On Jul 13, 2016, at 11:36 AM, Guy Higgins <guy.higgins@performance2.net> wrote:
Adrian,
Your closing question is, perhaps, the most critical of all questions in this area. Upton Sinclair captured the tension perfectly, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
This is exactly the problem some of us experience when trying to convince publishers that, for example, tracking protection is good for them. Their salary depends on not understanding that — and will continue to do so until they finish getting screwed by adtech at all costs, and the salary goes away. Doc
Guy
From: <agropper@gmail.com> on behalf of Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com> Date: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 7:07 To: "wg-uma@kantarainitiative.org WG" <WG-UMA@kantarainitiative.org>, ProjectVRM list <projectvrm@eon.law.harvard.edu> Subject: [projectvrm] Pokemon teaches us why all of us will need our own Authorization Server
https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/heres-all-the-data-pokemon-go-is-co...
This may well have been a case of accidental social engineering but it makes the point that multiple random authorization servers will not scale. If Pokemon wants access to my Google stuff, they need to ask my authorization server and not the one Google helpfully gave to me.
Is there any other alternative? How could Google's ever play both sides as both game developer and privacy protector?
Adrian
--
Adrian Gropper MD
PROTECT YOUR FUTURE - RESTORE Health Privacy! HELP us fight for the right to control personal health data. DONATE: http://patientprivacyrights.org/donate-2/