My Digital FootPrint

Does data understand the meaning of a wink? #ds13

2013-05-21T02:12:00.000-07:00

My Presentation to Digital Shoreditch

Does data understand the meaning of a wink?

I believe that the problem we have with understanding data..... is the same fundamental problem, that we have about our views,

our independent views,

our independent views based on experience,

our refined independent views based on on-going experience ; that we suffer when we talk about any political hot potato such as the economy, bank debt, personal credit, environmental change, global warming, privacy, size of government, policing or marriage reform…… we all have unique views and our views are different from the others around us and our views are also different again from our customers views – which apparently are the only ones that count!

I contend that personal information, personal data, your data, your digital footprint and its relationship to you, your identity and your rights has the same complex mix, blends and balances that set and counter your personal views and insights. Experiences refines them and they all combine to form your own personal opinion - your view - what you want. Whilst it is safe to accept that we all have unique opinions and don’t have a common view ..... we do all fit into certain buckets or segments; I will argue that we need to get over our personal prejudices, which bucket or segment I sit in, if we want to make progress. Progress in the use and application of data!

So the question Does data understand the meaning of a wink?

I can use a sensor to determine you have winked - so let's be honest and accept that I can get the data, it might not be elegant at the monument but it will get there. 3 years ago we had had the iPad for less than 1 month, 30 days, 1000 hours. It moves fast.

I can, by applying algorithmic determination know the possible meanings of the wink. Be honest, there are only a certain number of meanings a wink can have - and it will be one of them.

Will I be able to get the context of that wink - In truth, I know this hurts, but yes. I can pick up who you are speaking with, where you are, what you just did, how you speak to this person, what the topic you are talking about means, I can get context - get over it.

But will I or data ever truly know the meaning of a wink - let’s consider this ...

Does data understand a wink?

Generally those who think about data will agree that good data, run over a good algorithm will present insights about that data set. The basis of creating value from this data set is however predicated on the assumption that your behaviours are similar to of those who behave like you in the context you are currently in. As long as I have enough data about others who are like you, within this context - I can make algorithms - digital processes to mimic you, your behaviour and predict what you will do, and what that wink could mean or imply - this body of work is behavioural economics.

Does data understand humans.

Does data help interpret or predict what we humans do based on what is a normalised behaviour for someone who is like you. Probably yes. But does data understand humans? Probably no ....- it does allow us to predict that if you’re like someone else. Therefore what we need is a new model for you and only you if we are to make progress. So how do I get more of you?

If I had more data would that help?

The key phrase here is more data, more of the same types of data that I already have.....probably no. The reason I say this is your only need one name and one address, having your name and address in 100 different silos doesn’t have any value . If I had access to new data sets then yes more data would help. More data sets could be friends, network, likes, views, shares, gossip, purchases, travel, blood pressure, heart beat, food intake, environmental conditions, music, conversations, traffic - all that yummy data that we are now collecting. Let's be careful here - this is not Big Data, the aggregation of all of us and how we behave as a population, this is Small data - all about you.

So if I have the data, what else do I need to understand a wink ?

WATSON, the IBM machine learning computer, made famous by the US TV program Jeopardy, pointed the way that computers can learn faster than we can and therefore with new data from sensors; yes..... I will know the meaning of your wink but can we determine the possible sentiments of that wink? I will get it right and your lies and excuses will not wash.

Will my machine cope with the random creativity of humanness and serendipity? probably not yet, however I would contend that the problem is not data or trying to understand the sentiment of a wink. You will have noticed I have ended up with a positive conclusion. I will know you have winked, I will know your context, I know what a wink is for and I will be able to know from your data what that wink means. Ta da...

However this is not the problem that we are facing - the problem is not about gathering data, understanding data or what data tells us - our problem is how we interface with the machines?

I believe we are fast approaching a new reality. The new reality is that the tectonic plates of what we want and what we get are smashing into each other. What we want is clear, what we get is usually dependent on someone else. In my opening I set out that we all hold different views about your data and the person next to you is as different as mine. The realities are that we will soon have a choice about data, sensors, value and engagement. Will you let the machine share your meaning of that wink?

The choices we are facing are engage, engage more, engage less, engage on someone's terms or the alternative scenario = disengage.

The famous Andy Warhol quote from 1968 which in Internet speak is 15 generations of iPads - I suggest needs to be updated to bring it in line with this fully digital age in which we live. It should no longer read " In the future everyone will be world famous for 15 minutes" but will now read. Today everyone will only be anonymous from the world for 15 minutes"

Why do I say this? 10 days ago I shared a link about Facebook and Facebooks apps. You will find it on My Digital Footprint. The blog detailed a web link, which I posted and if you follow it and are logged into Facebook, what you would see is everybody else who was using the same applications as you . If the application was candy crush you would not be a problem in knowing who is also using it, however the particular link and application I posted about was the more infamous one called "bang with friends" - The anonymous, simple, fun way to find friends who are down for the night. Quote This link is a feature of Facebook - an API - not a bug.... What the data showed me was that 128 of 980 friends I have, subscribed to this application - today it is 3! As soon as I posted the link I heard back immediately from a friend who thanked me sharing it - he had apparently tried it in a drunken fit and had forgotten. What this showed me - and I am quite a nerdy data freak - was that sometimes we don’t understand the implications of our data, clicks, likes, joins, shares, sensors and sharing

I present to you that a new reality is approaching and that the tectonic plates of what we want and what we get are already rubbed up against each other, but will we get earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunami fallout and disaster or mountains, views, achievements, scale and beauty? We have created a digital engagement platform but we don’t realise what we’re doing . Your data is telling me something you did not intend.... and there are plenty of examples of this already, including the man whose mistress was pregnant, but did not yet know and the supermarket sent the congratulations to the wife along with free diapers... opps

Our new business models depend on data. We need customers to be engaged and giving us access to their data. Putting it more starkly. No data, no model. No business. No $200bn industry in 2020, a big fat #fail.

Whilst the data we can now get tells us in incredible detail about our ourselves and our customers.

Our problem is not how much we believe is possible to obtain from data.

Our problem is not how much we can get from sensors .

Our problem is not new data sets .

Our problem is not the belief we can understand the sentiment of the wink .

Our problem is that the user interface and user experience is simply not doing a very good job . We are not bringing our customers with us . We are not explaining what we're doing . We are not sure ourselves what we are doing. Ask my wife - she tells me every day. Now there is a big dose of reality.

The reason I believe that the tectonic plates of what I want and what I get are smashing together is that I can see that we could create disengagement faster than we will create engagement . If customers disengage, no data, no model. We need customer engagement. If we create a digital social system of disengagement, customers opting out, we will sink back into the old economics of hard labour and supply demand models . We are at a tipping point of creating distrust over trust , disengagement over engagement, complexity over simplicity, wastage over value, loss over saving.

Personally I want the data world where we are all fully engaged and sharing data. High on a mountain with a beautiful view.

In summary

Data will understand a wink, our challenge is keeping users engaged and create usability based on fabulous user experience . This I believe is our industry’s biggest challenge and those who get the balance right between collecting data, engagement and creating value .... will win .... but we need to all work together and make user experience rock. One bad egg, one too greedy ... an industry of disengagement

My closing challenge - Which one of you professionals here at "Digital Shoreditch" is going to make that difference?

interesting data set - how to find out which of your friends use facebooks apps

2013-05-21T02:00:00.001-07:00

Source: http://www.dailydot.com/lol/bang-with-friends-facebook-glitch/

Logged into Facebook? OK, now click this simple link.

Voila: Here are your friends who have the app installed.

Not a bug but a feature…

how can you be sure they are who they say they are?

2013-05-20T08:40:00.000-07:00

https://onfido.co.uk/ background checking company…. with a difference.

How much data does the world create each year?

2013-05-20T00:43:00.000-07:00

Do you want to help your child/ friend learn about computing? Support our Kickstarter

2013-05-12T07:27:00.001-07:00

Main page is here http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ajitjaokar/computer-science-for-your-child

Is Your Facebook Like Worth $174.17?

2013-05-12T07:00:00.000-07:00

According to this study, your Likes of a brand on Facebook are worth about $174.17 to that brand. The reality is that Facebook fans spend more money on the brands they like—$116 a year more than nonfans—even if their income was equal. In addition, those who liked brands were 18% more satisfied with the brand and 11% more likely to continue buying the brand. We know what we like. Great insight!

Syncapse, a social intelligence company, conducted a study with more than 2,000 Facebook users who liked a brand and considered a Facebook user's product spending, loyalty, recommendations, brand affinity and more to come up with the number.

Source: http://gizmodo.com/5995468/your-facebook-like-is-worth-17417

So our data does show us who we really are. New data and analysis

2013-05-12T06:49:00.000-07:00

I have written about the fact that Social Networks offer insights into how we humans interact with each other many times as they have unparalleled access to real time data.

New analysis from Wolfram Alpha, has examined usage habits and found that it as we expected, but have the data to prove it. Here’s a summary of some of the more notable findings, some of which are depressingly stereotypical, according to Wolfram Alpha designer Stephen Wolfram.

The median number of Facebook friends is 342, a number that varies based on how old you are: Teenagers tend to have more friends than adults do. When you’re younger, most of your friends are your own age, but the range of ages broadens as you get older.

Teenage boys tend to have more friends than teenage girls, but that difference disappears as they get older. The older you get, the more likely you are to be married; women get married earlier than men; and, by 30, about 70 percent of people are married. (“It’s as if all those humans, with all the complexities of their lives, still behave in aggregate a bit like molecules—with certain “reaction rates” to enter into relationships, marry, etc,” Wolfram says.)

As people get older, they talk less about things like video games and more about politics, weather, health, and money. Men love to talk about sports and technology, while women tend to talk about pets, family, relationships, and their personal moods.

What’s worth keeping in mind here is this data is limited to the small number of Facebook users who let Wolfram Alpha use it. Similar to the data that OkCupid periodically releases about how people use the service, all of these findings also confirm that our social networks know more about us than we do ourselves. “But what to me is remarkable is how we can see everything laid out in such quantitative detail in the pictures above — kind of a signature of people’s thinking as they go through life,” Stephen Wolfram writes.

Inside the mind of a Millennial!

2013-05-12T06:18:00.000-07:00

Are you flushing you identity down the drain ?

2013-05-12T06:17:00.000-07:00

The New World of Digital teenagers/ screenagers

2013-05-12T06:12:00.000-07:00

Are you ready for the digital revolution? via Mckinsey CMO forum

2013-05-12T06:09:00.001-07:00

What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains (Animation)

2013-05-12T06:04:00.000-07:00

Lying and Hiding in the Name of Privacy - new report

2013-05-12T06:02:00.000-07:00

Customer Commons have presented a research paper: Lying and Hiding in the Name of Privacy http://customercommons.org/2013/05/08/lying-and-hiding-in-the-name-of-privacy/

Abstract

A large percentage of individuals employ artful dodges to avoid giving out requested personal information online when they believe at least some of that information is not required. These dodges include hiding personal details, intentionally submitting incorrect data, clicking away from sites or refusing to install phone applications. This suggests most people do not want to reveal more than they have to when all they want is to download apps, watch videos, shop or participate in social networking.

Keywords: privacy, personal data, control, invasion, convergence

Download a PDF of the paper here.

They surveyed 1704 people showing that 92% of the people do something: hide, lie, click away or refuse to install an app.. in order to control their data and create some kind of privacy.

It's an "illusion of control" because with trackers, fingerprinting, beacons, etc.. data aggregators are still able to aggregate us.. however, it probably means they have a lot of bad data associated with our dossiers. But.. still the numbers reflect a lot of passion about the topic, and show that people are angry, frustrated.. and have nowhere to vent.. so they vented on our survey.

conclusion - the market is broken!

