At 09:56 31-08-2009, Steve Crocker wrote:
This sort of discussion is similar to other settings that are
introducing electronic versions of previously manual processes, e.g.
in the health care industry. Let me offer a point of view and a
suggestion.
[snip]
Suggestion: As noted above, similar issues apply in other settings.
This community has an opportunity to tackle the interplay of
technology and social policy issues that affect itself far more
cogently and efficiently than most communities do. Let's grasp the
nettles and see if we can work through the issues in a sensible and
rational way. Do we need a privacy policy regarding the information
collected? If so, let's create one. Do we need access controls on
the information? If so, let's create them. Do we need an ability to
edit information that's been collected if it's inaccurate? If so,
let's build it. Do we need more flexibility in the information stored
in the record, e.g. a distinct email address for each working group?
If so, let's add it.
I think that the above covers the larger issue. This is not the
usual IETF experiment. It is a social experiment.
There was a time when the IETF was a trend-setter. We can take the
view where the IETF only "publishes" technical specifications and it
cannot influence how the technology is used. Or we can take this
opportunity to understand the social impact of the technologies. We
have all heard the argument "it's only the 'bad' people who should
have something to fear about".
The bluesheet is a piece of paper which is used as an attendance
sheet for Working Group sessions. It would take some work and time
to aggregate the information or do data mining on it. That's one
advantage (or disadvantage) of paper records. With the advent of
information technology, it takes less time to aggregate information
stored in digital form. The e-bluesheet system uses a "tag-reader"
where we still have a manual process to "sign" (or avoid signing) the
attendance sheet.
The following is unrelated to the existing e-bluesheet experiment.
Let's go one step further. Imagine the entire floor space
criss-crossed by scanners that can pick a RFID tag
automatically. That is, we can pinpoint the participants in a room
or hallway and collect information about "social clusters" within the
different areas. We could identify where the I* bodies are and who
are interacting with these people. This is not your usual (Web 2.0)
social network where you list your friends. It's more than that as
we do not have to ask you to list your interests. We can get that
information from our "tracking" system. We can determine who is
talking to NomCom.
If you want to create the above as an experiment, separate the "tag"
IDs from the personal information about the participant. Correlate
the information in real-time to show the participants what can be
done and destroy the "mapping" immediately after the end of the
meeting. I don't have to tell you not to use the Internet to publish
the real-time information as you already know what will happen.
We tend to use the anonymity of the crowd as a protection. That is
no longer true with the technologies that are available nowadays. We
can identify "individuals of interest" and access information about
them easily.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf