Ed Batista

BlogHer

A big hi to everyone I know who's attending BlogHer.  Hope y'all are having a great time.  I've particularly enjoyed Beth's interviews and Marnie's session posts.

Hierarchy of Unease, Part 2

Just a few days after Tim Oren was formulating his own Hierarchy of Unease, I sent the following to some of the folks involved with AttentionTrust:

We should clarify just what we mean by "privacy" in this context, because I think the traditional privacy debate is in the process of being turned on its head.

I think "privacy" has generally meant restricting access to personal information in order to 1) prevent identify theft and other information-based crimes, 2) stop spam and other intrusive commercial appeals, and 3) maintain an abstract sense of individual dignity through discretion.

But, taking those issues in reverse order:

• Social norms about discretion, about what is or should be private are in the process of changing dramatically.  People not only want to share personal information about themselves, they want to celebrate it.  Seth [Goldstein] alludes to this in his quote from Goldhaber in yesterday's post: "The new privacy and the old are direct opposite. The new privacy means having no secrets, which you don't normally need to have, because little that was previously shameful or had to be concealed is so now..."
• Similarly, there is an increased tolerance for commercial appeals when there is a perceived exchange in value.  Ads are now expected to be entertaining in and of themselves, or to accompany some free service that makes them tolerable.  A fundamental issue that AttentionTrust is calling attention to is that people are undervaluing their attention, perhaps significantly.  In this context..."privacy" means the ability to set a price on your attention (high or low), and to make informed choices about the attention transactions you enter into.
• I'm not sure what to say about identity theft, which consumes more of my personal attention than is probably healthy, other than to note that famous people, i.e. people who capture a great deal of attention, are rarely victims.  At some point in the future, protecting our "privacy" may not be about locking our information away, but about having so much unique information publicly available that it will be impossible for anyone to impersonate you.  Foolish, perhaps, but a thought.

attention attentiontrust

Hierarchy of Unease

Tim Oren had a great post recently, resulting from his research into "consumer privacy, data aggregation, and marketing analytics," that's both funny and insighful on the current state of the privacy debate.  On the humorous side, he tweaks everyone who has a stake in this issue:

I haven't seen a domain with more zealots since the early crypto market. There are zealous marketers sure they can make their customers more loyal and profitable if only can pool all the known data about them. There are privacy zealots, who often don't seem to believe in marketing at all - or maybe even markets. And there are zealous computer scientists and security experts, sure the whole matter can be resolved with the right algorithms. And now that the press and politicians are coming to the party, we can expect the discourse to become even more informative.

As for his insights, he proposes a Hierarchy of Unease (a riff on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs) that suggests different levels of privacy-related violations:

1. Direct Financial Loss, or Threat of Same. Anything from credit card or check theft and fraud, to emptying of bank accounts via EFT, or full-up identity theft...

2. Intrusion. ...This can range from dinner time phone calls, to spam, to (less commonly) junk mail or pop-ups and interstitials. Unfortunately for marketers, the volks-wisdom has these all largely conflated.

3. Compartment Breach. We all segment our lives to some extent: family, career, friends, hobbies, finance, politics, religion, and so on. The configuration, number, and fervor with which these compartments are defended are highly idiosyncratic. But a third party information transfer that crosses one of these boundaries feels like a larger breach of privacy...

4. Loss of Information Asymmetry. Consumers usually encounter information asymmetry on the down side: the loan officer, real estate agent, or contractor who knows far more about the market and has much more deal making experience. But the individual has always had a few hidden cards of his or her own - knowing the real details of one's state of health, financial conditions, motivations for a purchase, and so on. Data transfer or analysis that puts those cards face up when consumers must make a deal feels like an affront.

5. Everything Else. A great deal of 'private' information does not seem to be highly valued or defended - grocery store purchase lists, music tastes, web site visit s- so long as the utilization of that information doesn't fall into one of the categories above. It's routinely traded away for everything from modest discounts to suggestions of interesting books or new artists.

Tim's predictions?

