image from http://www.toothpastefordinner.com/

It may or may not be true that social media companies know more about us than our Government.  However what is known is that we are generating more data that can be tracked (aka one element of the digital footprint).  We know that value comes from how companies analyse this data and then use it to influence you in some purchase decision.  To increase the value companies are then trying to close the loop by understanding what influenced you and how you influence your social group.

Johanna Blakley did an excellent TedTalk on the end of gender and how our current views of segmentation only provide a "distorted mirror of life".  In summary she says that ridged segmentation based on old school demographics is restrictive as it labels and define us assuming us all have similar behaviour, taste, likes and are predictable - based on your demographics and buckets. 

This is however different to Dan Ariely views from "Predictably Irrational" which provides a truism that whilst we would like to think we are unique, we are predictable based on our demographics.

But irrespective of what the outcome is there are a number of buckets that data is falling into: factual (real), behavioural (based on past) and signal (indication about future)

Demographic (Factual)

What we all know and love as age, income, sex etc.  It tells you who is using/bought or who will use/buy your product or service

Product (Factual, Behavioural)

Gathering data about a specific product or services and then adding recommendation. Think Amazon cross selling "because you like this you will love this"

Referral (Factual, Behavioural, signal)

Think Like button (implicit) on Facebook or a recommendation (explicit) on Amazon.  This is an individual providing data about their preferences, experiences and expectations.

Location (Factual, Behavioural, signal)

Where you are when you searched, discovered, gave or received a service.  This tells service providers about our route and location and allows providers to tailor offering.

Credit/ financial (Factual, Behavioural)

Service providers now have immediate access to determine if you can pay the bill

Identity/ Persona (Behavioural)

The ability for you to be found. Are you someone who hides in a digital world or are your a public figure.

Influence (Factual, Behavioural)

how are you influenced, who influences you, who do you influence.  Are you someone worth VIP treatment?

Intention (Factual, Behavioural, signal)

Something I wrote about in the "My Digital Footprint" extensively - it is the mashup of what you have done, said, passed and purchased to create from your history something that you may want to do, which is guided by your social group, wish lists and your calendar. The output is intent.

Psychographic (Behavioural)

Known as lifestyle positioning (Lifestyle, Pain, Brand, Product, or Features.)

Behavioural (Behavioural)

Gathering your past behavioural and offering products and services that match

Reputation (Behavioural)

Do you do as you say and do as you do?  Is your recommendation worth anything?

Therefore the observation is not "what data is available", nor you will be surprised to learn "what you do with it" but will when you do something with the data to offer a better service "will the user see it as value add, brand enhancing, love it, repeat or be left with some deep creepy feeling that you know something that they did not tell you"

One reasonable outcome could be that based on data (factual, behavioural and signal) analysis we are gambling with "the reputation of the company and brand" and therefore need to determine the propensity to take risk based on the outcomes of getting it wrong.  A corporate will sit there asking for a detailed risk assessment and back up plans and will not gamble with the precious and irreplaceable. 

The confident start up who has a lower true price of loss in the gamble as they have little that is precious and irreplaceable may gamble big, in the knowledge that the payback is big. Whilst the corporate will proceed on a precautionary principle as there is insufficient evidence or understanding the start-up will push the boundaries of privacy and liberty. 

We live in interesting times in regard to your data

The TED talk from Brene Brown: The power of vulnerability  is worth 20 minutes. Whilst her talk is about vulnerability in the opening she starts with a phrase "maybe stories are just data with a soul"   The talk got me thinking on all sorts of levels but the phrase has significant implications on how to look at the data and information from your digital footprint.

Whilst we are in the opening stages of another issue with Facebook (opening address and phone number)  The privacy campaigners are out waving banners but seam to forget that anyone can buy all your data from a wide range of sources and that there is a barter in exchange for your data/ privacy.   Should someone be able to change the rules, *yes* it is how innovation happens.  However the implication is that this data (name, address, phone number) does not have a story, it has no soul.  Your location, attention, reputation, intent, purchases, friends - now they do have a story to tell and so could have a soul.   So why do we value data more than soul in the privacy debate?

image from Data, Design, and Soulful Experience http://interactions.acm.org/content/?p=1303

 I have written about the boundaries between value and creepy many times - are few examples are linked here, however this is a good one as it shows that one is about detail, moving, real time and what others can find out about you without you knowing - the other is about sentiment

What is interesting is that both require the same level of detailed knowledge, it is all how it is presented that makes one acceptable and one creepy...

Previous Blogs on creepy

For non Harry Potter readers - from Wikipedia.....

The Marauder's Map

 The Marauder's Map is a magical map of Hogwarts created by James Potter, Sirius Black, Remus Lupin and Peter Pettigrew while they were at Hogwarts, during which time they gained extensive knowledge about the school grounds, such as its various hidden passages, from their frequent night-time adventures together.

