These companies are conducting citizen surveillance and monitoring everything we do. We could phase out government altogether and the data collection and surveillance would continue. And then whatever used to be done in the name of government will be done in the name of private enterprise with the added bonus of a profit motive.
Opinion: The Internet is a surveillance state - CNN.com: "The Internet is a surveillance state. Whether we admit it to ourselves or not, and whether we like it or not, we're being tracked all the time. Google tracks us, both on its pages and on other pages it has access to. Facebook does the same; it even tracks non-Facebook users. Apple tracks us on our iPhones and iPads. One reporter used a tool called Collusion to track who was tracking him; 105 companies tracked his Internet use during one 36-hour period."
You see, there isn't any money in it for your listed companies to "share" this data. Quite the opposite. They have to spend resources doing it and risk pissing off their customers at the same time.
You're right. There isn't any money in "sharing" the data but there is definitely money in "selling" the data, which they are doing all the time. All that has to happen is for the government to pay for the data like other clients of these corporations and they'll be able to get it, too.
Opinion: The Internet is a surveillance state - CNN.com: "In today's world, governments and corporations are working together to keep things that way. Governments are happy to use the data corporations collect -- occasionally demanding that they collect more and save it longer -- to spy on us. And corporations are happy to buy data from governments. Together the powerful spy on the powerless, and they're not going to give up their positions of power, despite what the people want."
I agree. You can't point to government and privacy without addressing privacy in general. Companies are collecting all sorts of info on people. So trying to point a finger at government without also acknowledging how much personal info is being amassed anyway doesn't really address the total issue.
I think private companies are trying to put the focus on government in order to take the focus away from them. And, like I said, if government was prepared to pay them for the info, I think these companies would sell it to government anyway. Look at the search possibilities Facebook is offering. And the big data people are already touting what they can discover about people. So with that info, you can start to predict who is going to do what and then monitor some people more closely based on what you think they might do.
You can't have private companies saying, "Look at what we can tell you about individual consumers" and then try to tell people to distrust government over privacy issues.
Eviscerating existing privacy laws by giving overly broad legal immunity to companies who share users' private information, including the content of communications, with the government.
We know companies are collecting tons of info on private citizens. And we know that they use it themselves and provide it to other companies in a variety of ways. So what if the government becomes another client/customer, with cash in hand, rather than demanding the info?
Some people are raising the issue of government and police running drones in this country. But, on the other hand, there's just too much commercial potential with drones for anyone to actually pass laws against them.
I've been more concerned with private companies monitoring people than with government monitoring people because I think the private companies monitor more people and collect more data than government. However, I can see some jobs where private companies will be able to do it when government won't be. The example that comes to my mind is monitoring gun use. The gun lobby might prevent police from monitoring people with guns, but private companies might be able to do that under the radar. If someone is acting weirdly and has access to guns, there might be no legal way to head off potential trouble, but private companies might be able to quietly monitor those people. I mean, there's already enough info being provided online for companies to detect patterns that might indicate future problems. Keeping track of those people wouldn't be that hard to do. And if it is done by a private company paying politicians, who are the politicians going to block?
I don't know why they canned it. Maybe the Google+ competition theories are right. Maybe it just took more resources than they wanted t sick into it. Maybe too much of the user base used ad-blockers. Maybe the ecosystem of third party readers "leeching" off the service bothered them.
That adds a new perspective to something I wrote. I asked why Google couldn't just allow this service to be free and run by volunteers? Why not keep it going under someone else's guidance? But if services like this are somehow a threat to the core business, then perhaps a company like Google wants to kill it rather than liberate it.
Some people have suggested that Google sometimes starts projects more to undermine competitors than to create new businesses for itself. So if it accomplishes that, then perhaps Google sees no reason to maintain the service. Further, if the project has been disruptive, but now no longer benefits Google in any fashion, it might be a strategic decision to remove the product from the market rather than to enable someone else to carry on with it.
Who pays Mike's other businesses? For all intents and purposes they appear to be basically, if not unknown, not even remotely close to the profile Techdirt has.
A number of months back there was a discussion on Techdirt about to what extent a blogger should disclose sources of income. More recently I found this. Talk about complete disclosure.