Who has your Back and is protecting your data?

2013-05-12T05:57:00.000-07:00

Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) has recently released a new report about which companies protect their users' digital data/ identities. Download the complete Who Has Your Back? 2013 report as a PDF from here.

Executive Summary

When you use the Internet, you entrust your conversations, thoughts, experiences, locations, photos, and more to companies like Google, AT&T and Facebook. But what do these companies do when the government demands your private information? Do they stand with you? Do they let you know what’s going on?

In this annual report, the Electronic Frontier Foundation examined the policies of major Internet companies — including ISPs, email providers, cloud storage providers, location-based services, blogging platforms, and social networking sites — to assess whether they publicly commit to standing with users when the government seeks access to user data. The purpose of this report is to incentivize companies to be transparent about how data flows to the government and encourage them to take a stand for user privacy whenever it is possible to do so.

We compiled the information in this report by examining each company’s published terms of service, privacy policy, transparency report, and guidelines for law enforcement requests, if any. We also considered the company’s public record of fighting for user privacy in the courts and whether it is a member of the Digital Due Process coalition, which encourages Congress to improve outdated communications law. Finally, we contacted each company to explain our findings and gave them an opportunity to provide evidence of improved policies and practices. These categories are not the only ways that a company can stand up for users, of course, but they are important and publicly verifiable. In addition, not every company has faced a decision about whether to stand up for users in the courts, but we wanted to particularly commend those companies who have done so when given with the opportunity.

Surprise : Twitter is the highest performer and Apple one of the lowest?

What were you doing 21 years ago today ? I was meeting Lady Diana and launching Videophones!

2013-04-28T07:06:00.000-07:00

21 years ago there was no digital footprint ideas so there is no digital trace or record, but I do have the press cutting that got me into a lot of trouble. I had no idea back then how advanced the technology was as it seemed normal to me or how long it would take to generate adoption. Of interest to me is that the big issue of the day was privacy ( you answer the phone and someone can see you, can they remotely switch on the camera and look round my home). I have never appeared to escape the clutches of privacy issues.

The context is; I was working at GEC Marconi on Videophones with Tom, Dave, Mark, Alvin, Rob and Andy, Andy , Les to name a few of the team. I was at the Ideal Home exhibition in London and on the BT stand and launching the Videophone.

The Relate 2000 videophone was the first one BT made commercially. It promised callers the chance to see, and be seen by, the person they were talking to. It featured a flip-up screen on the right, where the video played driven - by privacy issues. They were available for £399. The colour Liquid Crystal Display is a 2.9" screen which displays the incoming video signal at a rate of 8 frames per second. Unfortunately picture quality generally proved to be poor and the videophone was not popular.

If anyone is interested in a little bit of history I still have the plastic models, artist impressions, marketing specification document and the original research – including my analysis…. I have one of the videophone if anyone else out there does and wants to see if they still work but be warned Skype is better.

Full circle I still work with Andy and this week we launched Innovation Warehouse in Portsmouth.

Here is the full article.

Algorithms - who is in control? A question for board governance?

2013-04-15T10:24:00.001-07:00

Image. It is an algorithm: globalimaging.com/images/modis-atmos.jpg

Algorithms are the foundation of your computing interactions. An algorithm is the means by which a computer program can make decisions about you, for you, or decisions that affect you. Algorithms are the translation of what you do into rules and policies that a computer understands (i.e. 0s and 1s). Like it or not, you are influenced by them as much as you influence them.

Algorithms need data, they use digital data that you give, leave or have tracked about you (willingly or not). This input into an algorithm is your digital footprint, which comes from Facebook, Twitter, text messages, email, key stokes, swipes, gestures, play lists, payment records, your routes, navigation – indeed anything you do which is an interaction with an electronic device. This is the basis of what an algorithm knows about you. It is how an algorithm can model you, it takes input and predicates based on what you have done and what you will do – it is you.

Adding other digital data about you generated from your friends helps refine and confirm how well you and your preferences can be, and have been, modelled. I can now compare your actions and reactions to others and group you into a segment that behaves the same way, and model this group with an algorithm.

So, we love algorithms that help and save time. The supermarket shopping cart that says “Because you like this you will like that” or “Last time you bought this, you might need it again” are fun, helpful and not invasive. We are less enthusiastic when an algorithm determines our credit-worthiness unfavourably. So, how do we feel about algorithms that make decisions for us in a self-drive car?

Dan Ariely’s work (Truth, Predictably Irrational, Behaviour, Desire Engines) concludes that we are creatures of habit. Habits can be modelled and coded into an algorithm. In reality, we are not as irrational as we would like to think. We are indeed creatures of habit, when a habit is formed we find it very difficult to break. Once habits are known, it is possible with a high degree of accuracy to predict your actions, reactions and most probable outcomes.

If we reject the viewpoint that we are predictable, why not start with chemistry. Humans, our bodily form, are essentially a complex algorithm of chemicals. The levels of chemicals in your body interact with your cells, causing reactions. Those reactions can be found to form certain biases and can be modelled – fear and flight experiments. Experience is comprised of how we reacted to the environment and how our unique body made a chemical cocktail to react to that same environment. Some chemical structure has learnt (remembered) how that reaction worked (whatever worked is!) Again we reach the same conclusion – it is difficult to break a habit - as the habit is chemical.

A question these points raise is “Can “data” be human?” Given that we can be modelled, based on who and what we are, how we react, that chemical cocktail - could we model human behaviour? Furthermore, would that model be human? The reason to ask this is because of how we make decisions. Can a computer make the same decision?

None of this thinking is new as Keynes's observation (in his General Theory of economics) said "Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist". So the question is not if you can become an algorithm, but how accurately can an algorithm model you?

If sensors collected all your data from all interactions and reactions then it is probable that the model would reflect your behaviour with a high degree of accuracy. The issues are that sensors cannot (today) determine…..

· The chemical cocktail in your body, only the reaction, but this will happen.

· See the very subtle facial expressions that another human can see.

· Blend yours and others’ biases to predict how you will react together.

· The difference between Signals and Noise.

Today’s sensors are blind to most human interactions, however, that will change. Apple already has patents on sensors for blood sugars and oxygen levels based on your ear buds. Facial muscle movement can be tracked through cameras. In the long term, these sensors and ability to determine/ understand what the computer is seeing will arrive. The question remains: who will write the model about how you will react to a new situation, a new environment, a new complex inter-relationship of small changes?

Steven Lukes (sociologist) indicates that power comes in three varieties: the ability to stop people doing what they want to do; the ability to compel them to do things that they don't want to do and the ability to shape the way they think.

Given that algorithms are now doing all three in your life, who is in control?

And, what is the order in which my interests should be best served?

· Me as an individual - I code for myself based on my data and my desired outcomes. This allows me to misrepresent myself.

· Me as a group of like minded people - we test the algorithm to determine if I (we) like or dislike the implied outcomes, then we refine.

· An organisation acts on my behalf to determine if harm is done and sets guidelines (best working practices)

· A government sets up a regulatory body to provide guidance and enforce law

· A programmer who is outside of my jurisdiction does what they like

· A company who is outside of my control who wants a desired outcome

So who plays God? Who determines whose interests are best served by a machine? Who does the machine act on the behalf of? Where it is an organisation that can exploit your data sets, there is an interesting dynamic…

The company is coding the algorithm, the focus is profit - there is an incentive to get it right. The efficiency games come to town.

Or, the company itself is coding the algorithm, the focus is volume – we’ll find a different bias.

What if the code is outsourced or the algorithm purchased? Where is the alignment, where are the policies defined?

From the perspective of organisational behaviour and directors’ fiduciary duties this raises some unanswered questions. How do the Strategy, Style, Culture and Purpose of a company affect the algorithm and coding principles. Short term demands once coded into algorithms will drive user decisions in a certain way. Over time, if enshrined in the very fabric of the company, this can be difficult to change.

------

Your digital footprint forms the data set that allows and enables companies to personalise your experience. However, if your data set when passed through the algorithm produces a credit rating that many will not lend to, one party may choose to decline, but another may not. The outcome is both the prerogative and the bias of the company (coder/ algorithm) and in reality it is not controlled by you. How do you feel about that and what should we do?

Identifying People from their Mobile Phone Location Data - is really easy!

2013-04-15T09:40:00.001-07:00

Researchers at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the Catholic University of Louvain studied 15 months' worth of anonymised mobile phone records for 1.5 million individuals. Here's the full study.

With no real surprise they found from the "mobility traces" - the evident paths of each mobile phone - that only four locations and times were enough to identify a particular user. We are predictable and so Dan Ariely Work comes true.

In their own words “They studied fifteen months of human mobility data for one and a half million individuals and find that human mobility traces are highly unique. In fact, in a dataset where the location of an individual is specified hourly, and with a spatial resolution equal to that given by the carrier's antennas, four spatio-temporal points are enough to uniquely identify 95% of the individuals. We coarsen the data spatially and temporally to find a formula for the uniqueness of human mobility traces given their resolution and the available outside information. This formula shows that the uniqueness of mobility traces decays approximately as the 1/10 power of their resolution. Hence, even coarse datasets provide little anonymity. These findings represent fundamental constraints to an individual's privacy and have important implications for the design of frameworks and institutions dedicated to protect the privacy of individuals.”

None of this is new as in 1930, Edmond Locard showed that only 12 points are needed to uniquely identify a fingerprint.

Zuckerberg's Law is that every year the amount of personal things you will share on Facebook doubles.

2013-04-15T09:28:00.000-07:00

Image: Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg gestures during his keynote address at the Facebook f8 Developers Conference.

Zuckerberg's Law is that every year the amount of personal things you will share on Facebook doubles – Source NYT 2008 there are three questions we are now facing in 2013 as sharing continues to grow and we hit the question of where we will end the year.

1. Is there a finite amount that you are prepared to share about your life with others?;

2. Is there a finite amount I am prepared to accept as shared?; and,

3. Is sharing driven by us or the machine?

The question is not when will it slow, but what will cause sharing to slow / change. However as sensor and medical data comes online will the trend prove true?

Dan Ariely: What makes us feel good about our work?

2013-04-15T09:12:00.001-07:00

The question I have is what data are you giving off (right now) that is giving me the feedback about your state of mind (how you feel about work). If I combine your data with the data I get from the wider team (and social norms) and how it has changed over time – can I tell how well you are managed? Probably

Seeking insights from digital footprint data – we just need to know what to look for.

The Digital Will - Google's Inactive Account Manager for your Digital Footprint after death

2013-04-15T00:14:00.001-07:00

Source : http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/plan-your-digital-afterlife-with.html

Google has presented a new product that plans your digital afterlife – think Digital Will or Death Switch – you can instruct Google to delete your personal data and transfer your files to designated recipients, if you want them preserved for posterity.

This is a class of service called managing your data after death that has been talked about a lot on My Digital Footprint. It is interesting that one of the largest players has done something about it and does highlight the importance of managing digital assets after death and is an attempt to solve a real (perceived) problem. There is a host of companies (Legacy Locker, Cirrus, Death Switch, Perpetu, AfterSteps, The Digital Beyond DadApp, Social Safe to name a just a few) who are willing to charge you for this service and given that this is Google only data, you still need something for all your other services and digital assets. You may remember the Bruce WIllis iTunes saga about gifting music or the Amazon eBook problem about selling your digital books and the licence issues.

The design of the Google service allows you to set a time period of inactivity of 3,6,9 or 12 months, after which Google kicks in and tries to contact people you have selected. The default no response is eventually to delete your data and if requested send to someone. It is a starter with a few issues that need to be addressed at some point. Like many other services the same questions keep coming up.

· How is this compliant with the laws an executor or trustee is required to follow at death, by country? Probably most people on your list are not your executor.

· What happens if your digital assets are part of the estate and who deals with the conflict between the executors of the estate and the nominees? (think music or video)?

