In a recent interview, VentureBeat asks Facebook creator and CEO Mark Zuckerberg the following:
VB: Facebook has recently joined DataPortability.org, a working group among web companies, that intends to develop common standards so users can access their data across sites. Is Facebook going to let users — and other companies — take Facebook data completely off Facebook?
MZ: I think that trend is worth watching.
It disappoints me to see that, because it seems like a quick journalists hit at a contentious issue. On the other hand, we have seen amazing news today which are examples of exactly the type of thing we should be expecting in a data portability enabled world: the Google contacts API which has been a thing we have highlighted for months now as an issue for data security and Google analytics allowing benchmarking which is a clear example of a company that understands by linking different types of data you generate more information and therefore value for the user. The DataPortability project is about trying to advocate new ways of thinking, and indeed, we don’t have to formally produce a product in as much maintain the agenda in the industry.
However the reason I write this is that it worries me a bit that we are throwing around the term “data portability” despite the fact the DataPortability Project has yet to formally define what that means. I can say this because as a member of the policy action group and the steering action group which are responsible for making this distinction, we have yet to formally decide.
Today, I offer an analysis of what the industry needs to be talking about, because the term is being thrown around like buggery. Whilst it may be weeks or months before we finalise this, it’s starting to bother me that people seem to think the concept means solving the rest of the world’s problems or to disrupt the status quo. It’s time for some focus!
Value creation
First of all, we need to determine why the hell we want data portability. DataPortability (note the distinction of the term with that of ‘data portability’ Рthe latter represents the philosophy whilst the former is the implementation of that philosophy by DataPortability.org) is not a new utopian ideal; it’s a new way of thinking about things that will generate value in the entire Information sector. So to genuinely want to create value for consumers and businesses alike, we need to apply thinking that we use in the rest of the business world.
A company should be centered on generating value for its customers. Whilst they may have obligations to generate returns for their shareholders, and may attempt different things to meet those obligations; they also have an obligation to generate shareholder value. To generate shareholder value, means to fund the growth of their business ultimately through increased customer utility which is the only long term way of doing so (taking out acquisitions and operational efficiency which are other ways companies generate more value but which are short term measures however). Therefore an analysis of what value DataPortability creates should be done with the customer in mind.
The economic value of a user having some sort of control over their data is that they can generate more value through their transactions within the Information economy. This means better insights (ie, greater interoperability allowing the connection of data to create more information), less redundancy (being able to use the same data), and more security (which includes better privacy which can compromise a consumers existence if not managed).
Secondly, what does it mean for a consumer to have data portability? Since we have realised that the purpose of such an exercise is to generate value, questions about data like “control”, “access” and “ownership” need to be reevaluated because on face value, the way they are applied may have either beneficial or detrimental effects for new business models. The international accounting standards state that you can legally “own” an asset but not necessarily receive the economics benefits associated with that asset. The concept of ownership to achieve benefit is something we really need to clarify, because quite frankly, ownership does not translate into economic benefit which is what we are at stake to achieve.
Privacy is a concept that has legal implications, and regardless of what we discuss with DataPortability, it still needs to be considered because business operates within the frameworks of law. Specifically, the human rights of an individual (who are consumers) need to be given greater priority than any other factor. So although we should be focused on how we can generate value, we also need to be mindful that certain types of data, like personally identifiable data, needs to be considered in adifferent light as there are social implications in addition to the economic aspects.
The use cases
The technical action group within the DataPortability project has been attempting to create a list of scenarios that constitute use cases for DataPortability enablement. This is crucial because to develop the blueprint, we also need to know what exactly the blueprint applies to.
I think it’s time however we recognise, that this isn’t merely a technical issue, but an industry issue. So now that we have begun the research phase of the DataPortability Project, I ask you and everyone else to join me as we discuss what exactly is the economic benefit that DataPortability creates. Rather than asking if Facebook is going to give up its users data to other applications, we need to be thinking on what is the end value that we strive to achieve by having DataPortability.
