There’s no conclusion to this post. I don’t think there is a right or wrong answer. But this is my experience and how I am dealing with it right now.
The CSIRO’s Paul Tyler on the risks associated with data “re-identification”; and engineer Andrew Rae explains how the new aircraft he’s created can stay airborne for months on end without the need for an engine.
Audrey said something profound the other day which stuck with me. As we were talking about data and data ownership, she stated that, “I do not own me”—-pushing back on a common narrative around data ownership. Highlighting that conversations around the ownership of data are merely a dispossession vehicle for getting us to buy into concepts that you can own people. Muddying the water, and ultimately helping reducing humans to transactions. A photo taken by me or of me is not owned by me. It is me. There is no ownership of my physical or digital self. There is only me. I do not care if you’ve managed to digitally reduce a piece of me to a transaction, it is still me.
via Jeremy Cherfas
I think humans are meant to freestyle; living by too many sets of rules closes you off to new possibilities.
Conversely, having guiding principles, and treating them as a kind of living document, could be helpful.
Hi! I’m [halfsheet Post-It]
I believe the world is [no more than three regular Post-Its]
I make money by [halfsheet Post-It]
My employers are [no more than three halfsheet Post-Its]
My key work skills are [no more than three regular Post-Its]
My key personal attributes are [no more than three regular Post-Its]
My key lifestyle risks are [three regular Post-Its]
My key work risks are [three regular Post-Its]
Risks parking lot
Above all, to be successful, I need to [three regular Post-Its]
My key next steps are [three regular Post-Its]
This continues on from a past post reimagining the traditional resume, instead focusing on what you are proud of.
I wish there was a place where I could read the story of a person. Everybody’s journey is so different and beautiful; each one leads to who we are. It would be the anti-LinkedIn. And because you wouldn’t “engage with brands”, it would be the anti-Facebook, too. Instead, it would be a record of the beauty and diversity of humanity, and a thing to point to when someone asks, “who are you?”
I am also reminded of Doug Belshaw’s thoughts on emojis, identity and trust.
I think there is a reasoned response to technopanic. Perhaps a sense of technoagency is necessary. Now more than ever, faster than ever, technology is driving change. The future is an unknown, and that scares us. However, we can overcome these fears and utilize these new technologies to better equip ourselves and steer us in a positive direction.
Although this was designed as a case of ‘what if’, it is a reminder of what could happen. It therefore provides a useful provocation, especially in light of Cambridge Analytica and GDPR. O’Byrne suggests that this is an opportunity to take ownership of our ledger, something in part captured by the #IndieWeb.
I agree with the thinking about this ledger, but do not agree with how it is situated in the video. I would see an opportunity for the individual to determine what information comes in to the ledger, and how it is displayed. As an example, each of the arrows coming pointing in to the ledger could be streams of information from your website, Twitter feed, Strava running app, and any other metrics you’d like to add. Each of these would come in with a modified read/write access, and sharing settings from the originating app/program/service. As the individual, you’d be in control of dictating what you present, and how you present this information in your ledger.
Interestingly, Douglas Rushkoff made the case in a recent episode of Team Human for including less not more on the ledger: