Saturday, May 23, 2009
Another violent agreementKim replied to my earlier post with a thoughtful piece. First, let me say, the allusion I made to the RIAA was that they wish to ban tools - it's so much easier than collecting evidence of illegal behavior.
And I took Kim at his word when he talked "about the need to prevent correlation handles and assembly of information across contexts..." That does sound like "banning the tools."
So I'm pleased to say I agree with his clarification of today:
"I agree that we must influence behaviors as well as develop tools... [but] there’s a huge gap between the kind of data correlation done at a person’s request as part of a relationship (VRM), and the data correlation I described in my post that is done without a person’s consent or knowledge." (emphasis added)We need sophisticated data correlation tools, tools which can discern our real desires from our passing whims and organize our quest for knowledge, experience and - yes - material things in ways which we can only dream about now. By all means let's punish and abjure bad or anti-social behavior. But let's not stigmatize the tools that the miscreants pervert to their own unethical purposes.
And I think we can say that those who purchase barbells, and only barbells, at Canadian Tire are thoughtful, erudite gentlemen of the old school... :)
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Identity-centricPam Dingle has a bit of a rant today about the term "user-centric." Well, not about the term itself but about people's desire (e.g., the entire Burton Group) to get away from it.
"Sure, there are a few blind worshippers of the cult of user-centric out there, but I firmly believe that common sense has to win out in deployment scenarios, and that various technologies should and will be used where applicable to solve problems. "
I think it's about more than just a term, more than just a feel-good quality, Pam. The "User-centric" term was coined, initially, to try to differentiate internet-based individual identity protocols from those used within the enterprise. But it's really all identity, and there doesn't need to be a distinction. That's why I wrote, last month, "Why there's no 'user-centric' or 'enterprise-centric' identity," where I said:
"Enterprise-centric identity management, we postulated, is really all about tying together all the activities and attributes of a single entity into a readily accessible (and reportable and auditable) form; while user-centric identity is about keeping various parts of your online life totally separated so that they aren't accessible and no report can be drawn.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Dumbing down the lawsKim Cameron has posted a "simplified" version of his Laws of Identity. Problem with simplifying, though, is that you often say something that isn't quite what you mean. Kim starts by saying:
"People using computers should be in control of giving out information about themselves, just as they are in the physical world."I agree 100%. But one has to remember that "in the real world," people are not always in control of giving out information about themselves. Employers, teachers, medical professionals, government agencies, even social and fraternal organizations have rules governing which information can be shared and which can't (no matter how much you want to share it) as well as whose permission is needed (sometimes yours, sometimes a third party's and sometimes both) in order to release that information. So, yes, we should be able to do digitally exactly what we are able to do physically. And we should be able to do it more efficiently and, perhaps, in a more automated (and audited) manner.
Let me know when that's working.
Clayton Donley has also posted a good 'think' on the revisied Laws.
Labels: Laws of Identity
© 2003-2006 The Virtual Quill, All Rights Reserved Home