RatcliffeBlog - Mitch Thinking Out Loud

That old fashioned Digital ID

That old fashioned Digital ID

Doc relates Andre Durand's idea that "When T1 identites have real customer relationships with T2 partners, T3 goes away. We will have the final defeat of Marketing as Usual."

I agree. Doc's definition of a T2 relationship is an "OurIdentity" that is based on mutual agreement. He goes on to say: "Each embodies a relationship that is open to change, and to other relationships that may suit both parties. As for the ownership issue, it's a bit of a red herring. Look at it this way: who 'owns' a contract?"

This is my point exactly, that the contract does nothing to transfer the user's rights in their identity to a company permanently. When a contract is broken, it dissolves any rights a company would have to an individual's identity (this would usually be found in a contract between two companies in the term and termination, limitations and, perhaps, indemnification sections). The company must forfeit all future use of information about the individual and, as Bryan points out (in an email thread quoted by Eric) "the tables are turned" if individuals have the ability to dictate the rules and technologies of engagement. Which is also what Doc says.

This thread is getting way too confusing.

So, what's the design principle? Design tools for the owners of the most basic form of identity (the now-fabled T1 idenity) and leave the rest alone. Give the individual the tools to manage their identity and the OurIdentity issues will be self-organizing. The rules most individuals would be inclined to select ("don't collect information about me unless I give explicit permission" -- an opt-in system) prevent the T3 identity (marketers making guesses about us) from accumulating through our daily brushes with markets. Companies would be forced into a new, more equitable relationship with their customers.