 At first glance, the Map is simply a blank piece of parchment; but when the user points his wand at the Map and says, "I solemnly swear that I am up to no good!", the message "Messers. Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs, purveyors of aids to magical mischief-makers, are proud to present the Marauders Map", and a detailed layout of Hogwarts appears, including its occupants, secret passageways (and instructions on how to access them), and other mysteries, though several locations like the Room of Requirement and the Chamber of Secrets do not appear on the map, either because the Marauders did not have any knowledge of them, or—in the case of the former—they are Unplottable. Furthermore, Animagus disguises, Polyjuice Potion or Invisibility Cloaks cannot fool the map, as shown in Goblet of Fire when Barty Crouch, Jr. (disguised as Moody) breaks into Snape's office[HP4]. Saying, "Mischief managed!" returns the map to its original blank state.

Weasley family clock

The Weasleys have a special clock in their home, the Burrow, with nine hands, one for every member of the family. Instead of telling the time, the clock reveals the location or status of each family member. The known locations are: Home, School, Work, Travelling, Lost, Hospital, Prison,Quidditch, and Mortal Peril. The Weasleys are the only family mentioned in the series to own such a clock. Dumbledore calls the clock "wonderful" and seems impressed by it, suggesting that it is an extremely powerful object.

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

Extract from “My Digital Footprint”, this is from the Chapter 6, "A two sided business model"

Having studied the left-hand side of Figure 28, let’s now consider the digital footprint (right-hand side) of that diagram. We study digital footprints from two perspectives: the feedback loop and mobile. We do this by studying the inputs and outputs of MY DIGITAL FOOTPRINT. We have introduced the concept of inputs and outputs for MY DIGITAL FOOTPRINT  and we recap them here: the inputs to MY DIGITAL FOOTPRINT  are the data elements and the outputs are the value derived from the process which is in turn enhanced by the feedback loop.

It is worth noting that attention (input) and reputation (output) are often called the ‘currencies of the web’. Economic value is created from these two from the ability to trade and barter (output). Given that time is scarce, attention is scarce.

Inputs into MY DIGITAL FOOTPRINT

Attention

Data that indicates what you are doing, it is the provision of data that details what applications and services you are engaged with. This could be a widget on your desktop, mobile or set-top providing insight into which applications are open, how long you edited a document, which pictures you viewed, what music you listened to and how often. The attention data stream is the record of what you spend your time doing in a digital world on TV, web and mobile.

Location

The data record of where you are. The live feed is collection, where you were (route taken) if stored.

Time

The time data record is both the time of day and also the period of time.

Search

The data string of search requests, currently the text words (and voice-based search on Google mobile), put into a search engine but progressing to automated search based on requests from 3D barcodes and local available intelligence.

Content (create)

The data record of type, context and information about the content you have created for text, voice, presentation, music, audio, images, video, blogs, tags and recommendation.

Activity

This is the dataset that defines what you are doing whereas attention says you are looking at a web page, activity defines that you are at a football ground. Location gives you the co-ordinates.

Intent

Intent is an output which provides predication about what you will do next, based on what you have done, what your social graph does and also on what you have told/inferred/implied that you are about to do, such as your calendar, email or IM trail. Whereas context is about now; intent is about next.

Reputation

Reputation (digital) has many components. Reputation is both about a rating (good and bad) and about your propensity to do something such as leave a comment. Reputation (digital) is therefore partly about your value to the community as a participant.

This output data produces a record which is your digital reputation.

Discovery

This output provides concepts, ideas, insight to enable the user to discover. Discovery is about risk and comes in the form of improvement to an exiting service or discovery of a new service/application.

Recommendation

This is where, based on your digital footprint (you and your social graph), a service/application is able to make a recommendation about an existing or new product or service with a degree of confidence that it will be relevant. Where discovery is risk, recommendation is about trust.

Protection

This is where your data can be used to protect you and your data, in the same way fraud on credit cards works. Your data is a good predictor if you are the individual who is providing the data. This does depend on humans and certain social groups being creatures of habit.

Personalisation

This is where the application or service is personalised to a user for the particular instance or time. It is the modification of a generic service automatically (without user intervention, such as time zone updates) but based on what is known about you. Often the spectrum of personalisation is Vanilla, Tailored, Personalised and Customised.

Trade or barter

This second order output function enables the user to trade or barter for goods or services. The trade or barter will not be for cash (this is payment) but for data or for insights, research, etc. This trade of barter is based on input data, analysis, intent and reputation.

Contextual adaptation

This is where the service or application will adapt to deliver a service that is unique to the individual’s requirements based on the existing environment.

It is worth re-stating that the mobile device enriches the digital footprint because the mobile can be viewed as a platform that contributes additional data to the digital footprint, and not just as a determinant of how content is consumed on the device. There is more value created by getting data off a mobile device than on to it.

