Here is a blog I wrote about how your likes can be gamed and when they are they become less of a signal and indeed can become worthless to a company.  But thinking further....What if when you bought a new tech gizmo, the price was higher because your "Likes" or  "tweets" constantly referenced your love and devotion for the product - and you did this as you wanted to win one? This is called online behavioural pricing (under the banner of behavioural economics.)  Whilst if there was one supplier in the market, it could be a consumer’s worst nightmare as it uses the traces of your Digital Footprint to maximize prices on the products and services you want most. However, it rather directs us towards Doc Searls work on VRM - where we set the terms and the price.

image source : http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Gd6AxrhM2wE/TUcs7oE6EfI/AAAAAAAABUU/Tpp2fb6jeYM/s40...

Some scenarios to think about

Digital footprints are about how your data describes you - but as we start to game (gamification) with you and how you react, do we loose the purity of the signal?

Example....

option 1; your "like" is being bought by the competitions that say "like me and get a free iPad"  - you have been bought

option 2; your "like" is earned as you decide that you "like" something for a reason

             the original reason "A Facebook Like is supposed to show a user’s approval of a brand, product or piece of content"

option 3; Your "like" brings value to you and the community - self interest

Experian Hitwise calculated that a Like generates 20 visits to brand sites;

Deals platform ChompOn reckons a Like is worth $8, a Twitter follow worth $2 and an individual tweet worth $2 in additional sales of deals on its services.

A study by the CMO Council shows your likes can be gamed by asking you to enter a competition. Incentives are a common way to drive up Twitter followers, get positive "customer" reviews, posts and tweets and generate word of mouth. Sites like ReviewMe and Buy Twitter Followers even allow you to skip the incentive and buy results.

The outcome

Your SIGNALS are not pure and "Like" become  meaningless. Back to the drawing board - how do I find out what you "like" so I can sell you more?

ScreenAgers (millennials, gen Y, facebook generation, born global) really don't respond to ads us, according to a new white paper from ComScore, based on nearly 1,000 TV tests and 35 digital advertising tests by its ARS copy testing group.

Yet here's the rub: Young people have always tuned out TV ads more than others, according to ComScore, which has research on the subject dating five decades because of its 2010 acquisition of ARSgroup. The gap between younger and older largely disappears when it comes to digital ads, however.

ComScore based the conclusions on surveys showing "share of choice," or the difference between groups of people exposed to ads and those not exposed when asked which among a set of competitive products they'd like to win.

Among the key findings:... ScreenAgers (millennials, gen Y, facebook generation, born global)

• don't respond to TV ads as much as their elders. Younger people were less responsive to TV ads in studies from 1961, 1988 and 1999, and the differences are actually narrowing. The average lift in share of choice among millennials (ages 16 to 29) was 4.6 percentage points in 2011, compared with 6.4 points for boomers. But in 1988, there was an even bigger generational divide of 10.5 to 13.8 points.
• are about as responsive to digital ads as other generations. The average share-of-choice lift for millennials for digital ads in the 2011 study was 6.0, vs. 6.8 for boomers and 6.4 for seniors, a much smaller difference than with TV. It's the first time ComScore or ARS looked at digital ads, as they didn't exist in 1988 and clients weren't paying for many digital ad tests in 1999. And it's not because the lifts were smaller for digital. They were actually higher across-the-board for the digital ads -- though with a small sample of 35 studies vs. nearly 1,000 for TV.
• respond to the same advertising approaches as prior generations. The biggest needle-movers for them in TV ads are brand differentiation, competitive comparisons, information about new products or features and superiority claims. Showing the product and the brand or logo longer also helps. So, sorry, all you agency creatives out there. You haven't heard the last of "make the logo bigger."
• are more engaged in all kinds of media than older folks. In ComScore tests that ask people about how much value they place on a program or website, millennials had engagement scores that were on average 10.3% ahead of boomers for TV programming, but an even bigger 22.2% gap over boomers on digital media. Seniors had the lowest engagement scores.
• may respond less to TV ads, but at least they remember them longer. Millennials are less likely than their elders to recall an ad immediately after seeing it, losing by a 43%-to-54% margin to boomers and seniors on this front. Three days later, it's a different story, as 24% of millennials on average remember an ad vs. only 18% of seniors. One hypothesis is that the fading memories of older folks are to blame, said Douglas Crang, director at ComScore. Fading recall among older consumers is a pattern that has existed in tests since the 1960s. ARS has a long memory, even if boomers and seniors don't.