Portability in context, not location
When the media discuss DataPortability, please understand that a user simply being able to export their data is quite irrelevant to the discussion, as I have outlined in my previous posting. What truly matters is “access”. The ability for a user to command the economic benefits of their data, is the ability to determine who else can access their data. Companies need to be thinking that value creation comes from generating information – which is simply relationships between different data ‘objects’. If a user is to get the economic benefits of using their data from other repositories, companies simply need to allow the ability for a user to delegate permission for others to access that data. Such a thing does not compromise a company’s competitive advantage as they won’t necessarily have to delete data they have of a user; rather it requires them to try to to realise that holding in custody a users data or parts of it gives them a better advantage as hosting a users data gives them complete access, to try to come up with innovative new information products for the user.
So what’s my point? When discussing DataPortability, let’s focus on the value to the user. And the next time the top tech blogs confront the companies that are supporting the movement with a simplistic “when are you going to let users take their data completely off ” I am going to burn my bra in protest.
Disclosure: I’m a hetrosexual male that doesn’t cross-dress
Update: I didn’t mean to scapegoat Eric from VentureBeat who is a brilliant writer. However I used him to give an example of the language being used in the entire community which now needs to change. With the DP research phase now officially underway for the next few months, the questions we should be asking should be more open-ended as we at the DataPortability project have realised these issues are complex, and we need to get the entire community to come to a consensus. DataPortability is no longer just about exporting your social graph – it’s an entirely new approach to how we will be doing business on the net, and as such, requires us to fundamentally reexamine a lot more than we originally thought.
the photos of your bra burning should probably wait until after the exams.
Elias,
Re-read my question. You're making a blase exaggeration of what I said, so you can do your own navel-gazing, as far as I can tell.
As you must surely know, a use case of data portability is a Facebook user removing their data from Facebook. That's something others who advocate data portability would like to see happen, even if you also have other ideas.
And, in fact, I agree with you that it's not just about exporting one's "social graph." I'm personally of the opinion that the value of Facebook is in its ability to quickly and easily distribute information through its news feed, mini-feed, applications, etc. "Data" is only part of the value that Facebook provides. It's not clear how data portability could encapsulate that value — which is what I think you're trying to say.
In the meantime, if you need to find better ways of defining what "data portability" is supposed to mean, please don't make me the whipping boy.
Perhaps you can suggest a better way to frame the question to Mark?
Hi Eric,
For the record, I was one of the people that "created" DataPortability. Chris Saad raised the idea in a skype chatroom of about a dozen of us working on another project, and we discussed for over a week, before a decision was made to create a workgroup. So whilst I understand other people have different views, I've been involved from the start and think the original idea needs to evolve. I may not have a big public presence outside of the DataPortability Project, but I am across every key issue of it. I am not trying to naval gaze, but rather generate some thought leadership that provokes fresh discussion.
Yes – the original concept of DataPortability was about social networks exporting of users data, but since January, the entire scope of DP has changed and I think it's a lot more than that now.
As for a better way to frame the question, I don't think there is! As a journalist, you have the role in society to probe key decision makers and make them answer awkward questions. The question you asked actually made me smile because it was a bit tongue in cheek. However, I did want to use your post as an example, because it is reflective of what other people are doing (not just in the media), which is giving a simplistic interpretation of DataPortability that is a bit complicated. Data is seen as a competitive advantage not just for web companies but in other industries – so it's not something we have a answer yet (officially at least).
That's no fault of yours, but just shows we need to start communicating more via our blogs rather than having our discussions locked in mailing lists and skype chats, which although are open to anyone, clearly don't make it all the way when bloggers, journalists and research houses make representations of what DataPortability is.
You did nothing wrong and I should have presented my posting smarter, which I apologise and will update now to reflect that. But in future, if you do speak to Marc, I'd be personally more interested in you asking what does data portability mean to him, which would give more insight into Facebooks approach to the issue.
