When it was launched in early 2009, Latitude was the receipt of some fairly harsh press from the informed tech media and from the uninformed traditional media and I argued for some latitude in the discussions on, err, Latitude.

Latitude kept on getting compared to Yahoo’s Fire Eagle and the main gripes seemed to be:

1. Latitude is a consumer application built into Google Maps, not a platform
2. Latitude doesn’t have an API
3. Latitide’s privacy model is opt-in but all or nothing

So now Latitude has an API and everyone’s happy. Right?

Wrong. The previous gripes have been done away with and replaced with three more gripes.

1. Latitude needs to run in the background and so will either drain battery life or won’t run in the background on an iPhone at all.
2. Latitude now has granular privacy controls but these are on the back-end so Google will know your location prior to federating it to location consumers via the API.
3. Latitude needs a Google account to use.

There’s a lot of inconsistency here.

1. Latitude, as part of Google Maps, already runs in the background on handsets that support that. The iPhone doesn’t, yet, but that’s an iPhone OS issue not a Latitude issue. Short battery life is a feature of almost all smartphone class handsets, Latitude or not.
2. Latitude gains granular privacy controls but they’re on the back-end so this is a bad thing. Fire Eagle has granular privacy controls and they’re on the back-end but this has never been a source of complaint.
3. Latitude needs a Google account to use. Correction. Latitude has always needed a Google account to use, so this is a bad thing. Fire Eagle has always needed a Yahoo! Id to use, and yet this is something not seen as a contentious issue.

One of the criticisms that was levelled at Fire Eagle was lack of a definitive consumer application at launch; a not unfair criticism. Latitude’s taken the inverse approach, launching with a consumer application and then opening up an API almost a year later.

Time will tell which of these two location sharing platforms will dominate or whether they will be usurped by another unseen contender.

A lot of web sites try to capitalise on this, offering earnest entreaties to “make me your home page” … “no make me your home page” … “no, choose me for your home page, I have so much personalised content”.

They’re needy and somewhat neurotic entities these web sites, it’s not like I can have all of them as my home page.

Most of them personalise their content for you, based on a registration setting or some other insight, to give you what they think is the information your looking for.

This is not creepy.

A large amount of web sites are advertising supported and serve up ads which, again, are personalised, either from a demographic, behavioural or geographic point of view (sometimes it’s just from plain old fashioned key word matching with often hilarious results).

This is still not creepy.

But then this morning Facebook told me it wants to be my home page.

Like most people I’ve evolved a filtering mechanism which understands why I’m being asked and which either ignores such pleas or uses the minimal amount of effort and mouse clicks to convey the message “buzz off, you’re not going to be my homepage and don’t bug me again“. I’m politely paraphrasing here you understand.

But when Facebook offers to be my home page because, and I’m quoting here, it’s noticed I use Facebook regularly … that smacks of Big Brother and is most definitely creepy, whichever way I look at it.

The focus of the Horizon event was to discuss the infrastructure needed to support location in its role as a key context and to identify any research theme that came out of the discussions; a classic case of the ill defined and fuzzy interface between the commercial world and that of academia.

The day was split into three thematic tracks:

• The Location Challenge
  • What are the challenges specific to the capture and management of location data?
  • What is the state-of-the-art in the technologies available to store, query and present location data?
  • How do we understand location in context, especially in real-time, on the move?
• Whose Data Is It Anyway?
  • What data should be considered “personal”?
  • Should I “own” data about me, such as where I am, my home electricity usage, my bank transactions?
  • How can users be enabled and encouraged to manage this data?
  • What technologies are available to do this?
  • How, when and by whom should “personal” data be exploited?
  • What checks and balances should be in place to protect all stakeholders, including both citizens and service innovators?
• Can Crowds Be Authoritative?
  • Crowd sourcing is a powerful technique for data collection enabled by modern handheld devices, but how far can user-contributed data be trusted?
  • What are the processes required in order to meld crowd-sourced data with existing, authoritative, datasets?
  • What are the legal implications of generating, combining and using such user-generated datasets?
  • For example, what environmental details could citizen sensors collect?
  • How might this change our understanding of the live state of the world?

The location challenge session was a basic introduction to geo and to location, just to get everyone on the same page. A small wry cheer from myself and Ed was caused by the mention of slippy maps after half an hour of pure GIS but the session was also notable for reminding us that GPS isn’t just the domain of the US NAVSTAR system, though it’s the one we’re most familiar with and which is considered pretty much synonymous with GPS (the Wikipedia entry for GPS redirects to the NAVSTAR entry). But there’s also the Russian GLONASS, the Chinese COMPASS and the European Galileo systems chafing at the heels of NAVSTAR and threatening it’s hegemony. We also touched on the accuracy of satellite navigation systems, ranging from the fictitious, with Dan Brown asserting that “(GPS) is accurate within 2 feet anywhere in the world”, even when in the toilet in the Louvre, to the technically feasible, with accuracy of 1 cm being touted as possible. Though no one in the room was able to articulate precisely what use 1 cm GPS accuracy would be.