If I'm close to right on this, there are pitfalls ahead for all of the zealots. The privacy hardliners and techno-purists are solving problems that a large part of the market doesn't think they have (item 5). On the other hand, the marketing enthusiasts may take that same acquiescence as a go-ahead for projects that will run straight into issues 2 - 4, and be surprised by the blowback.

attention privacy

AttentionTrust

As noted in my last few posts, Seth Goldstein, Steve Gillmor and a number of other folks have launched AttentionTrust, a tremendously important work-in-progress whose goal is to "promote the basic rights of attention owners," i.e. all of us.  Yesterday Seth posted what you might call an Attention Manifesto:

Attention is the substance of focus.  It registers your interests by indicating choice for certain things and choice against other things. As Steve reminds, the establishment of value in the attention economy is a dual register of what one pays attention to and what one chooses to ignore (or unsubscribe, turn off or tune out).

The reason attention is becoming more important now is that the Internet has enabled the recording and sharing of these choices in real-time. The massively parallel synthesis of meta data streams has concentrated enormous influence in people and their sites.  Some consumers are proactive in gaining full control over their influence, but the majority are passive users of free services and offers (that actively capture and sell their intentions)...

Our attention data is ours, each of us individually.  In the wake of the behavior of credit card companies, credit unions and data brokers, it is vital that we recognize our right, and our responsibility, to govern ourselves relative to the use of our private information... Our attention establishes intention; and our intention establishes economic value.  Once one recognizes the value of one's attention, it is shocking to see how cheaply most people offer theirs to companies looking for their business.

But it's not just (or even primarily) about realizing economic value or preventing exploitation--it's also about preserving and improving our quality of life.  As noted in my last post, we're all struggling to stretch our finite amount of attention to keep up with the ever-increasing numbers of people and things demanding a share of it.  This is a particularly acute problem online.  The web has dramatically expanded the range of interesting things we could be paying attention to, just as it's dramatically expanded the range of things we're not interested in that have nevertheless found a way to steal a few precious moments of our attention.

To avoid drowning in an ocean of irrelevancy, we must become aware of the value of our attention, and we must spend it wisely, in accord with our own desires, not merely the desires of those entities who have managed to find (or buy) their way onto our screens or into our inboxes.  I think the establishment of AttentionTrust is a significant step in that direction.

attentiontrust attention

Attention Management

David Coleman posted at Corante yesterday on Too Much Collaboration, describing the toll that interconnectedness (and the attendant interruptions) can take on our productivity, especially when it comes to creative tasks.  Coleman describes the problem as "attention management," and the obvious dilemma is that we have only a finite amount of attention to pay to the ever-increasing demands on out time.  One of his proposed solutions is create the equivalent of more attention via virtual cloning:

That is to augment a person's ability to "attend" to content and events... I believe that you will need to multiply your bandwith and attention by multiplying your self. Some type of virtual agent that not only knows where you are, what you are doing and what  collaboration programs or devices you have, but it also has a subset of your personality and is assigned to deal with specific types of tasks demanding your attention.

Coleman also cites companies like Veritas that have implemented "email-free Fridays."  But whether the solution is an avatar that automates the handling of low-level requests, or policies that revise cultural norms about when and how quickly we can reach each other, all these changes involve putting a higher value on our attention, and raising the threshold of urgency for anything or anyone that's seeking to claim a share of it.

I've been paying closer, uh, attention to this issue as the result of some discussions with the folks working on AttentionTrust (more on that shortly), and I'm convinced that they're on to something tremendously important.

corante attentiontrust attention

Office 2000 HTML Filter 2.0

From our friends in Redmond:

The Office HTML Filter is a tool you can use to remove Office-specific markup tags embedded in Office 2000 documents saved as Hypertext Markup Language (HTML). When you create an HTML document in Office 2000, Office-specific markup tags are embedded in it. These tags help "round-trip" the document for editing purposes. For example, if you create the document in Word 2000 and save it as HTML, the code embedded in the document allows you to re-open the document in Word 2000 and use the same features you originally used to create the page.

Once you have completed editing an HTML document in Word 2000 or Excel 2000, you can use the Office HTML Filter to remove the Office-specific markup tags from the final copy of the HTML document. By removing the tags, you reduce the size of the document, which in turn reduces both the amount of space used on Web servers as well as the time it takes to download the page. For additional information about the benefits and disadvantages of removing the Office-specific markup tags, read Use Office HTML Filter to Create Web Pages that Download Faster.

