of such, Facebook risks becoming the view in the rear view mirror for the company that actually does get it right.
IMHO.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
The Google OS: “For Developers, the Web is the Platform” (Yeah Baby!)
Last night Google announced what many have been suspecting for some time, the creation of a Google Operating System (OS) based on (what else?) the Google Chrome Browser! This is not something that (initially) directly competes with Windows, however the Google OS could easily take a lead position in the NetBooks category, an area defined by simplicity and specificity of task. More so, this “OS” has the chance to provide the single most requested feature sought in an operating: instant on!
Image attributed to Daryl Caggle at MSNBC
The title quote to this post, most recently by Mike Arrington over at TechCrunch, reinforces what we’ve been saying for some time: “the browser is the delivery platform for modern application; it is OS agnostic, ever present, and increasingly robust.”
The problem, of course, is that browsers are not necessarily compatible with one-another, even from one version to the next. What’s needed is a browser-based abstraction layer that “normalizes” this exciting platform and allows web apps and web sites to act, interact, and display the same across all of the browsers. Our solution to this is called xWinLib; a JavaScript library (with server-side interaction via Ajax, OpenAjax, and other web services) that provides a powerful platform for the creation, delivery, and operation of complex web applications. From the xWinLib site:
It will be interesting to see how all of this shakes out. Google will innovate their way into new spaces and force Microsoft to compete, evolve, or give way. Along the way, the web as a platform will be good for all! What a great time to be a web developer!
Image attributed to Daryl Caggle at MSNBC
The title quote to this post, most recently by Mike Arrington over at TechCrunch, reinforces what we’ve been saying for some time: “the browser is the delivery platform for modern application; it is OS agnostic, ever present, and increasingly robust.”
The problem, of course, is that browsers are not necessarily compatible with one-another, even from one version to the next. What’s needed is a browser-based abstraction layer that “normalizes” this exciting platform and allows web apps and web sites to act, interact, and display the same across all of the browsers. Our solution to this is called xWinLib; a JavaScript library (with server-side interaction via Ajax, OpenAjax, and other web services) that provides a powerful platform for the creation, delivery, and operation of complex web applications. From the xWinLib site:
"The xWinLib library is a JavaScript framework optimized for the creation and execution of sophisticated browser-based applications and advanced web pages. xWinLib provides a self-contained client-side platform that integrates windowing, events, ajax, user interface, drag and drop, web 2.0, data portability, and more within a single cross-browser platform."
It will be interesting to see how all of this shakes out. Google will innovate their way into new spaces and force Microsoft to compete, evolve, or give way. Along the way, the web as a platform will be good for all! What a great time to be a web developer!
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Response to: Plaxo Bids for Relevance in Portability Era
Nicole Ferraro over at Internet Revolution just released an interesting article on Plaxo and Data Portability. Here's my response:
Data Portability, as a topic independent from all of the other issues, has the potential to be extraordinarily useful to both the user and companies (including the Plaxo’s of the world). It’s not a loss to the companies if they provide value beyond simply hosting yet another digital persona.
In a world of data portability, information seamlessly and securely moves between services subject to the wishes of the user and the negotiated relationship entered into by the user and companies, usually defined by the terms of service (EULA/TOS: another important topic!). Innovative companies thrive in this environment because of the substantial value-add they provide to the user – and, as a result, have the opportunity for exponential growth due to the seamless integration of their services with the larger world.
Users benefit because they get to focus on what they want to achieve with the information, rather than having to create yet another set of activity streams, friends lists, groups, security settings, etc., and having to worry about integration, access control, and synchronization. Or more worrisome is the danger of the provider “deadpooling” with your data locked in their vault.
Overall, data portability is good for everyone. It does not seek to reduce options or competition, rather it provide options and secure, comfortable means to a highly sought end.
Interested more on data portability? Visit http://www.dataportability.org and join in the conversation
Steve Repetti
www.radwebtech.com
Board member: www.dataportability.org
Data Portability, as a topic independent from all of the other issues, has the potential to be extraordinarily useful to both the user and companies (including the Plaxo’s of the world). It’s not a loss to the companies if they provide value beyond simply hosting yet another digital persona.
