Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: quinthar.com

Stories and comments across the archive that link to quinthar.com.

Comments · 2

  1. Ubiquity Project: Privacy Feedback Loop & Tali by Quinthar · · Score: 1 · on A Universal Roaming Profile?

    One way to analyze this problem is to note the interdependencies of privacy, money, accountabiliy, etc. I've outlined this analysis at, called the Privacy Feedback Loop:

    http://www.quinthar.com/UbiquityProject/Ubiquitous Computing/IntrinsicSecurity/Privacy/index.html

    Privacy Feedback Loop

    The balance between privacy, corporate, and government interests has always been precarious. This precarious balance has created an environment of fear - much of which is very justified, and some of which is not. The only antidote to this fear, both justified and unjustified, is a decentralized system that seeks to maximize information exposure, accuracy, and privacy protection at a self-regulating, technical level. Ubiquity must implement such a system. While Ubiquity can by no means strike the perfect balance by itself, it can provide the actors involved with the tools to do so in a secure, sustainable fashion.

    Actors

    There are three primary participants in the privacy feedback loop: users, services, and realms.

    >
    Users (Consumers): Obviously, this system focuses on the safe collection and use of consumer personal data. Thus, a major player in the system is the user herself.

    >
    Services (Businesses, Government): The entities actually collecting and using the user data provide services to those users being served. These entities are typically businesses offering information and products to users online or in person. However, this system would be entirely appropriate for managing new police surveillance technologies in a safe manner.

    >
    Realms (Trade Groups, Regulators): The final component, providing critical oversight in a decentralized fashion, are the realms. Reach realm defines and enforces standards and privacy/usage policies through a system of active certification. Active certification is what gives realms the technological "teeth" to effectively enforce policy.

    Feedback Loop

    Figure 1: Privacy Feedback Loop

    The privacy feedback loop is illustrated in Figure 1, and consists of the following interdependent components:

    >
    User Privacy: Users' concepts of privacy are just measures of confidence that data is being used correctly. "Correct" use is in the eye of the beholder, but in general is guaranteed through (1) allowing the user to view and edit all personal data collected, (2) putting the user in control of who can and cannot access the data, and (3) providing extensive auditing information to demonstrate correct use. These confidence-building measures are the result of increasing accountability of the industry as a whole, and allow for greater amounts of higher quality personal data to be collected.

    >
    Personal Data: As user privacy increases, the amount and value of the data collected increases. Through the user's ability to review and correct all data collected, as well as automatic corrections when existing accounts become linked together, the data itself is of a higher quality and therefore more valuable. Likewise, as users become confident that the data is correctly used, the more open they are to supplying deeper levels of personal data. As the amount and value of personal data collected increases, the revenues of the services using this data do as well.

    >
    Service Revenue: Services use personal data in a variety of ways to reduce cost and generate revenue. Personalization features create "stickier" services, as well as drive additional product sales. Convenience features streamline the use of services, thereby reducing the time-to-purchase and "mental cost" of using the service. Immediate access to timely usage data allows fast marketing feedback to ensure, among many things, correct product positioning. All of these features rely upon and benefit from large amounts of accurate, detailed personal data. The value of these features and their effect upon the services' bottom lines cause other services to join in the system in a viral manner, increasing the membership in the system as a whole.

    >
    Membership: As increasing numbers of services take advantage of this ocean of personal information, the total membership of the system increases. Every new member service brings new users to the system, magnifying all of the system's elements. One major beneficiary of this magnification is the realm, which increases in realm authority.

    >
    Realm Authority: Realms serve as the representatives for each industry. Members look to realms to set the agenda for new standards features, and equitably resolve member conflicts. Users look to realms to define and enforce acceptable usage policies, as well as create a strong brand that users can look for and trust as they use the member services. Courts look to realms to uphold contractual obligations toward both members and users and regulate their industries in a fair manner. Realms are leaders, whose strength and power are directly determined by the number and devotion of their followers. These powers are used to force an acceptable level of accountability upon each realm's respective industry.

    >
    Accountability: The final link in this chain is accountability. Services that choose a particular realm's data and standards are contractually obligated and technically required to adhere to the usage policies set by that realm. These policies generally define the acceptable level of usage, such as maintaining independent copies of data, selling data outside of the realm, linking data in certain ways, and so forth. Additionally, these policies require that the realm record usage of the data in such a fashion that the user can learn how the data is used, meet certain exposure requirements on the data collected from users, etc. Through increasing levels of accountability, users can gain a greater sense of privacy, thereby completing the cycle.

