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!

In the good old days there was the phone book.  A list of all phone numbers in your area.  You could flick through this open, public record and find out where someone lived and their phone number.  Easy, simple and in black and white delivered to your door.

Back in 2006 when Ajit Jaokar and I wrote "Mobile Web 2.0" we created an idea about "I am a tag and not a number" - which was to become a bedrock of PhoneBook 2.0 thinking.  The thinking was that phone books will die as the phone number is dead; you will become what others tag you as.  This move would allow phonebooks to move on from a disconnected phone number and become an connected action and activity delivering: book a meeting, message, call, IM, find and locate,

In the old model you trusted the company who printed the phone book to remove (in the next addition) your details if you so wanted.  However, once printed there was always a copy at the library if you wanted older versions to see if someone had just gone x-directory.

Yes there was a lot of work involved, you had to find the directory, pick it up, use your brain to determine where "F" "I" "S" "H" was in the alphabet, run your finger down the page and horror, write down the number, before you walked to a phone and dialled in the number.

But, however you look at it, this was a public record and was open. So why is there so much concern about web directories.  Yes it is easier to find and any lazy fool can do it from anywhere, but so what?

Is it that we now don't know who to turn to become x-directory (there are too many) or is it that we cannot delete what is there or is it that we are worried about someone else other than a trusted party publishing our data.

In the old printed world there was a sense of control, redress and trust, in the new on-line world we only control what we say we say about ourselves, but cannot control and have little ability to redress what others say about us, or someone providing data that we want, for whatever reason, to keep from open and public scrutiny.

Did our forefathers think, debate, wrestle about the implications of printing every phone number is an open and public book, or was it a useful utility?

The FT do some fabulous podcasts The first part of the Digital business one this week is quite thought provoking. Peter Whitehead speaks about what he terms the "satnav generation" and how we may be placing too much emphasis on technical ability over context. http://podcast.ft.com/index.php?pid=723

He explores the idea that the digital natives (those who have grown up in the digital age) have a downside insomuch as they are a “mapless” generation.  Digital natives can get from A to B beautifully and easily, follow the instructions; however they don’t know where they are.  They don’t have any context.   Peter extends this to the idea they can answer any question, but do not know where the information fits.  The point being that information without context is dangerous and naïve as growing up is the move from information and data to become knowledge and intelligence. 

He rounds the short piece off with the concept that digital native generation may be poor decision makers as they  become narrow and cannot see the wider context.

Whilst I am sure that the example given is true in some selective cases, and as any consultant will tell you, it actually all depends.  Yes this satnav generation can find data, some will stop at this point lifting their status from numb-nut to hunter whilst other will immediately understand or be able to get context. 

Foursquare could be a good example. One side of the service is you know where your friends are but also they know where you are and it is your social crowd that gives you context. They (your friends) will be able to say what is near by, check out this, go here, even search secret London  Surly the issue is not about the generation but rather those who don't have a social crowd to provide the rounding and diversity.

All generations bring up those who cannot make decisions, however the satnav generation with its public vocal voice may produce more blaggers than other generations.  Therefore for me, digital reputation becomes even more important. 

I was invited by Olswang to private viewing of Erasing David which is a documentary about privacy, surveillance and the database state. Made with The Channel 4 BRITDOC Foundation

“David Bond lives in one of the most intrusive surveillance states in the world. He decides to find out how much private companies and the government know about him by putting himself under surveillance and attempting to disappear a decision that changes his life forever. Leaving his pregnant wife and young child behind, he is tracked across the database state on a chilling journey that forces him to contemplate the meaning of privacy and the loss of it.” 

The plot is about David, who tries to run away and hide and in the process discovers how his data can be tracked and presents his story. The film will be in cinemas on 29^th April 2010, and screened on the UK’s Channel 4 Television on 4th May 2010.

From my perspective it is a dark side story line about privacy, surveillance and liberty, where if you have nothing to hide or fear you will be fine.

This post is not a blow by blow transcript or film critic. As a documentary it brings out some great points, from a clear stance and perspective; if you are concerned, be really concerned. However, here are a few take aways....... Some I don't agree with!

·         Focus on how much (data) is sensitive rather than how much is held

·         How to hide privacy is not a decision on what to hide but what you should expose.

·         You have very little control over information or authority to determine what can (or not) be found. In reality to control your privacy you need to control your friends, as most data can be acquired and friends leak. The picture of your life is the combination not your just what you give but what others give up.

·         Information is services.

·         Tracking people requires people.

·         When all stable, all is good. When it goes wrong (data is wrong or mishandled) - this is the problem, corrupt and in-accurate data is a significant issue.

·         Primary use of data is to find more ways to sell or make processes more efficient.  (little naive)

·         Ability to opt out does not help you, missing data still allows a profile to be built.

·         What do you have to give up (free services) to not give up data. 

·         People lie to get your data.  Data raped. Data is cheap.

·         Nothing is new, data has always been available. Corruption is not the main option today, but misrepresentation and fraud work.

·         Combination of data gives the picture. 

·         Liberty and privacy; are they fundamental?  Absence of privacy, what does this actually mean. 

·         Looking after data, what they know vs what data they have.

·         Tech has reduced budget and time to find out what has always been on record and increased the number of sources.

·         Low tech is beautiful and depends on the stupidity of people.  Technology is not the issue, people are the weak link.

As a comment, this documentary could have been a high tech fantasy, breaking into bank accounts, tracing payments or travel cards, bugs and tracking but it stays true to life and was low tech in so many ways, showing how easy it is to  reach your data because your are lazy and that human error is the weakest link. 

Link to MyDFP – dark side is real, however so is using your data to create value.  I focus on the creative value adding side.

Wendy Grossman did a write up as well here