· What happens if there is data in there that is subject to a court order?

· What happens if you have several accounts?

· What happens when you change name?

· What happens if the you become incapacitated for longer than your period, it becomes deleted and how would you re-establish ownership of your accounts

· Is the period of waiting 12 months post death to access someone’s data to long as you have no idea what was time critical or important to be actioned?

· >Do those you instruct know what will happen and why? What happens in the prefect storm where everyone has changed contact details?

· Can I log in and do this (set up Inactive Account) to someone’s account without them knowing – should it require a higher level of security?

· Why not just save your passwords and put them on file (however allowing someone else to pretend to be you is also illegal !)

· How many people actually care?

Overall dealing with personal Data and digital assets after death is not an easy problem to solve and we are only just starting on the journey, but along with Data Portability http://dataportability.org/ (Export My Data ideals) I am delighted that we are talking about it, trailing ideas and testing what works as raising questions why not do something is no good reason not to try.

The cynical view might be that this part of Google’s CSR, green energy requirement to remove old data and get energy costs down….but too small.

Original Posting http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/tony-fish/your-digital-will-googles_b_3082883.html

How aware are you of your digital footprint?

2013-04-13T07:27:00.001-07:00

Paris Brown (17) was the UK's first youth police and crime commissioner and last week tweets dating back three years made her appear racist, homophobic and supportive of the drug culture.

As Paris has since recognised that even though teenagers have been brought up with digital media all around them and it is second nature to share instant snippets of their lives with their immediate peer network, it is rather difficult to remember that all your online activity is stored somewhere and can be found very easily. Context is often lost, but the words are not.

However, what we often forget is that your digital footprint is made up of what you say and what others say about you.

This blog is not only part of Paris’ Digital Footprint but also mine.

Facebook Graph Search - is there any value?

2013-03-25T11:17:00.000-07:00

The basics are that Facebook searches your "social graph" because it has your and your friends specific "Likes, pages, click, links, connections and conversations" The result is that searching should produce more relevant results thank Google's "Whole World Wide Web". In other words it feeds you what you have fed it.

The signals; your and your friends "Likes" are a somewhat limited data set - it is not everything you do on the web and does not represent what others do. However, Google sells search and Facebook also now sells search - in fact since you Like it Facebook can sell (advertise to you) you what you Like and with that Signal increase the advertising margin (hope) when it sells the placement. Simple - tell you what you tell me because you Like it.

What Facebook needs to do is add more data as real social graph results as the current one is rather limited ---- http://actualfacebookgraphsearches.tumblr.com/

It essence is that it assumes that we all want Facebook for FREE and are willing to put up with ANY monitisation model that is needed to keep it free, assuming that subscription will not work.

However, who owns the data about a Like. At some point the brand will say that this customers "Likes" them already (from Branding costs) and therefore surely the cost to re-enforce the message should be lower rather than higher (pop goes FB margin).

Is using your data to tell you what you told someone a fundamentally flawed model when scale is reached as the negotiation is not about value creation?

Just saying ….

Facebook Psychology is addiction affecting our minds?

2013-03-25T04:02:00.000-07:00

Gartner Predictions for Big Data

2013-03-25T03:56:00.000-07:00

Gartner Predictions for Big Data from Bruno Aziza

Why is the analysis of #fan data only ever going to give you the wrong data for board decisions? Time delay between reality and loyalty.

2013-03-25T03:55:00.000-07:00

Having done some reading and catch up this morning on the blog - sorry for the delays but moving from Posterous put a delay in me posting. Current views points coming through is about digital leaders and understanding.

However, I still have the same problem. Digital business leadership is not about "likes" it is about living data and what it is telling you and how to use that data to both improve margin, reduce costs, drive efficiency and delight the customer more.

The crux is often not what the data you have is telling you, but what it is not and what data you should have collected…..

Point in case is Fan data - some research mentioned here is about what the data tells you but it does assume that what someone is telling you is truthful. The eternal problems of signals.