Download the HTML filter.  Basic instructions:

To filter a document in Word

1. Open the document you want to filter.
2. On the File menu, point to Export To and then click Compact HTML.

To create a cascading style sheet (.css) in Word

1. Open the document on which you want to base the style sheet.
2. On the File menu, point to Export To, and then click CSS Stylesheet.

To copy text from a Word document as HTML

1. In Word, open the document you want to copy text from and select the text you want to copy.
2. On the Edit menu, click Copy as HTML.

To filter single or multiple Excel 2000 or Word 2000 HTML files
On the Start menu, point to Programs, point to Microsoft Office Tools, and then point to Microsoft Office HTML Filter 2.0.  Read Use Office HTML Filter to Create Web Pages that Download Faster for additional information about using the Office HTML Filter in Word. For more in-depth information about using the Office HTML Filter 2.0, read Using Office HTML Filter at the Command Prompt, Using Office HTML Filter to Remove Office-specific Markup, and Using Office HTML Filter to Save Space on Web Servers.

Outfoxed

Outfoxed is a Firefox extension that allows you to rate websites (thumbs up, thumbs down, or dangerous), share your ratings, and rely upon the ratings of those you know or trust.  Check out my Outfoxed page: it shows that I've accepted Stan (the author of Outfoxed, a grad student in Germany) and the Outfoxed home page as "informers," i.e. people whose site recommendations I'm interested in, and it shows a list of my "reports," i.e. sites that I've issued a rating on (which at this point is simply the list of Firefox bookmarks that I allowed Outfox to import when I installed it.  (It's somewhat similar to Delicious and Stumbleupon, but Stan does a better job than I could of explaining why Outfoxed is better.)

Applications like Outfoxed that run on social metadata, i.e. information about our preferences and habits that we share with others--Audioscrobbler is another example I wrote about recently--are going to have an enormous effect on the way not only on how we use the web, but also on how we connect with other people and how we make ourselves known to them.

Today in some circles it's seen as odd if you're not actively blogging, because that's simply how you engage the community--you present your ideas, comment and expand upon others' ideas, all on a platform that's discoverable, searchable, archivable and linkable.  You make yourself known and you participate in a community through your posts and comments--your data.

What if your social metadata could have a similar impact?  What if it could be used to make yourself known and visible to a larger community?  OTOH, metadata's not as rich as data--voting thumbs up or thumbs down on a site is a shallow substitute for a lengthier blog post explaining that vote.  But OTOH, metadata's much richer than data, because there's so much of it and more is piling up every second you're online--the challenge is finding the appropriate mechanisms to capture, measure and analyze that metadata in order to extract meaning (and value) from it.

Thanks to Steve Gillmor and Seth Goldstein of AttentionTrust for the tip.

outfoxed metadata social metadata

Three Questions with Randal Pinkett

Dr. Randal Pinkett  stands out in a crowd.  Literally--he must be 6' 6" or something--but also figuratively; he's the President and CEO of a company he founded, BCT Partners, he holds five academic degrees from places like Oxford and MIT, and while he could probably name his price if he were working in the private sector, he's chosen to work primarily with nonprofits and other public institutions, helping them with management, technology and policy issues. 

And for such a big shot, he's a really nice guy, too.  So it was great to hear from him on just how you wind up with that many diplomas, technology in the social services, the Ars Portalis project, and track and field...

Three Questions with Michael Stein

Michael Stein is the Media and Communications Strategist at GetActive Software, but that's just the latest hat he's wearing in a long career in the nonprofit technology field.  He's also been Associate Director at Groundspring and co-author of three books (including The eNonprofit: A Guide to ASPs, Internet Services and Online Software, and Fundraising on the Internet: Recruiting and Renewing Donors Online), as well as an independent consultant.

I've worked alongside Michael in the nonprofit technology field for more than four years, and I've always appreciated his insights.  Today's no exception as he tackles personal blogging, blogging for a company, wearing different hats, and Bay Area surfing spots...

Three Questions with Tim Oren

Tim Oren is a Managing Director at Pacifica Fund, a venture capital firm, and a regular blogger at Due Diligence.  That combination alone makes him an interesting guy, but I've particularly enjoyed his thoughtful writing and no-BS attitude.  ("Addicted to Buzz?" on the tech industry's use and abuse of buzzwords is an outstanding example.)  Many thanks to Tim for taking the time to address three questions on VC blogging, startup blogging, and John Markoff's "What the Dormouse Said"...