Day: January 26, 2005

William Heath, his perceptions heightened by the governmental identity discussion going on in the UK, makes an interesting comment about Jamie Lewis’ post on architectural principles:

It's a thoughtful contribution from Jamie. I'd just observe that he talks of principles based on “the values, organizational culture, and business goals of the enterprise”. That's a logical way to approach business, which is important when you're selling something to earn a living. And no-one is better at business than the US IT industry.

But there's far more to life than business. The identity architecture proposed for the UK will become a defining part of the architecture for social, civil and political life. It will affect how we feel about ourselves, others and the state as well as how well the economy works and our role as consumers in it.

So, Jamie, can we consciously broaden the basis you use for “Reference Architecture” to include the full panoply of the human condition. As we discuss the Laws let us remember we need principles that work for all. Imagine having to explain or justify them to artists, religious leaders, people caring for the needy or elderly . It doesnt make it easier, but that's the scale of the problem we face. If anyone doubts this please look at what is happening in the UK

William is right – to be successful for anyone, the identity system must embrace and provide benefit to everyone – implying great diversity. This in turn means we need architectural principles that reach well beyond the enterprise. I know Jamie will be the first to agree, so it will be interesting to see if he thinks he has already built counterbalancing recognition for digital life of the consumer into his reference architecture.

Governor James sent this link to consumer advocate Jordana Beebe's advice for companies that collect information from customers.

Which reminds me about an interesting article by Larry Ponemon for Computerworld on the “Top 5 privacy issues for 2005“.

The Ponemon Institute has surveyed “thousands of individuals on a variety of issues affecting their privacy, from a universal credentialing system to Internet ads that use personal information to target prospective customers.” I think this type of work is very important – it helps us ground our thinking in real qualitative and quantitative analysis. I'm going to learn more about Larry's research.

Larry reports:

• most people are willing to use biometrics because of convenience
• three quarters of those interviewed think a single verification system (from a bank or the post office) would simplify login
• people are worried about unauthorized access to their data
• people who fly are willing to trade privacy for safety

I take these readings as gauging present thinking among the American population, and therefore consider it to be important. But I also know that most people know a lot more about some of these issues than others.

People who fly understand the tradeoff with privacy. But most people haven't really thought about what the implications of a single verification system would be. So to really predict what they will think about such a system in practise, it is necessary to establish their opinions on a whole series of related issues. I don't know if Larry has done this, but I would like to find out.

Larry achieves this additional depth in the final page of his article, where he shows convincingly that consumer trust has a dollar value. He analyzes consumer willingness to share data as a function of their rating of the trustworthiness of the entity they are dealing with – and looks at these dynamics over time. He then posits a hypothetical marketing campaign and demonstrates that a top-rated organization in terms of its approach to privacy could achieve significantly higher results for a given investment. This attention to the evolution of his subjects’ thought over time, in conjunction with stratification of privacy reputation, is a great example of the kind of thinking that could help people who only casually think about identity issues understand the deeper dynamics.

It is also fascinating to see Craig Burton discussing with Jamie Lewis on the question of whether we should be using the word “Principles” rather than “Laws” to understand the dynamics that bound the design of the mega meta mojo moma backplane (“mojo” thanks to Eric Norlin). Craig responds:

I think that Kim rasing his discussion to one of a set of defining laws instead of arcitecture principles is totally apporpriate.

Later, discussing Chris Ceppi‘s comments on a “Rule Set” (Chris is a thoughtful person from Ping) he concludes that “Laws Rule“.

I defer to Jamie and Craig – watching them discuss something like this is like sitting in the front row at a tennis match between consummate professionals. They are both helping me understand the issues.