Techdirt often points to free offerings which can then be used to convert some users into buying an upgrade or an additional service/item.
But there's also free with no intention to wring a monetary exchange from it. I like to talk about those actions more because they broaden our discussions of economic systems.
Maybe Google should have a system where it routinely spins off its services into free products which can exist as free, free-standing entities where no one is compensated for anything. If there is a user base which wants it, why not allow it to keep functioning? Why not donate some cloud space to these entities to keep these free services going?
Re: Re: Re: "lack of action in Washington to deal with the real criminals"
Private companies are and will be collecting far more data on people than what government is accused of doing. The data collection is going on, whether or not government is involved.
Re: Re: "lack of action in Washington to deal with the real criminals"
POWER-CURVE SOCIETY: The Future of Innovation, Opportunity and Social Equity in the Emerging Networked Economy | The Aspen Institute: "The industries that are most resistant to any change in the status quo, said [Michael Fertik, Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Reputation.com] are Internet-based media incumbents such as Google and Facebook, which argue that new requirements to protect privacy will destroy innovation. Shane Green of Personal said that when he talks to people at large Internet companies that gather lots of personal data, he is 'amazed' at their resistance to disclosing how they capture data, what they do with it and how much money they make from it. 'They sound just like Ma Bell from way back,' said Fertik. 'They have absolutely no interest in talking about privacy. Why won’t [these companies] open up and talk about how they capture data and what they do with it? Because they’re controlling things in a way that benefit them and not everyone else.'”
Re: Re: "lack of action in Washington to deal with the real criminals"
Problem is that there's NO longer ANY separation between the political and corporate realms. It's even worse than politicians being paid off: nowadays people move freely between political or appointed offices and corporate or media positions.
I agree. My sense is that private industry will get exactly what it wants from the government in terms of security.
It will get defense contracts.
It will call on the government to clean up security whenever private industry wants help.
It will protest government surveillance whenever it wants to collect its own data on citizens, and then it will turn around and sell it to the government
As I read about all the back and forth on security and privacy I don't see much difference between what government does and what private industry does and I think private industry calls the shots because it can buy the government it needs. The rest of the debate is just a sideshow.
I think we have much bigger issues that what is going to happen with copyright.
This article is one of many that lays it out.
Do I think tech and startups can solve some of these problems? Yes, but I don't know that consumers will have the money to pay for those solutions. So either rich people will underwrite those costs or the companies will provide those solutions to most people for little or no charge. And that's where the discussions of sharing and ownership come in.
Sure, innovation can create new jobs, but that means funding the innovations until a new economic system is in place. That might take awhile.
Living Enterprise as the Foundation of a Generative Economy -- Moving Toward Sustainable Prosperity: "Ownership is the gravitational field that holds an economy in its orbit. Today, dominant ownership designs lock us into behaviors that lead to financial excess and ecological overshoot. But emerging, alternative ownership patterns – when properly designed – can have a tendency to lead to beneficial outcomes. It may be that these designs are the elements needed to form the foundation for a generative economy, a living economy – an economy that might at last be consistent with living inside a living being."
To simplify their lives, because it is better for the environment, or because they can't afford them, people are cutting back on "stuff."
When you couple that with what is happening online, there's an expanding movement to change the nature of ownership and what we own. It could be quite revolutionary.
Living With Less. A Lot Less. - NYTimes.com: "Like the 420-square-foot space I live in, the houses I design contain less stuff and make it easier for owners to live within their means and to limit their environmental footprint."
It used to be that people could discount those communists because they were "them."
However, there is so much sharing, crowdsourcing, commons, and P2P going on around and among us, that it is becoming "us" even if not everyone has caught on to the changes yet. Wikipedia, free online education, crowdsourcing, these are happening successfully and showing that collective effort can be effective. If people discover they don't need to own what they need and if they discover that "free" services can provide what they once paid for, their idea of what is doable can change.
Another trend likely to result in more coordinated effort is climate change. The scientific data continues to come out, making harder for people to pretend nothing is happening. It's a global issue and requires some global thinking on the matter. Hoping that people acting as individual consumers will fix the problem in a timely manner through their purchasing preferences may be wishful thinking.
