My starting position is that the education system is encouraging the Social Media Generation (SMG) to think about their digital footprints – Halleluja!   I agree with the principal that you should make ‘people’ aware that what their write about themselves can come back to haunt them.  Indeed, further, what they say about others may be an indication of their professionalism.   However, following a round table, it is also evident that what the SMG have done is created ‘virtual identies’  There is one, the public facebook which looks like they have never done anything exciting or broken any health and safety law (basically rather dull and duitiful), and then the series of private worlds where they use nick names to share the reality of their shared lives.

Therefore, the employer can now see a perfect digital history, which has been created for them, meaning that as an employer your online check is now as good as reviewing a CV.  You know it is beefed up, indeed Mr Employer did you know that I can now buy virtual (facebook) friends who make me look good (rock on Chinese entrepreneurs)

The SMG are extended their use of virtual identities further to their address books on digital devices (mobile phone)  The names of friends have changed from the shorted first name or the nick name you cannot loose to esoteric names such as “Master Frog” and “Mrs Smith”  enabling them to hide conversations and identity from their friends and others (especially parents)  Indeed it appears that some don’t tell the real person who or what they are called in their address book, so hiding identities if your phone is stolen or borrowed.

So are we encouraging the Social Media Generation to lie and hide now that they know that they can be tracked?

Location should have created substantial new value on a mobile operators’ balance sheet.  In their rush to control and lock down this valuable data set, the operators set the charges to high and put up an impossible API; these actions meant that by-pass and alternatives would flourish and they have. Location is in so many ways unique to mobile, therefore we are right to question how an operator could try to capture some value back.

Here is an idea for you (free)   I would like my operator to control the location that my applications sees, I want someone to become the intermediately and offer me a “trusted service”, as the value has migrated from the knowing location to managing it.

Some example:-

Rich and Famous - you want to tweet your latest update with your location. Would be good but this means the Mr Robber and Mrs Burglar know that you are out or somewhere.  Please can someone allow me to put a false location on my tweets for a period to protect my privacy.

Celebrity – you want to tweet your latest update with your location. Would be good but this means you can be found by the hoards of fans who will mob you.  Please can someone put a 20 minute delay in my location.  Make it available but not in real time, unless I want to party with my fans.

Single female – I want to update Foresquare, but I am worried about …..  Please can my trusted location provider/ manager make my location available later, at some time period I am happy with.

The trusted service is to add a user control layer that adds a time delay to when your location become public.  Mr Operator, you could do it, but I expect that someone will do it before you.   Is this a big money spinner NO, this is about control, trust and loyalty; YES - think branding!

Migrating some original work from May 2007

Why does “Eric Schmitt” the CEO of Google say that “mobile, mobile, mobile” is the next opportunity.  My viewpoint is that the ownership of mobile originated data is the opportunity.

Within my understanding; 2.0 as a movement is about the network effect, collective intelligence, wisdom of crowds, tribes, clans, clubs and all other manner of long tail matters.  Web 2.0 is the passing phase from1.0; which centred on cost reduction and brand values.  Moving from 1.0 to 2.0 is the same as moving from separation, isolation and solitude to relationship, engagement and conversation.  Consumerism 2.0 will be built on mobility and trust.

Eric Schmitt, the CEO of Google, said “mobile, mobile, mobile” as the next opportunity at the O’Reilly Web2Expo in San Francisco last month, where I was speaking on Mobile Web 2.0. I fully agrees that the mobile platform provides an opportunity that can advance faster and further than any other platform; such as the Web, TV, radio or newspaper.  The mobile based form factor will be both the preferred method of IP access globally and, being always with you, will be the prime source of collecting your data or ‘Digital Footprint’, which Google would like to own and exploit!

