Doc Searls continues his exploration of all that’s wrong in the interactions between customers and the services and products they need.
All the identities in our wallets and purses, from social security numbers to credit card numbers to library and museum memberships, are given to us by organizations. More importantly, they represent “customer relationship management” (CRM) systems that at best respect a tiny fraction of who we are and what we might bring to a “relationship”.
What CRM systems call a “relationship” is so confined, so minimal, so impoverished and so incomplete that it insults the word.
Source: Turning the world I-side out | Linux Journal
He makes the point that CRM systems as vendor centric systems are inherently broken.
The CRM system will remain broken until it appreciates, embraces and truly relates to customers — not just as complex human beings, but as
- entities with many other relationships, and
- potential sources of highly useful intelligence, as well as money.
He makes a good point here. Vendors should attach to our identity … we shouldn’t have to be an entry in each of the CRM systems at the phone company, the bank, the department store. Clearly there are aspects with each of those vendors that are proprietary to them, but the proprietary component should be linked to my unique identity.
A key capability here, for the customer, is the willingness and the ability to remain anonymous, and to do so selectively. For example, an individual should be able to reveal to the market that he or she has a good credit history, belongs to relevant membership clubs (such as those of airlines, public broadcasting stations and rental car agencies), and intends to do serious business — for example, by expressing the intention to rent a certain brand and model of car in Salt Lake City for the week of January 7th — without revealing his or her name. The system should support anonymity, in any level of detail, on the customer’s terms.
Chris talked about Google in this piece. He worries about he pervasiveness of the Google authentication, across Gmail, Google spreadsheets, maps, search etc. This pervasive authentication he fears, could provide the opportunity to shut out or filter other services.
My first reaction was that is ok. But after I argued that having my Google ID is a good thing, he responded:
…Which is the whole premise behind OpenID. Ultimately, it’s okay to outsource managing your identity, just as you do when you put your money in a bank or get a credit card. However, you have a choice over whether to play that game or not — there being benefits for and against doing either.
With OpenID, you decide who manages your identity, who vouches for you and who you trust to “loan” your information to.
We should have complete control over our own data is the argument. This flies in the face of current reality.
- credit bureau/ reporting services
- banks
- utility companies
- telephone companies
- ISP’s
…. the list goes on
The current reality is that we have no control over our identities. We can call and complain, we can have our identity stolen, but their is no absolute personal control. Indeed this would be a mindshift if a bank in order to complete a mortgage application had to have agreement from you to access your identity as required to complete the application.
This could take the form of a pin number, a smart card swipe, or some form of user authentication from you the owner of your identity data. In fact, in many cases the release of your data could be in the form of simple confirmation of who you are and your address. The extent that credit reporting has extended to opening bank accounts, or buying a phone are quite ludicrous actually, and definitely overkill. User owned ID could be comprised in layers, with relevance of each layer to the service required.
Relevance to Bankwatch:
Back in the early days of Internet banking, we hypothesised about the relevance to banks in protection of customers identities. This could introduce a new business model where Banks keep identities in the vault, releasing only those parts that the customer requires to be released.
Update – relevant articles:
Bankwatch 
I quite agree with this concept of ” customer controlled ID”. Person centric commerce is the future.PCC protects identity and provides complete confidentiality to the customer.
There is an interesting group working on this http://www.rightsideup.net/. You might want to check them out.