In a world of data portability, information seamlessly and securely moves between services subject to the wishes of the user and the negotiated relationship entered into by the user and companies, usually defined by the terms of service (EULA/TOS: another important topic!). Innovative companies thrive in this environment because of the substantial value-add they provide to the user – and, as a result, have the opportunity for exponential growth due to the seamless integration of their services with the larger world.
Users benefit because they get to focus on what they want to achieve with the information, rather than having to create yet another set of activity streams, friends lists, groups, security settings, etc., and having to worry about integration, access control, and synchronization. Or more worrisome is the danger of the provider “deadpooling” with your data locked in their vault.
Overall, data portability is good for everyone. It does not seek to reduce options or competition, rather it provide options and secure, comfortable means to a highly sought end.
Interested more on data portability? Visit http://www.dataportability.org and join in the conversation
Steve Repetti
www.radwebtech.com
Board member: www.dataportability.org
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Scrapplet integrates Facebook's new Comment Widget
Scrapplet releases support for Facebook’s new comments object. Just select it from the Scrapplet object gallery (objects -> object gallery -> Comment- Facebook) and click or drag it onto your page. Seamlessly integrate with Facebook’s messaging system via Scrapplet integration with Facebook connect.
Now that Facebook’s comment widget is an integrated object within Scrapplet, it automatically inherits all of Scrapplet’s object properties, including appearance options, extended event handling, and even OpenAjax hub interaction.
Now that Facebook’s comment widget is an integrated object within Scrapplet, it automatically inherits all of Scrapplet’s object properties, including appearance options, extended event handling, and even OpenAjax hub interaction.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Data Portability User Bill of Rights
The following is provided in response to a request from the Data Portability EULA/TOS task force. The intent is to provide the basis for conversation related to identifying and quantifying the specific elements that might make up a user’s DP “Bill of Rights.”
[There is a great related discussion entitled “A Bill of Rights for Users of the Social Web” originated by Joseph Smarr, Robert Scoble, and Michael Arrington; and signed by more than two dozen leading individuals]
More specifically, to me, when I go to a web site I should have a reasonable expectation as to what I can and cannot do with the data that I bring, create, or reference within the site. And, I should also have reasonable understanding as to what the site owners can and cannot due with this collection of data related to me.
On the on hand, it doesn’t really matter what those boundaries are – provided they are disclosed up front and upheld throughout my relationship with the site. In this manner, I can make an informed decision as to whether or not I choose to continue. On the other hand, there must be disclosure, transparency, and accountability for this to work.
Ideally, I would go to a web site and there would prominently sit a Data Portability badge that identified the points of compliance in these areas that I am most concerned about. Display of the badge would provide the disclosure and transparency that I seek allowing me to make an informed decision. Likewise, display of the badge would also demonstrate accountability since the TOS identifying allowable usage of the badge would require compliance.
Further, the badge would not likely simply state compliance or non-compliance, rather “degrees” of participation. In a well structured user bill of rights, it is not likely that every site I choose to participate in will fully support every core tenant of Data Portability. I should be able to quickly identify which of the core elements that most interest me relevant to the site are in fact supported by the site.
Some of the key elements in this matter are directly related to privacy, usage, and control. From this we can then extrapolate a series of compliance statements that hopefully begin to take the shape of a user’s “bill of rights.” Specifically:
Key concepts:
- Data I bring, I have the right to take away
- Data I create, I have the right to share
- I have the right to choose who can and cannot access my data
- I have the right to access my data internally and externally
Specific questions:
- User personal data is private (y/n)
- Private data is secured (y/n)
- Personal data is fully removed upon request (y/n)
- Personal data is not sold or reused without permission (y/n)
- User data is accessible outside of the website (y/n)
- User data is available using industry standard formats (which ones)
Fringe thoughts:
- Public posts can be retracted (y/n)
- Public posts can be anonymous (y/n)
There is certainly more thought required in this area, both from me and others. Love to get everyone else’s opinions on the matter.
[There is a great related discussion entitled “A Bill of Rights for Users of the Social Web” originated by Joseph Smarr, Robert Scoble, and Michael Arrington; and signed by more than two dozen leading individuals]
More specifically, to me, when I go to a web site I should have a reasonable expectation as to what I can and cannot do with the data that I bring, create, or reference within the site. And, I should also have reasonable understanding as to what the site owners can and cannot due with this collection of data related to me.
On the on hand, it doesn’t really matter what those boundaries are – provided they are disclosed up front and upheld throughout my relationship with the site. In this manner, I can make an informed decision as to whether or not I choose to continue. On the other hand, there must be disclosure, transparency, and accountability for this to work.
Ideally, I would go to a web site and there would prominently sit a Data Portability badge that identified the points of compliance in these areas that I am most concerned about. Display of the badge would provide the disclosure and transparency that I seek allowing me to make an informed decision. Likewise, display of the badge would also demonstrate accountability since the TOS identifying allowable usage of the badge would require compliance.
Further, the badge would not likely simply state compliance or non-compliance, rather “degrees” of participation. In a well structured user bill of rights, it is not likely that every site I choose to participate in will fully support every core tenant of Data Portability. I should be able to quickly identify which of the core elements that most interest me relevant to the site are in fact supported by the site.
Some of the key elements in this matter are directly related to privacy, usage, and control. From this we can then extrapolate a series of compliance statements that hopefully begin to take the shape of a user’s “bill of rights.” Specifically:
Key concepts:
- Data I bring, I have the right to take away
- Data I create, I have the right to share
- I have the right to choose who can and cannot access my data
- I have the right to access my data internally and externally
Specific questions:
- User personal data is private (y/n)
- Private data is secured (y/n)
- Personal data is fully removed upon request (y/n)
- Personal data is not sold or reused without permission (y/n)
- User data is accessible outside of the website (y/n)
- User data is available using industry standard formats (which ones)
Fringe thoughts:
- Public posts can be retracted (y/n)
- Public posts can be anonymous (y/n)
There is certainly more thought required in this area, both from me and others. Love to get everyone else’s opinions on the matter.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Facebook does about-face, shows true colors – and we like the aura!?
Having previously put its foot down regarding the proprietary nature of its instant messaging (see: Facebook bullies IM-provider Meebo), Facebook has demonstrated its desire to open its world to the masses by now embracing Meebo and their support of instant messaging via Facebook Connect.
Jason Kincaid of TechCrunch points out that this has been a contentious relationship with anyone’s bet as to the outcome. Yet here we are barely 30 days after a public smack down and Facebook is touting the very company they were previously dissing. So, what’s really going one here?
Meebo tried to provide a valued service that real-world customers craved. Facebook pointed out that such effort violated its terms of service and wielded the big hand of the giant (meaning, if we don’t provide it – you can’t). Meebo said, “yes --- but can’t we all just get along?” And then…clarity set in. Facebook affirmed that they were in fact the giant, but realized that the giant is not necessarily the enemy of the populous; and that life shared was life to be enjoyed – by ALL.
More importantly, the giant has revealed that it can dance to popular music and stay in step with the desire of the masses. This is an important precedent (one that Microsoft and Yahoo should pay more attention too), and one that we can only hope is an indication of things to come. Data portability is the enabler that allows these things to happen, and acceptance of such need is the vehicle that drives evolution, revolution, and enlightenment of the giant.
To me, Facebook has always been that elusive idea that always avoided the mainstream, that was happy living in the fringes of my vision, and that survived by not intruding on my day to day. But, particularly recently, Facebook has elevated itself to a position of leadership – of showing the way that, while not perfect, nevertheless demonstrates movement in the right direction. To quote Herbert, “The Sleeper has Awoken” -- and we all do really wish that it is everything we hope it can be!
But is this really enough, or is it just baby-steps in disguise of innovation? Opening up to another service is one thing, but embracing open standards and providing integration leadership is another thing altogether. This announcement lacks the embracement of existing and open methodologies in favor of proprietary solutions provided at the direction and discretion of the giant.
Even so, is this a step in the right direction? Absolutely. Is it enough? Not a chance. On the one hand users should smack Facebook for ignoring the entrenched standards that form the pillars of openness, on the other, they should applaud them (and encourage them) for finally moving in the right direction. But we should ALL remind Facebook that this is a work in progress and to not stray from the path. We encourage the effort and look forward to the next steps on the path to enlightenment – and ready the whip for deviation.
Jason Kincaid of TechCrunch points out that this has been a contentious relationship with anyone’s bet as to the outcome. Yet here we are barely 30 days after a public smack down and Facebook is touting the very company they were previously dissing. So, what’s really going one here?