Those communists tried exactly what the copyidiots want to do and that is force the public to accept their views.
I'm not exactly who you mean by copyidiots, but I think that as more gets shared online, more people get comfortable sharing off-line. And as decentralization becomes the norm, there's less reason for big corporations to form.
There are some people getting wealthy via tech stock sales, but trends being what they are, I think we'll see more ownership headed the other way -- more sharing and less concentration within a limited number of hands. Income inequality leaves a lot of people with very little to own so they don't have much reason to support the status quo when it comes to ownership. Of course, we are seeing those in power hoping to keep those without ownership from influencing the vote. If you don't think people will vote for what you want, you find ways to keep them from voting.
Ostrom identified eight "design principles" of stable local common pool resource management:[19]
1. Clearly defined boundaries (effective exclusion of external un-entitled parties);
2. Rules regarding the appropriation and provision of common resources that are adapted to local conditions;
3. Collective-choice arrangements that allow most resource appropriators to participate in the decision-making process;
4. Effective monitoring by monitors who are part of or accountable to the appropriators;
5. A scale of graduated sanctions for resource appropriators who violate community rules;
6. Mechanisms of conflict resolution that are cheap and of easy access;
7. Self-determination of the community recognized by higher-level authorities;
8. In the case of larger common-pool resources, organization in the form of multiple layers of nested enterprises, with small local CPRs at the base level.
These principles have since been slightly modified and expanded to include a number of additional variables believed to affect the success of self-organized governance systems, including effective communication, internal trust and reciprocity, and the nature of the resource system as a whole.[20]
Ostrom and her many co-researchers have developed a comprehensive "Social-Ecological Systems (SES) framework", within which much of the still-evolving theory of common-pool resources and collective self-governance is now located.[21]
You're citing failed experiments without considering successful ones. Cooperatives, for example, have successfully been run in a number of communities.
Commons as a New Paradigm for Governance, Economics and Policy - P2P Foundation: "Professor Elinor Ostrom of Indiana University – who passed away several months ago – was the most prominent academic to rescue the commons and rebut Hardin. It took years of painstaking field research and innovative theorizing, but in her path-breaking 1990 book, Governing the Commons, Ostrom identified some basic design principles of successful commons. Over the past several decades, she and many colleagues have shown in hundreds of empirical studies that people can and do successfully manage their land and water and forests and fisheries as commons. Some commons have flourished for hundreds of years, such as the Swiss villagers who manage high mountain meadows and the huerta irrigation institutions in Spain."
On the post: The List Of Government Agencies That Can Get Your Data Under CISPA
Re: Re: Re: 3rd parties = Google, Facebook, Twitter, Techdirt...
Opinion: The Internet is a surveillance state - CNN.com: "The Internet is a surveillance state. Whether we admit it to ourselves or not, and whether we like it or not, we're being tracked all the time. Google tracks us, both on its pages and on other pages it has access to. Facebook does the same; it even tracks non-Facebook users. Apple tracks us on our iPhones and iPads. One reporter used a tool called Collusion to track who was tracking him; 105 companies tracked his Internet use during one 36-hour period."
On the post: The List Of Government Agencies That Can Get Your Data Under CISPA
Re: Re: 3rd parties = Google, Facebook, Twitter, Techdirt...
You're right. There isn't any money in "sharing" the data but there is definitely money in "selling" the data, which they are doing all the time. All that has to happen is for the government to pay for the data like other clients of these corporations and they'll be able to get it, too.
On the post: Time To Speak Up About CISPA: We Shouldn't Be Scared Into Giving Up Our Privacy
"The Internet is a surveillance state"
On the post: Time To Speak Up About CISPA: We Shouldn't Be Scared Into Giving Up Our Privacy
Re: Nobody cares
I think private companies are trying to put the focus on government in order to take the focus away from them. And, like I said, if government was prepared to pay them for the info, I think these companies would sell it to government anyway. Look at the search possibilities Facebook is offering. And the big data people are already touting what they can discover about people. So with that info, you can start to predict who is going to do what and then monitor some people more closely based on what you think they might do.
You can't have private companies saying, "Look at what we can tell you about individual consumers" and then try to tell people to distrust government over privacy issues.