    More thoughts on implementation details here:
    http://www.quinthar.com/UbiquityProject/Res earch/T alisman/index.html

  2. What About Shared Patents? by Quinthar · · Score: 1 · on Fair IP Laws?
    In short, I think the undesired side-effects of monopolistic patents can be reduced through the use of "shared" patents where all who invent the same innovation are granted equal rights in its protection. This could foster innovation and improve the economy while at the same providing additional real benefits. Consider the following:

    It seems that the effective goals of IP law, specifically patents, are to:
    1. Foster innovation
    2. Improve the economy.
    Obviously these are compatible and complementary (even codependent) goals. Furthermore, there is an implicit third goal which is to not unduly restrict other rights in this pursuit.

    Currently these goals are pursued by granting monopoly power to the innovator, thereby increasing the incentive to innovate and protect the innovator's ability to bring inventions to market. However, monopoly power is merely a means to the ends stated above, not an intrinsic requirement. Indeed, if there is another system that achieves these ends in a more efficient and effective fashion, there is no reason to not consider it as an alternative.

    I propose that such a system would be replacing the current monopoly power with a "shared" or "pluropoly", where not only the first-to-innovate is granted control over the innovation, but all-who-innovate the same idea are granted equal rights.

    Obviously, this is a strange concept and immediately bring to mind complications. However, these complications can, with a bit of thought, be shown to be potentially resolvable. Of course nobody can accurately state whether or not the resulting system would in truth be better, but my goal here is merely to show that the resulting system *might* be better, and is worthy of further investigation. Without going into too much detail:
    • Innovators who claim to have independently invented the same patent would be determined by force of evidence: notes, expenses, interviews, etc. In the case of true innovation as the result of much work (such as creating a new drug), the trail of evidence would be so large (tests, FDA approval process, millions spent, etc) that a defense could be plausibly done. (Note: This has the added effect of preventing the filing of "trivial" patents, which would be very difficult to demonstrate independence of thought.)
    • In the case of patent violation (a non-innovative entity using the patented concept), all patent holders would have equal rights to sue the violator, either together (a class-action suit) or independently. (Note: This has the effect of reducing patent violations as the penalties would be much more strict)
    • Non-innovative entities wanting to license an innovation can choose from any of the many patent holders -- obtaining permission of use from one is all that is necessary. (Note: This creates an efficient competitive environment where licensing fees ultimately go down while quality of patents go up)
    Of course, this would have a multitude of positive and negative effects upon innovation as whole. Without giving a complete enumeration, consider the following metaphor:

    Assume invention is similar to exploring the wilderness: the inventer is an explorer that expends considerable energy blazing an easy trail to a remote destination. Thus, an inventor creates a path that's easier to walk than the path the inventor took.

    Obtaining a monopolistic patent is akin to receiving the authority to bar any from walking to a particular destination, regardless of which path is taken. This authority is valuable, as if the the location is important, many are willing to pay a toll for entry.

    However, this has the unintended side effect of forcing other explorers to pay a toll to a destination they discovered, despite not following the original explorer's path. This is an unfortunate restriction upon the rights of "secondary inventors" that results from granting the primary inventor a monopoly patent.

    An alternate system would be using "shared patents", which are akin to granting explorers the right to blaze a trail and then charge a toll *for that trail*, but not for others. Thus, if multiple explorers blaze trails to the same destination, each is able to charge tolls for their respective trails.

    Of the many effects of this change, the non-adventurous public is given the ability to choose which trail is the easiest and best price, creating a competitive environment with ultimately more explorers blazing more trails.

    Likewise, it prevents explorers from actively preventing people from visiting some destinations by setting the toll higher than people are willing to pay. In real-world terms, this means that entrenched entities with vast IP stores would have increased difficulty blocking disruptive technologies by acquiring patents on innovations they don't want pursued.

    Obviously, there's much more to say than can be said here. But I think it's an interesting idea, and I'd love to hear your comments.

    -david :)
    quinthar.com
    360ToGo.com
    UbiquityProject.com