Information Sharing Work Group Teleconference

...

1. Attendance
2. Approval of Prior Minutes & Other Motions
3. Prior Action Item Review
4. Continuing Business
   
   1. PII
   2. NSTIC
   3. Open Notice/Consent Commons (http://opennotice.org )
   4. Label Redesign
   5. Code base
5. New Business
6. Action Item Review

...

1. the Recipient
2. the Data
3. the Data use & Management
4. the Authorities

5. New Business

Valeska agreed to become Secretary and help out with taking notes and meeting reminders.

Valeska reports from IA Summit http://2013.iasummit.org/ where she met Stuart Maxwell

turninggrille.com

Poster on "Decoding data in the personal cloud."

Book by Brian Gardner – Legal in Plain Language

Survey

Let's figure out how to do a survey.

 What do people call these terms (?Revocation?)

 What do people care about?  What would change a mind about sharing or not sharing?

Context #1  – If they need it

Reputation – Existing relationship

For example Klout wants a lot of information. But why give it?  Klout seems to be fishing in order to sell their data. It doesn't seem like they gave you anything of value.

What if they gave you $5? It's not about the money. It's about being bugged by other services. $5 isn't going to change my life, but being spammed or contacted by organizations will.

Ultimately, people want value back. All this free stuff... its open door to vast data leaks. 

Common value proposition: if you're not there, you're not participating. Especially Twitter, Linked In, Facebook.

If the Label just makes the inherent value clear, it will be a win. "Oh... you need it for that. Ok."

Dave Balter – founder of Buzz Agent

When you try to define in monetary value, people stop and think if their time is worth it. But if its more abstracted from money and more detailed in benefit, people can focus on the change in their life.

What if Klout said "We make money from premium users like you. We will never sell your data to anyone without your permission."

We don't mind our data on LinkedIn, because that creates opportunities for us, through recruiters, etc. So we don't care that they share that data. The value overshadows those actions.

Facebook on the other hand, Valeska has very little data, even deleted her account. Even changed her data intentionally to confuse the system.

Is the cost of exposure worth the benefit?

Often a choice based on value of exposure to the individual. Different costs, for example, for an attractive woman verses your average male.

Sometimes its just the nature of the service, which is reputation. I don't know who you are, or its pretty clear you have a questionable exit model.

With Klout, it also seems to be an offensive reputation model for how they rate people. So the value is anti-value.

So, for Klout, perhaps the Label isn't going to make a difference.

But what services are there where the "data"

What data are you collecting?

How long do you keep it?

Who do you share it?

Can I Delete?

The ability to delete everything. Builds trust and lets people know they can always leave the service. In an odd way its parallel to the Google/YouTube click to bypass pre-roll ads.

http://blog.joeandrieu.com/2013/03/01/google-sees-the-value-of-free-customers/

Next Call: How do we frame a survey?

6. Action Items

1. Joe: Incorporate the NE Moves / Coldwell Banker label into the demo
2. Joe: publish v.0.5 (sync with Demo)
3. Joe: Compile use cases into a single doc
4. Joe: Follow up with Valeska O'Leary (Again)

...