 |
|||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||
Thursday, October 09, 2003
Don't Help!
Again, another well-meaning "expert" in the identity space, has done no service to the movement toward secure CAC-type identity on a public basis. Guy Immega, CEO of Kinetic Sciences, of Vancouver, has written an editorial comment in the Globe & Mail today, in support of a national id program. A program, it should be understood, that was resoundingly hammered in a government-initiated conference in Ottawa earlier in the week.
While I appreciate and support most of what he says as I'm sympathetic to the cause, he does no service to anyone working on these sorts of initiatives with statements such as:
This kind of frightening statement is exactly what is scaring off the majority from the notion of strong identity cards: the spectre of Big Brother and privacy invasion. Moreover, a better solution would likely involve multiple instances of such secure cards and solutions -- each for use in varying circumstances and for varying purposes -- to diversify risk. Natural evolution will take care of which, if any, such identity artifacts become multi-purpose -- and how. Better that there be several and a means of federating or simply opting in to accept them or not.
So, stop with this kind of help. Please.
While I appreciate and support most of what he says as I'm sympathetic to the cause, he does no service to anyone working on these sorts of initiatives with statements such as:
"A national ID card could function as a combined Canadian passport, CanPass card (for frequent cross-border travellers), SIN card, health-care card, driver's licence and even as a library card (assuming the co-operation of the provincial and municipal governments)."
This kind of frightening statement is exactly what is scaring off the majority from the notion of strong identity cards: the spectre of Big Brother and privacy invasion. Moreover, a better solution would likely involve multiple instances of such secure cards and solutions -- each for use in varying circumstances and for varying purposes -- to diversify risk. Natural evolution will take care of which, if any, such identity artifacts become multi-purpose -- and how. Better that there be several and a means of federating or simply opting in to accept them or not.
So, stop with this kind of help. Please.
Structure Stricture
Maybe it's just me, but I wonder whether the impact of (organization) structure on the likelihood of success or the shape of an eventual outcome is adequately considered by (business) people. There is undoubtedly a garrot somewhere with smart people studying and publishing -- or worse, for me, a long-standing body of knowledge -- that I'm not plugged in to. I just don't see it among the people I work with or observe from afar. It's especially peculiar since the ranks of business elite is rife with MBAs and engineers, the latter of whom are particularly knowledgeable with the impact of structure on outcome.
Here's the notion-ette: All the business casing and business planning in the world will not overcome the inherent limitations imposed by structure. Sometimes, even with the best of theory, skill, and capability, you just "can't get there from here." Structure imposes constraints on the nature of outcome that have to be recognized and dealt with every bit as much as geography imposes constraints on movement (say, of armies) and the journey. But I don't see but a few special people using structure as a tool or competitive weapon. (Some) lawyers tend to be good with it at the deal level; some managers can be good at it at the organizational level; some product developers can be good at it in the development process. These are the true "shapers." The vast, average, majority appear to accept structure as a given or assume structuring to be the unimaginative application of a process or recipe to all situations.
Remember this: Almost nothing in this world is infinite or immutable. The truly successful throughout history have changed their context to suit their goals. We should all think about that when we accept a challenge.
I have a larger notion that will get better treatment in the future. Watch this space.
Here's the notion-ette: All the business casing and business planning in the world will not overcome the inherent limitations imposed by structure. Sometimes, even with the best of theory, skill, and capability, you just "can't get there from here." Structure imposes constraints on the nature of outcome that have to be recognized and dealt with every bit as much as geography imposes constraints on movement (say, of armies) and the journey. But I don't see but a few special people using structure as a tool or competitive weapon. (Some) lawyers tend to be good with it at the deal level; some managers can be good at it at the organizational level; some product developers can be good at it in the development process. These are the true "shapers." The vast, average, majority appear to accept structure as a given or assume structuring to be the unimaginative application of a process or recipe to all situations.
Remember this: Almost nothing in this world is infinite or immutable. The truly successful throughout history have changed their context to suit their goals. We should all think about that when we accept a challenge.
I have a larger notion that will get better treatment in the future. Watch this space.
Wednesday, October 08, 2003
Izzy Gone?
Not than anyone outside of Canada would know the name, but a great businessman, Israel H. Asper, creator the the CanWest media empire, sadly but not entirely surprisingly died yesterday. The eulogizing in the Canadian media is extensive today and there's no need for more. I met Izzy several times and spent time with a lot of his cronies (don't ask). The peculiar thing that reports of his death make clear to me is a distinct difference in how the Christian and Jewish immigrants to Canada of the early 20th-century European waves) identity themselves. I come from the stock of Ukrainian Christian immigrants (allegedly, 5 generations ago) and am part of the Canadian demography that identifies itself as "Ukrainian," or Canadian of Ukrainian descent. Asper, on the other hand, as long as I've known him and of him, has always been the son of Jewish immigrants, period, full-stop. Yes, they were Eastern-Europeans, but their origin was always secondary. He was proud of being Jewish, and that's good. To the best of my knowledge he didn't, unlike so many Christians, belong to Ukrainian societies and Ukrainian businessmen's clubs, etc. Doesn't really matter. I just find it interesting.