If we view Figure 28 from the perspective of the customer, the story depicted on the left-hand side is how a typical business operates today and has done so for a long time and will continue to do so. The right-hand side shows this new world of 2.0 thinking: participation, network effects, real-time, collaboration, participation, collection, creation and treating the web (and mobile) as a platform.

Knowing that the mobile is in your pocket from the moment you wake to the time you return to sleep, that same device can know what you are doing, where you are doing it, the applications you use and who you are with. Thus, the mobile device can become the method for collecting data that could be helpful for other services that I would like to consume. The automation of this collected data can become my CV, it could be my reward calculator and indeed could complement a whole host of other documents and certificates that we use today. MY DIGITAL FOOTPRINT will never ‘replace’ actual documents or certificates, but rather complement them by providing a method of determining proof. For instance, MY DIGITAL FOOTPRINT may not be my Passport, but could contribute to my Passport. More importantly, in the near future, it could act as a means to personalise my services – provided I can influence it.

The enrichment feedback loop 

The importance of the feedback loop is critical to the success of a digital footprint as it has the capability to enrich the outputs. We discuss this idea in greater detail below by looking at some of the outputs and how it becomes enhanced by the feedback loop.

As a practical measure of enrichment, could the feedback help with control of my kids’ pester power? My daughter comes home and tells me that all her mates have one, it is the item to have and she wants one too. Would it be beyond the world of privacy and value to say, “well let's have a look!” I then would go to a browser application that could have a look to see who from my social group has purchased one or who has the intention to purchase or who has one and says it is a waste of money.

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

You can read the full chapter here

You can read the entire book here

You can buy the book here

Figure 4 provides a visual representation of the links between digital identity and MY DIGITAL FOOTPRINT. The purpose of this representation is to separate out the key topics and themes that will be explored in the remainder of this book and to highlight that some of the more controversial aspects of identity are dropped, as are the technical implementation arguments. This separation, it is hoped, will allow the reader to focus on the underlying important strategic issues that need to be unpacked and discussed in a framework where ideologies can be put to one side and the value and concepts presented.

Figure 4 Linkages between identity and MY DIGITAL FOOTPRINT

These linkages form the basis for the framework presented in this book as per Figure 5. The core themes relate to data, dependencies, value and business models. Within the context of data, this book explores the collection, store and analysis of user data to create value. Dependences are threaded into the fabric of many aspects of this book as it brings out the bonds and bridges between MY DIGITAL FOOTPRINTand relationships, security, risk, privacy, trust, law, regulations and identity. Value has to be created from MY DIGITAL FOOTPRINT or it would not be a topic; therefore intent, reputation, discovery, recommendation, protection, personalisation, trade or barter and context are discussed in detail to explain value-creating concepts. From value comes a business model and eight business models are presented, but the most critical question is ‘Who owns the data?’ and this is explored.

Throughout the book there is a focus on two specific aspects: the digital footprint as part of a feedback loop and the impact of mobile devices on digital footprints.

My Tesco clubcard doesn’t use my real name, Tesco own the data and it works perfectly. In other words, I can have a digital footprint that has value to brands as a commercial nexus but is not my only digital footprint. I believe that everyone will have a few different digital footprints, just like we have a few different credit cards, which will lead to an interesting model. Advertising, as one model, can be personalised without destroying privacy.

This book introduces the idea of a two-sided business model. Currently, we are used to the ‘strong identity’ model (the kind of identity mechanisms required by banks and immigration authorities). In contrast, a different form of web-based identity is emerging which could be described as complementary to the strong identity. This is your digital footprint. Both identity and digital footprints exist together. You cannot open a bank account with your digital footprint (yet!). So, the strong identity will exist for many cases and the impact of the digital footprint on new services and on trust is explored. Throughout this discussion, the emphasis is on the ‘uniqueness of mobile’ and increasingly mobile will contribute to a larger share of your digital footprint – which makes the mobile platform very significant.

This book cannot provide you all the answers, which is why this blog http://blog.mydigitalfootprint.com/  provides for comments and links, but it will make you think and I hope that you will join in the debate since it concerns every one of us and our future generations.

You can read the full chapter here  

You can read the entire book here

You can buy the book here

Today we are concerned in some ways by the thought that CCTV can capture our actions and the issues about our privacy.  This is balanced with the comfort that so are others and those who have nothing to hide are safe.  Data (video) is kept in the promise that at some point it could be used to protect you, and conversely used to capture you, when the algorithms become sufficiently good to interrupt actions, I hope never intent.

Today, in the most part, the CCTV system cannot link the image of you to an identity of you.  When this link is established could it be used to make your personal data more secure?  If you lost your phone, image the local CCTV network acknowledging that it is not you holding your phone and locks the device up, or indeed starts to track it.