Image from http://www.prosumer-report.com/blog/2011/11/a-cloudy-forecast-for-screenagers/ which is another report on the same theme

Network is a remarkably piece of motion graphics by graphic design student Michael Rigley exploring the secret life of our MMS data and the tradeoffs we inadvertently face as we choose convenience of communication over privacy and control of personal data.

Not sure about the "identity" link - but what is a word when the concept/ content is so good

The Department of Psychology at the University of Texas published a study that found that Facebook users are no different online than they are offline.

"Manifestations of Personality in Online Social Networks: Self-Reported Facebook-Related Behaviors and Observable Profile Information" published in Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. Unsurprisingly the study revealed strong connections between real personality and online-related behaviour.

Professor Samuel D. Gosling and his colleagues found that self-reported personality traits are accurately reflected in online social networks such as Facebook by looking at the big five personality traits - openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism.

There are two studies covered in the paper

Study 1

Researchers examined personality and self-reported Facebook-related behaviors. The study drew 159 participants from a psychology student study pool at Washington University in St. Louis; 68% were female. Of those who shared their ethnicity, the numbers boiled down to 7% African-American, 18% Asian, 68% white or Caucasian and 6% other. Study subjects were assessed using the Ten Item Personality Inventory and 11-item self-reported Facebook-specific activities.

Extroverted Facebook users reported the most friends and highest engagement levels. Conscientious types, who are characterized as disciplined, organized and achievement-oriented, reported the least Facebook usage across the board. Overall, extroverts tended to engage more than introverts.

Facebook might not be a real-world coffee shop or a bar, spaces where real-life social interaction occur, but it certainly is a space where extraverts seek out virtual social engagement.

Study 2

Personality and Observable Information on Facebook Profiles, "researchers examined whether objectively assessed observable information found on Facebook profiles was associated with personality traits. One-hundred and thirty-three people from the University of Texas at Austin received $10 compensation, were entered into a lottery to win $100 in exchange and received partial fulfillment of course requirements if they were already enrolled in Introductory Psychology. The participants signed up via the Web; they did not know that this study was about Facebook. Of participants, 61% were female. Forty-two percent were Asian, Asian-American, Indian or Pacific-Islander; 53% Caucasian or white; 13% Hispanic or Latino/a; 9% black or African-American and 2% other.

The researchers saved the Facebook profiles of participants after they signed up so that participants would not be able to alter anything before the research officially began. After that, nine undergraduate research assistants (five female, four male) rated the personality of the 133 participants based only on their Facebook profiles. If the observers realized that they already knew one of the participants in an offline context, their ratings were not used.

Individual Facebook profiles were coded with eight types of information: number of photos, number of photo albums (some were user-generated wall photos, others thematic), number of words in the free-response "about me" section, number of wall posts, number of groups, number of friends in local network based on region or organization, total number of friends, number of networks (groups linked by a common region or organization). The researchers found a number of links between observable information on Facebook profiles and the users' actual personalities….. Extraversion was correlated with the number of friends overall and the number of friends in the local network. These personality types seek out virtual social contact and were more engaged in online social experience than introverts.

The other dimension associated with information was openness, which correlated with number of friends in both local and total networks. The researchers did not discover a correlation between conscientiousness or agreeableness and observable profile information. Openness was expressed through exploring new activities, meeting people and changing the visual scenery. Neuroticism was not easy readable on Facebook; researchers found it difficult to judge by outside observers, especially in relation to more observable traits like extroversion. The study also found that low-conscientious procrastinators used Facebook as a way to avoid doing actual work.

