Sorry for the late comment – I am just finally getting back into this space after 2 years off doing other stuff…

I cannot possibly comment on the technical side of data portability and even about identity management much, but that won’t stop me from bringing up some the issues that I feel are not being adequately addressed in the field.

The issue I see with these systems, and their underlying basis, is their absence of moving beyond “first impressions”; that is there is no means in the system to have a relationship strengthen or weaken based upon the interactions that have taken place and to personalize the relationship people or entities have. For example on linked in I have contacts there who I have known for virtually my entire professional life and whom I consider my closest friends, there are also people who just have met once and put them on linked in so that I don’t have to keep looking for their business card. If linked in let me differentiate between the “strength and/or quality” of the connection that would be one step along an interesting path. For example if linked in kept track of my interactions with these people, perhaps via something like Open ID as I understand it, and could quantify and qualify the waxing, waning or transformation of a relationship, digital or otherwise. The fundamental thing here is that relationships must transform in order to grow and if they do not the relationship withers, as there is no more information to be passed. The system you propose is a one-way where I get to only show what I want to show and does not reflect the organic and personalized nature of a relationship. I may wear a Metalica shirt, but others may know I cry in the rain…. (Actually, I do not own a Meticalica shirt and it is always sunny in California).

The most satisfying relationships I have had always been ones that have changed over time. I think it reflects, I believe, the human need to discover more about the world and ourselves.

I don’t think I would spend much time in “tweaking” an on-line identity to show either to a specific group of people or in general. I am too lazy or even I am not self centered enough to keep changing the face I want to show. Conversely, I am not sure that I want an algorithm to make those “judgments” for me – I do not know what the right answer is I’m just saying I’m not sure I want a computer to decide who my friends are, if I have any, and I’m probably too lazy to do it myself.

I always leave the eq setting on “Rock Concert” myself..turned up to 11.

D.

Hope all’s well — enjoyed meeting and chatting at RSA.

Robert

It’s one thing — and rather without consequence — to realize after a couple weeks that you _didn’t_ actually like seeing status updates of users, but it could be harmful IRL if, for instance, you realized that the public at large was being made aware of your vacation plans, thus priming your property for a hostile intrusion.

I’m not sure where the balance comes in. In fact, if you put on your black hat for a while you could probably come up with a way to abuse almost any kind of aggregate data. A competant programmer with ill-intent could devise a way to milk a community for this information.

What is frustrating, to me, in all this, is that it can be actually exciting to look at some of the possibilities of aggregated personal data, even identity, but that the systems and controls aren’t in place to handle the current adoption rate.

It’s not that they don’t exist, at least in some form, but they certainly aren’t implied, controlled or regulated in any way. Don’t get me wrong…I am no fan of regulation, but my excitement for the possibilities dies quickly when it’s hard to understand the implications of sharing the personal data to begin with.

Stadium, btw, would likely be an aggressive propegation setting that kept your mom up-to-date via text messages and RSS feeds on your level of intimacy with your spouse.

Eww.