The low point of the session was a rambling and tedious sales pitch from Oracle which can be summarised concisely as “there’s an explosion of (geographic) data coming, you need to buy our (highly priced) servers in order to cope with it”. It’s a shame no-one’s told Flickr about the need for Oracle servers as they’ve been making MySQL and commodity Linux servers cope with an explosion of data for a while now.

The high point of the session was a (rather hip looking) Doctor who’s name escaped me who’d managed to do something that eludes many commercial concerns. They’d managed to put together a prototype, intelligent car pooling and routing service, complete with web, mobile and SMS interfaces, together in just a few weeks. Oh and it worked as well; this was not only deeply impressive but illustrated the positive social and community facet of this thing we call location.

An an erstwhile privacy nerd, the session on whose data is it anyway? was fascinating, defining and categorising a whole range of what can be considered personal data:

• access data (name, address, phone number)
• direct data (photos)
• intrinsic data (fingerprint, genome)
• state data (location, activities)
• transactional data (finance, journeys, purchases)
• interaction data (things I say and do)
• indirect observation data (energy usage)
• things I create data (emails, texts, documents, photos)
• things I’m given data (emails, texts, documents, photos)
• things I’ve seen data (documents, tweets, locations)

With all of this data being out there, in a variety of data sinks, both personal, governmental and commercial, the concept of a distributed, durable, scalable and trusted personal data store was floated as a theoretical solution; much emphasis should be placed on the word theoretical by the way. A worthy theoretical concept, the notion of if you need to know about me, ask my PDS, is alas one that the majority of the audience who hail from a commercial background, view as interesting but flawed and not viable in the real world.

The high point of the session was a recommendation to read Paul Ohm’s Broken Promises of Privacy; the low point the need to Lynne Truss to visit the room unannounced to pounce on the person who thought that “Who’s Data is it Anyway?” was acceptable for a title slide.

The final can clouds be authoritative session started aptly withe a quote from Wikipedia and paired Muki Haklay from University College London against Glen Hart from the Ordnance Survey. Whilst the pairing may have been unintentional, following a strong proponent of the crowd sourced OpenStreetMap with a pointed, if tongue in cheek, talk from the OS made comparisons difficult to avoid. Stephen Feldman’s write up of the day has more insight on this final session and is well worth a read.

Acronym of the day goes to BHP, which left the audience looking perplexed until it was revealed as a Bloody Hard Problem. Days like this are essential to draw academia away from a pure research perspective and to get representatives of commercial organisations and academia talking on common ground … that in itself is a BHP which Horizon goes a long way towards solving.

Posted via email from Gary’s Posterous

We all suffer from SPAM, the unwanted and unsolicited commercial bulk emails that are the reason we have Junk Mail filters and folders in our email clients and servers. A quick glance at the Junk folder for my personal email account shows over 300 of these since the beginning of February alone.

Posted via email from Gary’s Posterous

But despite the extensive online coverage of this area it’s still a truth that the printed word sometimes carries greater weight than the online equivalent. There’s still something very visceral and real about holding a book in your hand, flipping back and forth through the pages and taking in what message the book is trying to deliver.

Posted via email from Gary’s Posterous

Posted via email from Gary’s Posterous

Posted via email from Gary’s Posterous

Our location is probably the single most valuable facet of our online identity, although where I currently am, whilst interesting, is far less valuable and  personal than where I’ve been. Where I’ve been, if stored, monitored and analysed, provides a level of insight into my real world activities that transcends the other forms of insight and targeting that are directed at my online activities, such as behavioural and demographic analysis.

Where I’ve been, my location stream if you will, is a convergence of online and real world identity and should not be revealed, ignored or given away without thought and without consent.

In the real world we unconsciously provide differing levels of granularity in our social engagements when we answer the seemingly trivial question “where have you been?“. To our family and close friends we may give a detailed reply … “I was out with colleagues from work at Browns on St. Martin’s Lane, London“, to other friends and colleagues we may give a more circumspect reply … “I was out in the Covent Garden area” and to acquaintances, a more generalised reply … “I was in Central London” or even “mind your own business“

As with the real world, so we should choose to reveal our location to applications and to companies online with differing levels of granularity, including the ability to be our own source of truth and to conceal ourselves entirely, in other words, to lie about where I am. 

Where I am in the real world should be revealed to the online world only on an opt-in basis, carefully considered and with an eye on the value proposition that is being given to me on the basis of revealing my location to a third party. My location is mine and mine alone and I should never have to opt out of revealing where am I and where I’ve been.

Posted via email from Gary’s Posterous

“I’m just a face in the crowd,
Nothing to worry about,
Not even tryin’ to stand out,
And I have nothing to say,
It’s all been taken away,
I just behave and obey”

Trent Reznor, Nine Inch Nails, Getting Smaller

Ten years ago our online identity, if we had one at all, was a simple affair to manage, comprising of an email address and perhaps an avatar name or two. Fast forward to the close of the first decade of the 21st century and it’s an altogether more complex affair. You’ve probably got several email addresses, possibly some domain names and then there’s the plethora of social networking sites that you frequent, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Bebo, MySpace and so on. All of which define the online version of “you” in much the same way as your passport, driving licence and bank account defines the offline “you”.