Our mobile device is not only with us, it is increasingly part of us; it has become for many users the most personal thing. Published research suggests that we notice the loss of the mobile device faster than our wallet. The mobile device, if capable, can capture your ‘Digital Footprint’ [My first impression of this was described as ‘the slug trail’ in Being Digital by Nicholas Negroponte 1996. Digital Footprint is also known as a ‘Lifestream.’  ‘Lifestreams’ will soon be structured using APML as a common data interchange format for attention or iPALS - identity, Presence, Attention, Location and Services.] which is our daily actions and activities; when we start moving in the morning, what information was searched, requested or delivered, where we have been, where we stayed and for how long.  Relationship analysis using our contact base would detail who we were with and who was nearby.  Other Screens of Life [‘Screens of Life’ is a phrase explored in Mobile Web 2.0 as a mechanism to describe how we interact with media; both as a consumer of content and as a creator. The screens of life being Cinema, TV, PC, HeadRest (Airplane or Car), Mobile Device, Informational (iPod)] will be unable to repeat this data collection feat, at best a fixed access Web model may get 10% of the available data of your daily pattern, TV maybe 1%, but the mobile device opens the possibility of 90%

Assuming privacy laws and big brother objections can be overcome, this Digital Footprint of captured data or its aggregated trends has a use and a value.  The use is personalisation, the exploitation of personalisation is sales and marketing, the value is based on ownership of Digital Footprints. This Digital Footprint being made up of clicks, attention, location and is the focus of our converged industries. 2.0 as a movement has a fascination with this data, in O’Reilly language ‘the next Intel inside.’ Digital Footprints are about where we have been, for low long, how often and the inter-relationships. Digital Footprints are not about individual identity, passport numbers, bank account details or social security numbers. Digital Footprint metadata comes from the Screens of Life – the digital metadata of who we are, the true value to marketing income based companies who need this data for personalisation and why the ownership of this data is the battle ground to be won and lost, the reason why I speculate that Eric Schmidt wakes up thinking about how to own an individuals mobile metadata before he looks at his email or worries about the value of Double Click or improving the search algorithm. 

Bothered 2.0!

I would contend that this Digital Footprint or metadata belongs to me - its creator.  However, who will I trust with my Digital Footprint if I don’t want Google, Amazon, Ebay, Vodafone, News Corp or Disney to have ownership of it. I need a trusted, open Digital Footprint store, collecting, collating and serving my metadata, through an open API across all platforms and services.  I recognise the value of sharing a Digital Footprint, as it leads to service companies improving my mobile, Web or TV experience through personalisation and offsetting cost. But who should I trust and what should I trust them for; as most 2.0 corporations want my Digital Footprint metadata to justify the business model; as owners of Digital Footprints will control advertising revenue. As Google only controls the Web footprint, control of the mobile is critical, especially as mobile devices adds two whole new classes of unclaimed data platforms, availability and location.

Should I be bothered or not?

one of the joys of the android phone and some other services is "voice search"

Applications are as obvious as:

- sitting in the kitchen needing to convert lbs to Kg, hands are dirty, but you can use voice search to find out

- driving along and needing to find directions or a phone number

- leaving a voice reminder to do some action later

However, would you feel the same about this (voice oriented) data and the search results being added to your digital footprint as one you typed in.  I am starting to explore why we feel differently about our voice conversations than typed data.   If adverting appeared for a kitchen scale conversion on your TV after your searched would you mind?

All views welcome.

Don’t forget to do a factory reset before you pass it on – or you will compromise your identity, privacy, security, reputation ……

Close to dark side thinking I believe and it starts from the wrong point. They question again is why regulate storage of data.  All data should be thrown away. Regulate collection and maybe what can be done with analysis.  My view is that the existing framework is broken and is not suitable for adaptation.

However, I expect it will all happen and have passed by the time the regulator catches up.

Parliament would like more privacy and security in relation to the internet of things

The European Parliament welcomes the development of the internet of things (IoT) but asks the Commission to set up a clear legal framework on the security, safety, privacy and protection of personal data in relation to the IoT. It also points out concerns on other issues not directly related to the IoT, including on the legal uncertainty surrounding cloud computing.