Would such data (systems linking images to identity) be of use, or are the benefits outweighed by the possible downsides?

image from the BBC

Words are both a blessing and a curse; phrases are fashionable, colloquial and always misinterpreted.  Today at the dentist I was told I had a “communication” and that got me thinking about how we use the same word in different professions and how the same phrase communicates different things depending on location and intent.  My interest here is “Digital Footprint” and here are the most common interpretations I found today….

1. Digital Footprint is an term that helps educate our children about the dangers of being on-line; followed by the following advise; if in doubt don’t do it and if you do it will be found (probably the most popular use)
2. Digital Footprint describes the data you leave in the Internet from your keyboard and mouse.
3. Digital Footprint is the data you leave in the cloud from you all your interactions, creating and consuming, passive and active with all digital devices.
4. Digital Footprints describe your digital identity and digital reputation.
5. A Digital Footprint is your history of financial transactions.
6. A Digital Footprint in the area that an integrated circuit/chip/silicon occupies
7. Digital footprint is the footprint (area) that a digital device occupies when placed on a surface (least Popular)

My insight from this is that more is needed to gain common ground and bring about insight.

This post is more about a question that I am struggling with than insight, the rhetorical question is “can you hear me thinking/”. Ignoring the obvious difference and the all TCP/IP arguments, yes voice can be VoIP and data is clicks are IP packages, I am interested in why our response to voice recording (the recording and interpretation of what you said) differently to data gathering from location, attention, clicks, content creation etc)

It seams that we generally accept that our digital footprints will be recorded (collected and stored), this data will be analysed and value will be created from new service discovery or improvements to existing services. We give up the rights to our click data, our blog post creations and facebook entries in exchange for free services (in general)

There appear to be 3 types (broadly) of data that can be gathered or harvested from your conversations (voice)

·         “Meaning” what is the meaning of the words spoken.  Hearing the whole conversation and recording it, or using human mediated TTS or STT as in the case of SpinVox or Relay Services – The issue here is that humans will interpret the meaning not machines, they can not only understand but could act on the information. . Often we are forced to cede our rights if we want to have access to services e.g. financial services call centres recording for ‘training purposes’.  As always with identity data, if the value exchange benefits the customer enough he or she will cede their privacy. SpinVox is therefore quite odd in reality.  I pay for a service; that service is to allow me to record your voice and get your message.  I am asking you to give up your rights so that I get a more convenient service

·         “Identification” using your voice to open up locked services. This is understood in the same privacy framework as other biometrics and accepted by users.  After all, they keep control of the key data in this instance so the privacy parameters are different

·         Intent, Phrases, volume, speed, mood and redundant information.  Can be interpreted by machines and can be de-personalised to extract value.  For example you might use a combination of these to interpret mood and add further contextual information such as location, last action, social context to personalize services or off next best actions.

When we consider something listening to our conversations to provide the same value added service argument as digital footprint data we go off the deep end about privacy. Example Voice to Text or Text Relay Services.  Although there has been controversy about the company’s use of humans to train and support the technology, it is clear that the level of privacy infringement experienced by Spinvox customers is nothing compared to that which deaf and hard of hearing customers experience every time they place a call. “

Why is this?  Is it that the voice is ours and can be uniquely identified, it could be replayed out of context, we say things for effect that we don’t mean, it is more personal or is it that this is what we are used to.

Voice is certainly personal, I think from a user perspective, it goes back to voice being a human interaction, conversation, relationship, hence our expectations are that you will not be able to recall word for word what was said, voice/audio is non-persistent in the mind for humans.  For this reason ‘phone bugging, recording, or listening & then using out of context is a very clear risk, but this is also not where the value is for most companies.    When we type we try to be explicit, social media is changing that as it becomes more like voice and is reactionary or not meant and therefore could easily loose context later in time. 

Do we believe that something listening to our conversations is more easily misinterpreted than the binary click? The question is could equal value could be created from looking at our email and listing to our voice calls and if so, why do we hate with such passion the idea of listening or snooping. 

Most would agree that more personal, human information can be gleaned from voice. There is a discipline of Voice Analytics which is mostly focused on call centres so out of scope.  Also Content mining is scary for customers if we know something they don’t know, and they know we know it.  There are the usual privacy arguments around this, but awareness appears fairly low in the (mass) market.  Is anyone really doing this and apply the patents in this area e.g. for targeting advertising based on mood.

This appears to be a very complex area as an individual’s perception of privacy changes depending on social context and the nature of the transaction or information conveyed and there is a need to retain a sense of privacy.  If there is clear user-consent and controls, all will be well but is the potential abuses of voice are more significant. 

So what is the link to Google Buzz and is it important – more thinking required.

Jean Paul Satre:  “…as speech is the expression of thought.  Speech is thought made outward in sound.  Can you hear thinking?  Perhaps speech is the nearest possibility.”  Book Link