Meebo tried to provide a valued service that real-world customers craved. Facebook pointed out that such effort violated its terms of service and wielded the big hand of the giant (meaning, if we don’t provide it – you can’t). Meebo said, “yes --- but can’t we all just get along?” And then…clarity set in. Facebook affirmed that they were in fact the giant, but realized that the giant is not necessarily the enemy of the populous; and that life shared was life to be enjoyed – by ALL.
More importantly, the giant has revealed that it can dance to popular music and stay in step with the desire of the masses. This is an important precedent (one that Microsoft and Yahoo should pay more attention too), and one that we can only hope is an indication of things to come. Data portability is the enabler that allows these things to happen, and acceptance of such need is the vehicle that drives evolution, revolution, and enlightenment of the giant.
To me, Facebook has always been that elusive idea that always avoided the mainstream, that was happy living in the fringes of my vision, and that survived by not intruding on my day to day. But, particularly recently, Facebook has elevated itself to a position of leadership – of showing the way that, while not perfect, nevertheless demonstrates movement in the right direction. To quote Herbert, “The Sleeper has Awoken” -- and we all do really wish that it is everything we hope it can be!
But is this really enough, or is it just baby-steps in disguise of innovation? Opening up to another service is one thing, but embracing open standards and providing integration leadership is another thing altogether. This announcement lacks the embracement of existing and open methodologies in favor of proprietary solutions provided at the direction and discretion of the giant.
Even so, is this a step in the right direction? Absolutely. Is it enough? Not a chance. On the one hand users should smack Facebook for ignoring the entrenched standards that form the pillars of openness, on the other, they should applaud them (and encourage them) for finally moving in the right direction. But we should ALL remind Facebook that this is a work in progress and to not stray from the path. We encourage the effort and look forward to the next steps on the path to enlightenment – and ready the whip for deviation.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Facebook’s Move to “Openness” Setting de facto Standard?
Yesterday, Facebook took a further step in opening its network by introducing enhancements and new features to its developer APIs. Facebook’s new APIs make it easier for applications to update user statuses, links, and upload videos from outside of Facebook. This effort will likely generate a flurry of activity in the developer community as new applications are created and existing ones enhanced to take advantage of these new capabilities.
[Add to this the earlier announcement of Facebook’s support of OpenID and things are definitely starting to get interesting]
But beyond the power and convenience of integration and data portability from external sources, the real story lies just below the surface. Facebook is striving to become the ultimate repository for all of your social-media information and this is another step along that path. Their platform is becoming a global data-store and their APIs are empowering developers and users with standardized methods of interaction.
On the one hand there is very little about this that is open. Facebook controls the data, its access, and its availability. Facebook defines the integration, they determine the protocols, and the APIs, and even who can and cannot use any of this. This “openness” is all under the oversight, control, direction, and whim of the giant.
Yet, when you think about it, Facebook has made huge strides in extending its world beyond the looming walls of their garden. And, while I don’t think this was their original intent, they have nevertheless listened to their user base and observed the opportunity the market presents.
Some may call it baby steps, others an attempt at world domination. But the winner today is the user (and yes, it’s pretty good for Facebook too!); and the benefits continue to evolve. Along the way, these initiatives will provide new and innovative methods for interaction with users and data that may lead to de facto standards for data portability. Will that actually happen? That depends on Facebook’s “real” position on openness, the user’s tolerance and acceptance of that position, and the response from the other great giant seeking dominance in the global data-store market – Google.
[Add to this the earlier announcement of Facebook’s support of OpenID and things are definitely starting to get interesting]
But beyond the power and convenience of integration and data portability from external sources, the real story lies just below the surface. Facebook is striving to become the ultimate repository for all of your social-media information and this is another step along that path. Their platform is becoming a global data-store and their APIs are empowering developers and users with standardized methods of interaction.
On the one hand there is very little about this that is open. Facebook controls the data, its access, and its availability. Facebook defines the integration, they determine the protocols, and the APIs, and even who can and cannot use any of this. This “openness” is all under the oversight, control, direction, and whim of the giant.
Yet, when you think about it, Facebook has made huge strides in extending its world beyond the looming walls of their garden. And, while I don’t think this was their original intent, they have nevertheless listened to their user base and observed the opportunity the market presents.