The resolution adopted on June 15, 2010 also proposes that the Commission should carry out a detailed assessment of a number of issues linked to the use of RFID technology, including the protection against cyber attacks, guarantees on the personal data protection and the right to remove or disable tags after purchase (the so-called right to „chip silence‟).

The IoT refers to applications where physical objects become connected through complex networks and provide information about themselves and their surroundings. Examples are for instance fridges able to inform the consumer on any product past its use-by date or cars equipped with chips connected to web-enabled mobile phones to convey information in real time on traffic jams.

1. Background

The resolution follows the adoption exactly one year ago by the European Commission of an action plan, which explains how the Commission will assess and regulate the emergence of the IoT (see EU Ecom Tracker 27). The action plan identifies six main areas of actions to ensure trust and safety for all citizens in the context of the IoT: governance, privacy and protection of personal data, security, standardisation and interoperability, research and development, and awareness-raising and international cooperation.

2. The resolution

The resolution stresses that the IoT requires safe, transparent and multilateral governance as well as a clear legal framework related to data protection and security. It supports the Commission focus on safety, security, governance, privacy and protection of personal data but asks for some complementary measures, including to:

 adapt the current data protection directive to the digital environment (see EU Ecom Tracker 23);

 clarify the concept of „data owner‟ and „data controller‟ related to data automatically collected and processed;

 assess the impact of IoT applications on the current internet network infrastructure in terms of network congestion and data security;

 ensure the development of a transparent system preventing fraud and allowing device identity authentication and traceability;

 strive to establish international standards for IoT applications to facilitate interoperability as well as infrastructure openness, transparency and technology neutrality;

 coordinate the actions on IoT with the work on the Digital Agenda (see EU Ecom Tracker 1);

 give more consideration to the objective of building an inclusive IoT to which all European citizens should have access;

 raise European citizens‟ awareness of new technologies and their applications and promote digital literacy and e-skills.

On the use of RFID technology (e.g. chips and tags), Parliament asks the Commission to:

 give consumers the right to privacy by opt-in and/or by „privacy by design‟ (tag disablement at the point of sale should be automatic unless consumers agree otherwise);

 reflect on the right of citizens to choose products that are not equipped with IoT applications or to be disconnected from their networked environment.

The resolution also asks the Commission to take the following additional actions, which are not directly linked to the IoT:

 to analyse, with the help of operators, aspects related to Wi-Fi security systems;

 to assess the possibility of further lowering data roaming costs.

On cloud computing, Parliament stresses the potential “danger” related to the legal uncertainty surrounding cloud computing, but does not ask the Commission to take any specific measure.

NB. The Commission Digital Agenda foresees the development of a European strategy on cloud computing.

Finally, the Commission is asked to publish by the end of 2010 a timetable with its proposed actions to improve the safety of the internet of things and RFID applications.

Sorry, but could not resist this one for a Friday. Honest there is a link to digital footprints.  Given the previous blog about PeekYou – you are left asking how difficult the connection becomes and what happens if you want to break it.

Here is the article http://ilovewhatwomenwant.blogspot.com/2010/06/married-women-should-say-i-dont-to.html

When we all think of the giant step of marriage, the last thing that comes to mind is the name change- but little do most of us know that it's probably the most important issue that could either make or break your career status.  Studies show that women who choose to take their partner's name are regarded as more caring but less competent, less intelligent, and less ambitious - They are also less likely to be hired for a job and will earn much less than those who choose to keep their own name.

For example:
"Jo-Anne Stayner, co-founder of I’m a Mrs, a Vancouver-based name-change service company, said a growing number of Canadian women are choosing to hold onto their maiden names as a “trade name” but adopt their partner’s name on passports, bank accounts and other official documents. “That’s all because of digital footprint,” she explained. If you change your name, “you have to start over from scratch when it comes to your digital footprint, and I think that’s a really big one for people that have worked so hard in establishing themselves in their careers.”

