View source for ShareInformation


Information sharing has been a hot topic lately.  The idea that joining tabular data from different sources can provide powerful insights has been exploited in the private sector for centuries.  Now that the government ha a compelling pretext for more emphasis on the spooky arts, and less on the idea of "separation of powers", we hear often of information sharing between government agencies.

The more strategy-minded institutions ("public" and private alike) will seek to maximize internal information sharing and minimize information sharing between themselves and the world at large.  I sometimes refer to this as an [[OpenWithinClosed]] model.

The phrase "open systems" no longer has any spunk, having become a catch phrase even in golfomercials for [[OpenWithinClosed]] "enterprise" software.  We need a word like "open" only more so, specifically "open" in a non-adversarial context.  Maybe "unbound"?
----
Why? We segregate our information. I am willing to share certain information with certain people, and not with others. Some people I will share a certain type of information, but not others.

This isn't just a matter of privacy... our society's behavior is based on this. You can tell your doctor certain things you wouldn't feel comfortable telling your boss. And there is just information that your doctor isn't interested in, but your boss is. Etc etc etc. So... socially, cooperating, and competitively... we segregate our data.

Frankly, I don't see this changing... it's too basic. We segregate ourselves. So long as we segregate ourselves, so will we segregate our data and our data partners. ---StarPilot
----
We do segregate ourselves, but at least we're ambitious enough to hate ourselves for it.  I think the amount of conflict underlying this unease represents enough optimism to affect the course of history.  I think there is also cause for optimism on the [[ShareInformation]] front.

Your concerns about doctors and bosses and the like are well-founded.  Information has strategic implications when dealing with these parties.  Probably to a much greater extent with bosses than with doctors.  I couldn't help noticing that you used information you'd be more comfortable telling a doctor than a boss as an example.  I'm guessing you would have an easier time coming up with examples of that kind of information than information you'd be more comfortable sharing with your boss than your doctor.  I also couldn't help noticing that you didn't use as an example an instance of your doctor being interested in something about you that your boss isn't.  My own unfair bias is that employer/employee relationships are far more adversarial than physician/patient relationships.  That means that my decision making, particularly concerning [[InformationSharing]], is much more strategy-oriented when dealing with bosses than when dealing with doctors.

My advocacy of [[PubWan]] includes advocacy of the idea that when dealing with other individuals (as individuals, not as affiliates of some institution such as a clinic or business concern) there is generally more freedom to let one's guard down than when dealing with physicians, let alone employers.  There are of course specific data (usually "identifying" data) that are none of the public's business, but some of the other data you possess might even be to your own advantage to release into the public domain.  Not surprisingly, the degree to which this is the case might have something to do with how widespread the practice becomes.  Most likely [[CriticalMass]] issues enter into it.

I don't care to speculate on the prospects for [[PubWan]] (or the equivalent).  Hopefully a few people can be found who, after segregating their strategic data among the various "data partners" they're trying to outstrategize, will have little left over.

[[LorraineLee]]