Some may call it baby steps, others an attempt at world domination. But the winner today is the user (and yes, it’s pretty good for Facebook too!); and the benefits continue to evolve. Along the way, these initiatives will provide new and innovative methods for interaction with users and data that may lead to de facto standards for data portability. Will that actually happen? That depends on Facebook’s “real” position on openness, the user’s tolerance and acceptance of that position, and the response from the other great giant seeking dominance in the global data-store market – Google.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Twitter Hacked, Reactively Eyes Solutions, Tweets on the Edge of Data Portability
The recent meltdown of Twitter security raises important issues related to Data Portability, most notably issues of security, integrity, and responsibility, that are relevant to all users. It also serves to demonstrate the need for prioritization by data stores.
Had Twitter simply said, “we will take your data and do whatever we want with it – including giving your login credentials to whomever we want” then no one would have had a problem. Of course they would probably have a lot less users.
But that is not what they said – and that is not the expectation that users had. In fact, in addition to the specific “terms of service” agreement that everyone accepts when they become Twitter users, there is an implied relationship that is created that defines the expectations of both sides. One of those is the reasonable expectation that your login information (including password) would be private and protected.
Now, obviously this is a dynamic world and there are lots of bad guys out there. And it will never be perfect. But there are straight forward solutions to many of these issues – especially in this day and age -- provided their implementations rate the necessary priority in the eyes of the Twitters (and other data stores) of the world.
To Twitters credit, their response has been quick -- and still in process. But more folks need to be proactive, not simply reactive.
Elias Bizannes, a fellow DataPortability board member, talked about this at length over at the official Data Portability blog, as did DP board member Christian Scholz here.
OAuth by itself is not the answer – but it is an important part of the solution. Ultimately the solution involves technologies such as OAuth and OpenID, but it also requires a mindset, commitment, and acceptance of responsibility in proactively keeping the rights of users always in the forefront. This is a main tenant of Data Portability and is an issue likely to dominate the headlines for some time to come – one way or the other. Companies will increasing be called out – or praised --- on this issue depending on their policies and priorities.
Had Twitter simply said, “we will take your data and do whatever we want with it – including giving your login credentials to whomever we want” then no one would have had a problem. Of course they would probably have a lot less users.
But that is not what they said – and that is not the expectation that users had. In fact, in addition to the specific “terms of service” agreement that everyone accepts when they become Twitter users, there is an implied relationship that is created that defines the expectations of both sides. One of those is the reasonable expectation that your login information (including password) would be private and protected.
Now, obviously this is a dynamic world and there are lots of bad guys out there. And it will never be perfect. But there are straight forward solutions to many of these issues – especially in this day and age -- provided their implementations rate the necessary priority in the eyes of the Twitters (and other data stores) of the world.
To Twitters credit, their response has been quick -- and still in process. But more folks need to be proactive, not simply reactive.
Elias Bizannes, a fellow DataPortability board member, talked about this at length over at the official Data Portability blog, as did DP board member Christian Scholz here.
OAuth by itself is not the answer – but it is an important part of the solution. Ultimately the solution involves technologies such as OAuth and OpenID, but it also requires a mindset, commitment, and acceptance of responsibility in proactively keeping the rights of users always in the forefront. This is a main tenant of Data Portability and is an issue likely to dominate the headlines for some time to come – one way or the other. Companies will increasing be called out – or praised --- on this issue depending on their policies and priorities.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Most likely to change the world: DataPortability!
It's in the news everywhere: Facebook Connect-this and Google Friends-that...and all the implications for users and their data that it means. Data Portability IS changing the world. So, please take a second and register your vote for Data Portability at the Crunchies:
Saturday, November 22, 2008
MashupCamp: DAY TWO
The second day of MashupCamp picked up where the previous day left off. Dave brought everyone up-to-date with the plans for the day and then the general assembly morphed into the first panel discussion: “Making the Case for Mashups in Business.”Discussion panels are new to the MashupCamp agenda and are a welcome addition. They balance the “un-conference” nature of the program and provide a good transition between the various parts.
John Musser of Programmable Web, author and technologist Dan Woods, and security guru Hart Rossman brought their considerable experience together for the mashups in business discussion.