Some noble high profile women who have kept their own name include: Sandra Bullock, Courtney Cox Arquette, and Halle Berry... just to name a few.

What are your thoughts? Would you give up a budding career just to take on your partner's name? or are you the type to hold onto a small part of your independence in order to save your digital footprint and career?

The younger US Net generation is getting smarter about online presence but not because they’re concerned about online reputations. The new Pew/Internet’s report, “Reputation Management & Social Media,” “Young adults, far from being indifferent about their digital footprints, are the most active online reputation managers in several dimensions. For example, more than two-thirds (71%) of social networking users aged 18-29 have changed the privacy settings on their profile to limit what they share with others online” and are more likely to do so than older users (55% of SN users aged 50-64 have changed their settings).

Pew senior research specialist Mary Madden says that users are learning personal info management;  “as they go – changing privacy settings on profiles, customizing who can see certain updates, and deleting unwanted information about them that appears online.” Those privacy features, along with search engines to check what peers see when they search for you, “now play a central role in building one’s identity online,”

Privacy settings & other steps: In addition to changing privacy settings, here are other ways 18-to-29-year-old social Web users are outshining older ones in rep management:

• 44% limit the amount of personal information they put online, compared to users aged 30-49 (33%), 50-64 (25%), and 65+ (20%)
• 47% delete unwanted comments, compared to 29% of users 30-49 and 26% of users 50-64
• 41% remove their name from photos tagged with their name, compared to 24% of users 30-49 and 18% of users 50-64.

Less concern. Maybe getting smarter means less worry: “Over time,” Pew found, “users have become less likely to express concern about the amount of information available about them online,” Pew says. A third (33%) of Net users are concerned now, down from 40% in December 2006.

Fewer missteps. Pew says that what may be contributing to decreasing concerns is that “very few Internet users have experienced reputational missteps online.” It found that “only 4% of internet users report having bad experiences because embarrassing or inaccurate information was posted about them online (unchanged since 2006),” and “just 6% of highly visible ‘public personae’ … required to self-promote online” report bad experiences (see this page of the report).

What are they doing about it? Eighteen percent of 18-to-29-year-old Net users have asked someone to delete something posted about them online, compared to 8% of Net users overall (and the latter is twice the number of users who report having embarrassing or inaccurate info posted about them).

How’s that going? Very well, Pew says. “Fully 82%” of Net users who have requested that content about them be taken down “say their efforts are usually effective, compared to 17% who say they are not usually successful at getting information about them removed (Pew found that 76% of that content is photos or videos, and 37% was some sort of written content, like a comment or blog post).

Negotiating spin. Though this is about “spin control,” in the way political consultants try to manage perceptions, it’s not about control anymore. Everybody’s inner political consultant (or spin doctor) is now operating in a media environment in which spin control has become spin negotiation. The high “success rate” (82%) Pew reports for getting negative content taken down is encouraging – a sign that negotiated, or collaborative, reputation management can gets results.

An important question to consider when thinking about digital footprints and what you post about yourself.  If you were interviewing someone, what would you prefer?

1. someone who lies about their past

2. someone who hides their past

3. someone who is honest about their past

4. someone who is proud of their past

It could be that your history is a great way to show how you have changed and matured, grown up, learnt to manage risk.  Your history, success and mistakes are not your millstone - it is why your have your values

So you have got yourself into a digital mess. Pictures that are not fitting for the new image, blog posts that are not so in thinking with the new role, friends who are just links and you need it all cleaned up. 

Alas life coaches and other ‘social engineers’ are re-branding and emerging with a promise that they will come and save you.  The guarantee is that they will clean it all up and start again…. 

Please don’t fall for anyone who promises to clean up your digital past.   Just a quick change of name, a new profile or a new privacy setting is not the answer, neither is deleting, re-starting, clearing cookies or buying a new computer as this is only the data that is in your control.  The content you need to think about is what others have said about you, not what you say about yourself.