Yeaup, all fair points.
So if this was one submission where would the cross-over between known identity issues and IDoT be? 'Who owns and/or manages the light bulb's identity? (not being deliberatelty flippant!)
If we can find that cross-over, great. Otherwise it's probably two submissions..and nothing wrong in that of course..
Cheers
Colin
CC: sal@idmachines.com; stollman.j@gmail.com; ingo.friese@telekom.de; joni@ieee-isto.org; dg-idot@kantarainitiative.org
From: tgold@idanalyst.com
Subject: Re: [DG-IDoT] FW: RSA U.S. Call for Speakers Now Open! Submit Today!
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 21:52:13 -0700
To: colin_wallis@hotmail.com
Hi Colin-
No buzzkill or offense taken. You raise really good and valid points.
I am not so convinced that RSA CFP committee however is as ruthless as they are political - am still reserving conclusions in that one.
As for the InfoSec community already being aware of the points 1-4, I would like to think I know the community well, and agree there is awareness, but it is context that is lacking. How 1-4 are inter related, progressions over time, and sequential progressions that got us here, and what pieces need to be clawed back for it to start to have a trajectory of balance.
There are some technical people in the RSA community, but many are not and not all are identity experts (or privacy beyond the corp enterprise) so I think there is value in discussing as long as it or not too high level and breaks things down quite more. It's easy to get lost in generalizations in panels where it's watered down and something g we wi work to avoid.
Lastly, my personal opinion is that Europe in general has a far better position on privacy than we do here in the US but if we go in guns blazing on a "how to do it like Europe" it will be counterproductive. Rather compare positions to expand the border beyond the US, as our data does as well.
My thoughts, although willing to accept I could be partly right or all wrong too -)
/t
Please excuse spelling errors - sent from my mobile device
On Jul 3, 2013, at 9:25 PM, Colin Wallis
From my perspective, there are four levels to this dilemma that should be reviewed/clarified for the audience:
1. Legacy models like the credit bureaus. They have long collecting everything, are bureaucratic, and monetize data in many ways. Facebook’s monetization model isn’t new just the way they collect it. 2. Opt-in relationships: Such as Facebook. We may be opted-in when we sign up (don’t agree with that by the way) but we do consciously sign up for the relationship and is intended to share on some level (unlike my mortgage account or my vehicle records or services). 3. Leakage: The usage of a service that does not disclose that it is collecting data, or irresponsibly leaks your data to another service (lots of mobile apps are quite “chatty” in this way). Basically, any that are “free” apps, are doing this so (and not disclosing) it’s a BIG problem. 4. Government Surveillance: PRISM, etc. For me, the debate on this is two-fold, not only the legality but the controlled usage of any collected data. Obvious, but just to point out. I am interested in collaborating and/or participating in the panel as well, up to you. Regards, Terry ------------------------------- Terry Gold iDanalyst LLC, Founder Identity, Security & Privacy t: 213-341-0433 m: 949-310-5911 tgold@IDanalyst.com www.IDanalyst.com Twitter: @IDanalyst From: dg-idot-bounces@kantarainitiative.org [mailto:dg-idot-bounces@kantarainitiative.org]