Following the always informative sometimes intense conversation, the conference moved into the un-conference portion of the agenda: scheduling for the unscheduled discussions. A huge grid was placed on the wall of the auditorium with meeting rooms listed across the top and time slots down the side. Anyone that wanted to could suggest a discussion topic, announce it, write it out landscape-style on a piece of paper, and tape it to an available slot. The un-conference concept is dynamically generated crowd-conferencing where every individual voice has the opportunity to be heard. And if you find yourself sitting in a discussion that fails to hold your interest, you are encouraged to vote with your two feet – right out the door and into another, hopefully more engaging, conversation.
The session I hosted was entitled “Designing for DataPortability.” As you may know, I sit on the board of the International DataPortability organization. I was fortunate that three other members of the twelve person world-wide board also joined me, including the chairwoman of the organization.There are lots of great things happening in the world of data portability and in particular with the DataPortability organization. The conversation was brisk, intense, and spanned many aspects of the current and envisioned state of data portability.
Following five hours of un-conference discussions, Dave held a wrap up followed by a mandatory meeting for “Best Mashup” competitors. The latter prepared the contestants for the day to follow where they and their creations would be the stars of the show, and one would be crowned king (or queen).
The second day of the conference officially ended around 6pm, however many eager (and harried) contest entrants were huddled in corners, strewn around the various tables of the main hall, or hunkered down in the conference-provided “hacker’s den.” This went on for some time into the evening as they all endeavored to create the next great award-winning mashup for fame, glory, bragging rights -- and cool prizes![This is the second party of a three part article]
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
JS-Kit, DataPortability, and Commenting
I recently responded to an excellent post by Chris Saad (a fellow board member of the DataPortability Organization). He basically layed out scenarious for hosting, posting, and monitoring comments posted to websites.
His full post is at: Rich , Interactive Features for your siteFinding balance in the force
My response:
The rights conveyed depend on the context. If I agree to post to a public forum, then I should be aware that my comments may be copied and propagated all over the place – and there’s not much anyone can do about it. I’m ok with this because I knew going in that is was a public forum. You, the site owner, do not have the right to modify my content unless I say you can. You do have the right to delete it in its entirety (revoking the invitation to post in the first place).
On the other hand, if I post something when you tell me that the venue is non-public or limited in scope, then I have every expectation that you will honor that representation. But you still can’t change my stuff unless I specifically grant you permission (BTW, you may get that permission as part of the TOS provided before I post).
An important variant on this theme is related to mature and potentially objectionable content – again dictated by context. There is no world-wide sensor (thankfully) and there is no clear standard for mature or objectionable content. Once again, relationship must be dictated by conveyance, that is: you get to post on my site provided you agree to a, b, and c. And, you can be comfortable in posting on my site because I represent back to to you x, y, and z.
From a technology implementation standpoint (and I am quite familiar with JS-Kit’s awesome products, having dealt with them previously through Zude), the real challenge/opportunity is all about the flexibility of dealing with all of these scenarios without encumbering the product or confusing the user.
Steve Repetti
RadWebTech.com
His full post is at: Rich , Interactive Features for your siteFinding balance in the force
My response:
The rights conveyed depend on the context. If I agree to post to a public forum, then I should be aware that my comments may be copied and propagated all over the place – and there’s not much anyone can do about it. I’m ok with this because I knew going in that is was a public forum. You, the site owner, do not have the right to modify my content unless I say you can. You do have the right to delete it in its entirety (revoking the invitation to post in the first place).
On the other hand, if I post something when you tell me that the venue is non-public or limited in scope, then I have every expectation that you will honor that representation. But you still can’t change my stuff unless I specifically grant you permission (BTW, you may get that permission as part of the TOS provided before I post).
An important variant on this theme is related to mature and potentially objectionable content – again dictated by context. There is no world-wide sensor (thankfully) and there is no clear standard for mature or objectionable content. Once again, relationship must be dictated by conveyance, that is: you get to post on my site provided you agree to a, b, and c. And, you can be comfortable in posting on my site because I represent back to to you x, y, and z.
From a technology implementation standpoint (and I am quite familiar with JS-Kit’s awesome products, having dealt with them previously through Zude), the real challenge/opportunity is all about the flexibility of dealing with all of these scenarios without encumbering the product or confusing the user.
Steve Repetti
RadWebTech.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)