The key difference is that the online version of “you” is much more subtle, complex and diffuse. We leave scraps of our path through the internet behind us. At the Being Digital conference in London earlier this year, I tried to explain this with the clumsy phrase “digital dandruff”; in the soon to be published book, “My Digital Footprint”, Tony Fish far more elegiacally describes it as our digital footprint, which is “the digital ‘cookie crumbs‘ that we all leave when we use the some form of digital service, application, appliance, object or device, or in some cases as we pass through or by”.

Managing our digital identity through those sources we know about is a challenge for a significant percentage of the online population. But despite being a challenge, it’s one which is achieveable if you’re willing to put enough time and effort into it. But most of us don’t have the time or are unwilling to put in the effort, so our digital cookie crumbs and the varying online versions of “us” stay online, ready for someone with the time and effort to search for, find and put together with profit in mind.

Some people take an active role in managing their digital footprint and try to exploit it. Some people also try to exploit other people’s digital footprint. Let’s look at a concrete example of this.

Not Your Average Star Trek Reference

My site at garygale.com pulls together a subset of my digital footprint into one place, drawing on my blog, my social bookmarks on Delicious, articles I’ve written, photos from Flickr and presentation decks from talks I’ve given. Inspired by an article written by the Yahoo! Developer Network’s Christian Heilman, garygale.com uses PHP and YQL to dynamically pull in the latest version of all my content so my site is always up to date

Now compare and contrast this information with that available on Spock.com, “the first search engine for finding people on the web”. It’s not as complete as my version, nor formatted as coherently but the key facets of my digital footprint are there. If I wanted to I could add to this digital portrait, supplying tags, biographic information, pictures, quotes and so on.

Spock has crawled the web for my data and it’s created a profile on me, without my permission and without my control. It encourages me to enrich the data held but then requires payment for me to access that information. Now would be a good time to point out that in April 2009, Spock was acquired by Intelius, a company that provides background checks and identity theft protection.

Those that Fail to Learn from History, are Doomed to Repeat It?

Can I stop Spock finding and presenting this information about me, without my request or, more importantly, without my control? Spock’s help page says the following:

“Before requesting removal, please make sure the original source of the information Spock found for you has been removed or made private (MySpace, blog, Friendster, etc). This will prevent you from being re-indexed on the site.”

This means that unless I contact every source that Spock crawls, and not all sources are identified on Spock’s site, and then have each source take down content on me or make them private, Spock will crawl these sources again and find my content and republish it. An evident parallel of this Web 2.0 behaviour is the Web 1.0 problem of large scale harvesting of email addresses for subsequent resale to commercial spammers.

My site speaks for me because I control the information and the way in which it’s presented; Spock’s version of me is out of my control and doesn’t speak for me.

What I do know is that neither the privacy advocates nor the aggressive marketers who want to know all about me – let alone the government that thinks my life should be an open book – can speak for me. I want to make my own decisions about what I disclose, knowing all the while that I cannot control what others say about me.

Esther Dyson

In “My Digital Footprint”, Tony Fish describes a Rainbow of Trust, which categorises people’s online activities as one of Untrusting and Stupid, Untrusting and Wise, Accepting Authority, One Way or My Way.

Untrusting and Stupid give up data without any thought as to the consequences; their online participation is passive and will click on anything, including banners and search ads.

Untrusting and Wise are the opposite of Untrusting and Stupid; they are extremely selective about the information they reveal, concerned about privacy and frequently hide their identify behind multiple digital personas.

Accepting Authority have their computer’s default home page still set, Yahoo!, MSN, AOL, etc and are either happy with a portal approach to their online experience or are unwilling or unable to change it. Their digital experience has to work first time, be simple and work with one click.

One Way experiment with one one thing at a time, continuing until they’re happy with it and then move onto another online service.

My Way want it their way, un-tethered, un-filtered and unadulterated, trusting no one until they have mastered it and push the boundaries of what’s possible online.

The readers of this article will (hopefully) fall within a combination of Untrusting and Wise and MY Way, but the reality is that we are but a small percentage of the global population who have access to the Internet, which as of March 2009, numbered around 1,500,000,000.

Two Cultures; Those Who Understand Tech and The Rest of Us

Mentoring programs such as DigitAll go some way to help inform people about their usage of the internet, not only how to use it, but how to use it responsibly and knowledgeably. At this year’s OpenTech in July at the University of London Union, technology critic Bill Thompson lamented the Two Cultures problem; people who understand technology and everyone else. As illustration of this he highlighted how the UK education syllabus places more emphasis on “the ability to format text in Microsoft Word” than on understanding how to use the net and how to identity and protect your digital identity. Until your digital dandruff, crumbs and footprint becomes an integral part of our children’s education, we all have a responsibility to understand what is being done with our personal data and pass this onto our colleagues, our friends and our family.