Security and Trust

Chris Brogan and I have had a few discussions on security and one of our recent discussions inspired this post:

One of my many hats is that of a security "expert". A lot of times security comes across looking like the bad guy. They are the ones who shut you down, tell you no, and throw a pile of requirements at you. Even when they talk about security it often seems completely irrelevant or like some corny version of Reefer Madness. Even I often come out with a line like:
"Security is about confidentiality, availability and integrity (CAI)". That's nice Goldie, but what do I care.

All the security books will give you some version of the CAI definition. It is a nice way to break things down - but what security is really about is trust - how we define it, how we build it, and how we ensure it.

In that sense security is about us, and as much as applications need to provide some fundamental security it also relies on us.

Confidentiality - What a dry word with so much potential. Usually this word reminds one of secrets, and, with much of computer security's origins being from the military it often is about making sure secrets are kept, and only "people that need to know know". How relevant is that in a Web 2.0 world where we twitter like no one is watching?

But wait, if you look at the word, it is related to the word "Confidence". Confidentiality relates to confidence. Even as we share we take others into confidence in some matters that we would not share with others. We want and trust that information that is intended for one person goes to that person, and not to another. We rely on the programs to ensure that the messages go to their intended place, and we rely on the person to ensure that they are the ones who will read and reply to these messages.

Availability - Well availability is a snap to see why that matters. Anyone who has dealt with their favorite online application's down time - or seen too many LOLcats knows how critical availability is. Depending on how critical a service is, if it cannot be available reliably we cannot trust it to perform its function.

Integrity - Even if a bit stuffy, this word is a bit easier to relate to, and perhaps the most critical component of social networks. Integrity is often about data - the asset server that doesn't lose our inventory, or the mail that doesn't become corrupt. But integrity is also about communications.

It can be the simple fact that my words don't change on this page unless I edit them. It also is the ability to trust that someone else cannot post words for me, or that the words that I hear from a person came from that person.

We rely on the integrity of the system to present our identities. But at the same time the system relies on us to identify ourselves, and we are part of the system of integrity. Without integrity fast communication would happen but the bonds of connection that we develop would not - because integrity is necessary for trust.

There are many features that people identify as web 2.0 but what strikes me as being the most prominent is the element of connection. Whether through tagging & linking or through twittering & sharing data more and more web 2.0 is about the connections we make. These connections are built on trust, and that trust is built on a non-tangible platform where the assurances of identity come from digital marks that are protected through confidentiality, availability and integrity - both the systems and ours.

Out of the Fishbowl, or Are We Ready for the Middleman

I've been hanging out on twitter and on some of the BlogTV and Ustream live broadcasts put on by Jeff Pulver and Chris Brogan and one of the popular topics has been how do we get podcasting and videocasting out beyond the fishbowl . There are a few thoughts and ideas I have on this, and of course please share your own - this is best done as a conversation. (I have a few ideas specifically for how to get listeners to podcamps as well, but that is another post.)

So the first way to get beyond the fishbowl is the slower technique. Talk to people. No, I don't mean talk to other podcasters and techies, I mean talk to people outside the fishbowl who you interact with. Talk up your podcast, or your favorite ones, to your dentist. (My dentist bought an iPod because he thought mine was so cool.) Talk to the cashier who rings you up at the grocery store. If you feel really adventurous walk up to someone on the street and strike up a conversation. You could even throw in a "man in the street" interview as part of the pitch. As these folk outside the fishbowl find the podcasts they like they will spread it onward, slowly, and only as fast as the non-technical grasp and find their podcasts.

The other way, the one more likely to succeed, is building the new middleman. It is funny that each time we destroy the middleman - no more big networks, no mainstream media, we can do it on own - we rediscover the purpose and need of the middleman. This isn't to say we shouldn't periodically blow away the middleman. A complacent middleman can become selfish and greedy. There is a reason why independent music labels have sprung up. But even as it is necessary to wipe the slate clean there comes a time when we need to build the new middleman, or curator as Chris Brogan posted today. So why the middleman?

We talk about how great the new media is because we have the freedom and power to chose whatever we want. This is incredibly powerful from a creative perspective. However, from the consumer end, those who would be only listeners, choice can be highly overrated.

Think about some product that you consume that isn't your passion. Lets say toothpaste. So you can have mint, wintermint, ginger, fennel, bubblegum, tutifruti. And in each of these flavors you have, plain, with fluoride, with baking-soda, with baking-soda and fluoride, tartar control, fluoride with-tartar control, and whitening. And this is all one brand, there are also 5 other brands on the shelf. I don't know about you, but I usually settle on a flavor and feature combination and that is what I buy unless I'm feeling like trying something new, which isn't every shopping trip. It works, why change it?

Now apply that to podcasts. Even if they are free they still cost, they cost a person's time and attention. Why should they seek them out instead of some TV show they can buy in the iTunes store? Even worse, they don't even know what to do with it. I know I need toothpaste, what I use it for and why I might or might not want fluoride in it. What do I do with a podcast? How do I know I'm interested in it? How do I know what is any good? Sure people may try out a podcast here or there, but if the first one they pick isn't remotely what they are interested in they'll go back to their pre-packaged TV. This is where the middleman becomes useful.

The middleman can provide a categorization and winnowing of podcasts into podcasts that meet a standard. The middleman can then speak to the potential listeners and tell them why they would be interested and what they would do with it. They can curate for the listeners to the pod/video/livecasts they are interested in. They can be the trusted introducer. This is what it will take to bring this new media to those non-early adopter listeners.

One thing to note, even with the introduction of the middleman it does not mean every 'cast needs a middleman. Once listeners find out that they have a use and desire for these casts they will look around and try an occasional independent cast. In a sense the middleman develops the market, but everyone can benefit from the market being developed.

I know there are some networks out there that cull and categorize podcasts, but I think we are still at the preliminary stages of the development of the middleman role. The mainstream listener still doesn't understand why they should seek out the podcasts. When they see the value to them, they will come to listen and the 'casts will become part of the new mainstream. Are we ready for that?