You had good intentions, and should better watch how I frame things. My sincerest apologies.
Another use case is that users will come to Facebook as well as leave Facebook.
I do realise that it is more likely that smaller sites will gain more users then they will losee and larger sites will lose more then the gain, as users gather to more specialised niche networks.
Steve
the photos of your bra burning should probably wait until after the exams.
sorry to rain on your parade, but the average user will never give a shit about data portability.
Josh – the average person doesn't give a shit about climate change, but look whats happening there now – every transaction in the economy is going to have carbon costs somehow incorporated into prices. If you asked me about climate change 24 months ago, I would have told you it was a non issue, because no one really cares.
I don't give a shit about blu ray or HDVD – but as a consumer, it still affects me because they are different technologies with different benefits.
Googles already storing health records online. Do people give a shit about that? Electronic health records is part of Hillary Clintons key election platforms in the primaries – I would argue an issue to get elected as President is a pretty big endorsement that 'users' give a shit about how there data is stored.
Users do give a shit, but their frustrations and fears in the world don't sync exactly with what other groups, like DataPortability, have identified as trying to find a solution. User give a shit when a company starts spamming everyone in your address book, because they searched your contacts with your e-mail accounts password you had to provide. A thing like the Google contacts API or oAuth which although consumers don't understand, is something that they will appreciate as they prevents that abuse.
DataPortability is a representation of all the open standards advocated on the web, and a set of principles, under the one brand. To say people don't give a shit, means the DP group hasn't effectively communicated the benefits – and that's only going to happen when we are done which could be anything from 6-24 months.
@Eric .. Thanks for the discussing DataPortability.org with Zuckerberg. Sounds like Elias jumped on your a bit but has since calmed down about it. The DataPortability.org movement has been busy listening to hundreds (actually more than 1000) people about what DataPortability is. Our next step is to make the results of those discussions more public.
@Elias .. I agree that DataPortability needs to (1) Acknowledge that we've been busy soliciting feedback from many, many people and (2) get busy publicly stating what people have told us DataPortability is about.
@ "anonymous" Josh .. What matters is that DataPortabilty.org members include Google, Microsoft, Yahoo/Flickr, Facebook, LinkedIn, Plaxo, Twitter, etc, etc. And MySpace is a part of OpenSocial. These companies represent hundreds of millions of people. They are actively adopting DataPortability and, thus, hundreds of millions of people will be impact. So ultimately, people will care. In fact, we all leave digital social footprints online (unless you don't supply something like a URL which can be claimed via rel="me" semantics).
sorry to rain on your parade, but the average user will never give a shit about data portability.
Josh – the average person doesn’t give a shit about climate change, but look whats happening there now – every transaction in the economy is going to have carbon costs somehow incorporated into prices. If you asked me about climate change 24 months ago, I would have told you it was a non issue, because no one really cares.
I don’t give a shit about blu ray or HDVD – but as a consumer, it still affects me because they are different technologies with different benefits.
Googles already storing health records online. Do people give a shit about that? Electronic health records is part of Hillary Clintons key election platforms in the primaries – I would argue an issue to get elected as President is a pretty big endorsement that ‘users’ give a shit about how there data is stored.
Users do give a shit, but their frustrations and fears in the world don’t sync exactly with what other groups, like DataPortability, have identified as trying to find a solution. User give a shit when a company starts spamming everyone in your address book, because they searched your contacts with your e-mail accounts password you had to provide. A thing like the Google contacts API or oAuth which although consumers don’t understand, is something that they will appreciate as they prevents that abuse.
DataPortability is a representation of all the open standards advocated on the web, and a set of principles, under the one brand. To say people don’t give a shit, means the DP group hasn’t effectively communicated the benefits – and that’s only going to happen when we are done which could be anything from 6-24 months.
@Eric .. Thanks for the discussing DataPortability.org with Zuckerberg. Sounds like Elias jumped on your a bit but has since calmed down about it. The DataPortability.org movement has been busy listening to hundreds (actually more than 1000) people about what DataPortability is. Our next step is to make the results of those discussions more public.
@Elias .. I agree that DataPortability needs to (1) Acknowledge that we’ve been busy soliciting feedback from many, many people and (2) get busy publicly stating what people have told us DataPortability is about.
@ “anonymous” Josh .. What matters is that DataPortabilty.org members include Google, Microsoft, Yahoo/Flickr, Facebook, LinkedIn, Plaxo, Twitter, etc, etc. And MySpace is a part of OpenSocial. These companies represent hundreds of millions of people. They are actively adopting DataPortability and, thus, hundreds of millions of people will be impact. So ultimately, people will care. In fact, we all leave digital social footprints online (unless you don’t supply something like a URL which can be claimed via rel=”me” semantics).
Elias,
Re-read my question. You're making a blase exaggeration of what I said, so you can do your own navel-gazing, as far as I can tell.
As you must surely know, a use case of data portability is a Facebook user removing their data from Facebook. That's something others who advocate data portability would like to see happen, even if you also have other ideas.
And, in fact, I agree with you that it's not just about exporting one's "social graph." I'm personally of the opinion that the value of Facebook is in its ability to quickly and easily distribute information through its news feed, mini-feed, applications, etc. "Data" is only part of the value that Facebook provides. It's not clear how data portability could encapsulate that value — which is what I think you're trying to say.
In the meantime, if you need to find better ways of defining what "data portability" is supposed to mean, please don't make me the whipping boy.
Perhaps you can suggest a better way to frame the question to Mark?
Hi Eric,
For the record, I was one of the people that "created" DataPortability. Chris Saad raised the idea in a skype chatroom of about a dozen of us working on another project, and we discussed for over a week, before a decision was made to create a workgroup. So whilst I understand other people have different views, I've been involved from the start and think the original idea needs to evolve. I may not have a big public presence outside of the DataPortability Project, but I am across every key issue of it. I am not trying to naval gaze, but rather generate some thought leadership that provokes fresh discussion.
Yes – the original concept of DataPortability was about social networks exporting of users data, but since January, the entire scope of DP has changed and I think it's a lot more than that now.
As for a better way to frame the question, I don't think there is! As a journalist, you have the role in society to probe key decision makers and make them answer awkward questions. The question you asked actually made me smile because it was a bit tongue in cheek. However, I did want to use your post as an example, because it is reflective of what other people are doing (not just in the media), which is giving a simplistic interpretation of DataPortability that is a bit complicated. Data is seen as a competitive advantage not just for web companies but in other industries – so it's not something we have a answer yet (officially at least).
That's no fault of yours, but just shows we need to start communicating more via our blogs rather than having our discussions locked in mailing lists and skype chats, which although are open to anyone, clearly don't make it all the way when bloggers, journalists and research houses make representations of what DataPortability is.
You did nothing wrong and I should have presented my posting smarter, which I apologise and will update now to reflect that. But in future, if you do speak to Marc, I'd be personally more interested in you asking what does data portability mean to him, which would give more insight into Facebooks approach to the issue.
You had good intentions, and should better watch how I frame things. My sincerest apologies.
Another use case is that users will come to Facebook as well as leave Facebook.
I do realise that it is more likely that smaller sites will gain more users then they will losee and larger sites will lose more then the gain, as users gather to more specialised niche networks.
Steve
Stephen, you have a valid point, but following up on that, what is the value to Facebook then, to actually implement any sort of data portability? The focus is always on the user, but if the larger companies realize that it really isn't a value-add (after all, they have a vested interest in keeping users on the site), why would they ever bother with it?
Stephen, you have a valid point, but following up on that, what is the value to Facebook then, to actually implement any sort of data portability? The focus is always on the user, but if the larger companies realize that it really isn’t a value-add (after all, they have a vested interest in keeping users on the site), why would they ever bother with it?
[...] DataPortability is about user value, fool!: Understanding the point of data portability [...]