The study determined that online social networks are not an escape from reality, but rather a microcosm of peoples' larger social worlds and an extension of offline behaviors.

Irrespective of the wrong motivations, we don’t need more security. We do need to talk to our kids more and to be more open. Kids like to be in a place where adults don’t have control so they can explore – we have all done it. We also need to wake up and understand that we cannot control the future or bring our fears to stop the next gernation taking over from us.  But we love to think we are in control!

On SSRN: The PII Problem: Privacy and a New Concept of Personally Identifiable Information

by Paul Schwartz University of California, Berkeley – School of Law, and Daniel Solove, George Washington University Law School

Abstract: Personally identifiable information (PII) is one of the most central concepts in information privacy regulation. The scope of privacy laws typically turns on whether PII is involved. The basic assumption behind the applicable laws is that if PII is not involved, then there can be no privacy harm. At the same time, there is no uniform definition of PII in information privacy law.

Moreover, computer science has shown that in many circumstances non-PII can be linked to individuals, and that de-identified data can be re-identified. PII and non-PII are thus not immutable categories, and there is a risk that information deemed non-PII at one time can be transformed into PII at a later juncture. Due to the malleable nature of what constitutes PII, some commentators have even suggested that PII be abandoned as the mechanism by which to define the boundaries of privacy law.

In this Article, we argue that although the current approaches to PII are flawed, the concept of PII should not be abandoned. We develop a new approach called “PII 2.0,” which accounts for PII’s malleability. Based upon a standard rather than a rule, PII 2.0 utilizes a continuum of risk of identification. PII 2.0 regulates information that relates to either an “identified” or “identifiable” individual, and it establishes different requirements for each category. To illustrate this theory, we use the example of regulating behavioral marketing to adults and children. We show how existing approaches to PII impede the effective regulation of behavioral marketing, and how PII 2.0 would resolve these problems.

full text of the article, The PII Problem: Privacy and a New Concept of Personally Identifiable Information by Paul Schwartz, Daniel Solove :: SSRN.

A survey carried out by MyMemory  in Oct 2011 involved 1,781 Facebook users from all over the UK and suggests that the presence of alcohol is in 76% of British Facebook photos which may or may not determine a certain level of inebriation.  Further the study found that the UK's adult Facebook users were drunk in three out of every four images that they were tagged in. Of the users who were polled, only 12% of them don’t let anyone see their photos, while 58% allow their friends to look at their pictures. However, over a quarter say that their photos are viewable by anyone on Facebook. 8% went as far as saying that their photos might lead to “serious trouble at work”.

Another fact that came to light was that 93 per cent of UK Facebook users admitted to deleting tags on those images considered as compromising and "embarrassing."

In a separate study my MyMemory, it appears that ex-lovers aren’t always consigned to the past amongst Britons, and has revealed that over a third, 36%, of adults in relationships around the UK admit to keeping a ‘secret’ photo of an ex-lover; without the knowledge of their other half.

Take 2 Minutes to Clean Your Apps Permissions. Try guessing how many apps have permissions to access your private information... Now click the icons and get ready for a surprise!   http://mypermissions.org/

Love it – does what it says on the tin.

Created by http://avich.com/blog/  @aviche

This was a project I worked on for SWIFT*, lead internally by Peter Van Auwera  along with the Identity Gang: Gary Thompson, Doc Searls, Kaliya Hamlin, Drummond Reed, Andreas Weigend, Craig Burton, Mary Hodder, Don Thibeau, Scott David, and Peter Hinssen.

*SWIFT is the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications and is a global organization that each day handles financial transactions such as wire transfers for more than 9,000 banks, is preparing an expansion into data banking – helping to secure all types of digital exchanges.

The question: Can SWIFT succeed in doing what Microsoft and other tech titans famously failed to achieve and build something that is useful in the identity space? Microsoft tried to introduce something similar 10 years ago with its Passport and Hailstorm initiatives; Intel, Sun, Oracle and AOL attempted to develop such a service through a group called The Liberty Alliance

Background: Data is becoming a new type of raw material, on a par with capital and labour, according to a 2011 World Economic Forum report, Personal Data: The Emergence of a New Asset Class. Some of the largest Internet companies, including Google and Facebook reap most of the profits from collecting, aggregating, analyzing and monetizing personal data. Consumers have no control and little knowledge of what is being done with their data.

Scenario: It is desirable to put control and dissemination of personal data “back” into the hands of the individual. The idea is each person’s data would reside in an account where it would be controlled, traded and accounted for – much like a bank account. The services would be interoperable so that the data could be exchanged with other institutions and individuals globally. Users might even leverage their data in the same way money is leveraged for credit.

Trust: The WEF report says, “an essential requirement would be for the services to operate over a technical and legal infrastructure that is highly trusted.” That is where SWIFT comes in. It is a neutral organization that already operates a secure global network with an established legal framework, placing it in pole position to facilitate access to secure personal-data services.  SWIFT has a closed, highly reliable and secure network for interchange of money between the banks. The vision is that you could take that underlying infrastructure and make it more open and more interchangeable, and make it work between any entities.

The Proposal:  build a Digital Asset Grid as per the diagram. The arrows represent the new proposed SWIFT infrastructure service. This infrastructure would provide trusted and certified pointers to digital asset content and associated digital asset usage rights. An ecosystem of banks and other parties would build Digital Asset Services (blue boxes) that leverage this trusted infrastructure service. Users interact with the blue services and the underlying infrastructure via the selector and the weaver. The SELECTOR is a secure mechanism to manage the flow of claims. The WEAVER allows the “weaving” of digital assets with digital rights and the entities that receive those rights. Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 [The weaving concept was originally introduced at SIBOS in 2010: that talk can be heard here by Gary Thompson]

The Vision: The Digital Asset Grid is to move the SWIFT network and SWIFT services from a closed, single-purpose, and messaging-based system to an open, general-purpose, API-based system.

Next Steps: building a prototype in 2012 and finding a dance partner!

The web (if represented as a collection of pages) is based on some simple request-response mechanisms. I request a page and the server responds and gives me the page. End of that transaction. With the “dataweb” – a collection of Digital Assets and associated usage rights; there is a need for something where exchanging entities can perform a dance around and with the Digital Assets. And we want to be sure that they are who they say they are, and that they have the right usage rights to the digital assets. So we move from a two dimensional view of the world (in computer terms a “table”) to a multi-dimensional view (in computer terms a “graph”)

One of the many use cases for the Digital Asset Grid would be to solve compliance, Instead of moving messages from A to B, we keep the DATA where it originates and “point” to them with SWIFT certified pointers to where the data are located and the associated usage rights.

The dance protocol (full duplex) for this use case, from opening of the dance with (a “webhook” in technical terms), to the actual picking-up of the content, and closing the dance and everything in-between, could look like something like this:

·          PartyA: “hey, I am sending a signal that I wanna dance the tango (slang for payment instructions) with any party in the Swift dance hall at 9pm”

·          PartyB: “yep, I wanna dance with you, let’s meet in the SWIFT dance hall at the bar”

·          PartyA: “ok, here we are, cool place

·          PartyA: “Let’s get to business”

·          PartyA: “I just gave you following rights my payment instructions at this XRI: you have XDI pick-up rights”

·          PartyB: “ok, gotja. Will pick it up right away”

·          PartyB: “knock knock, I am coming to fetch those payment instructions”

·          PartyA: “let’s check if you have the usage rights….”

·          PartyA: “everything looks fine, go ahead”

·          PartyB: “loading, loading, loading…”

·          PartyB: “Ok I am done”

·          PartyA: “So am I”

·          PartyB: “tomorrow, same place same time to dance ?”

·          PartyA: “would love to

·          PartyB: “sure, bye bye”

·          PartyA: “bye bye”

I really enjoyed contributing to this project and it is a joy to work with a company that is open about innovation, the output and looking to engage at an early stage with the widest possible community. Well done @petervan and Kosta (@copernicc)