On the post: Time To Speak Up About CISPA: We Shouldn't Be Scared Into Giving Up Our Privacy
But what if they sell it to the government?
We know companies are collecting tons of info on private citizens. And we know that they use it themselves and provide it to other companies in a variety of ways. So what if the government becomes another client/customer, with cash in hand, rather than demanding the info?
On the post: 'No Photos From The Sky' Bill Trimmed Back, But Still Could Create Felons Out Of Kids Playing With Toy Drones
Will be a fun clash of priorities
I've been more concerned with private companies monitoring people than with government monitoring people because I think the private companies monitor more people and collect more data than government. However, I can see some jobs where private companies will be able to do it when government won't be. The example that comes to my mind is monitoring gun use. The gun lobby might prevent police from monitoring people with guns, but private companies might be able to do that under the radar. If someone is acting weirdly and has access to guns, there might be no legal way to head off potential trouble, but private companies might be able to quietly monitor those people. I mean, there's already enough info being provided online for companies to detect patterns that might indicate future problems. Keeping track of those people wouldn't be that hard to do. And if it is done by a private company paying politicians, who are the politicians going to block?
On the post: No, The Death Of Google Reader Doesn't Mean 'Free' Doesn't Work
Re: missing the point
That adds a new perspective to something I wrote. I asked why Google couldn't just allow this service to be free and run by volunteers? Why not keep it going under someone else's guidance? But if services like this are somehow a threat to the core business, then perhaps a company like Google wants to kill it rather than liberate it.
Some people have suggested that Google sometimes starts projects more to undermine competitors than to create new businesses for itself. So if it accomplishes that, then perhaps Google sees no reason to maintain the service. Further, if the project has been disruptive, but now no longer benefits Google in any fashion, it might be a strategic decision to remove the product from the market rather than to enable someone else to carry on with it.
On the post: No, The Death Of Google Reader Doesn't Mean 'Free' Doesn't Work
Re: Re: Re:
A number of months back there was a discussion on Techdirt about to what extent a blogger should disclose sources of income. More recently I found this. Talk about complete disclosure.
Disclosure Statement | Bottom-up
On the post: No, The Death Of Google Reader Doesn't Mean 'Free' Doesn't Work
There's free and then there's free
But there's also free with no intention to wring a monetary exchange from it. I like to talk about those actions more because they broaden our discussions of economic systems.
Maybe Google should have a system where it routinely spins off its services into free products which can exist as free, free-standing entities where no one is compensated for anything. If there is a user base which wants it, why not allow it to keep functioning? Why not donate some cloud space to these entities to keep these free services going?
On the post: Director Of National Intelligence Admits That There's Little Risk Of A 'Cyber Pearl Harbor'
Re: Re: Re: "lack of action in Washington to deal with the real criminals"
Tracking Employees With Productivity Sensors - Business Insider
On the post: Director Of National Intelligence Admits That There's Little Risk Of A 'Cyber Pearl Harbor'
Re: Re: "lack of action in Washington to deal with the real criminals"
On the post: Director Of National Intelligence Admits That There's Little Risk Of A 'Cyber Pearl Harbor'
Re: Re: "lack of action in Washington to deal with the real criminals"
I agree. My sense is that private industry will get exactly what it wants from the government in terms of security.
It will get defense contracts.
It will call on the government to clean up security whenever private industry wants help.
It will protest government surveillance whenever it wants to collect its own data on citizens, and then it will turn around and sell it to the government
As I read about all the back and forth on security and privacy I don't see much difference between what government does and what private industry does and I think private industry calls the shots because it can buy the government it needs. The rest of the debate is just a sideshow.
On the post: A Look At 'Ownership' Society
This is the sort of thing I read
This article is one of many that lays it out.
Do I think tech and startups can solve some of these problems? Yes, but I don't know that consumers will have the money to pay for those solutions. So either rich people will underwrite those costs or the companies will provide those solutions to most people for little or no charge. And that's where the discussions of sharing and ownership come in.
Sure, innovation can create new jobs, but that means funding the innovations until a new economic system is in place. That might take awhile.
Unemployment, taxes, and unfunded retirement are making the future unaffordable | Peak Prosperity
On the post: A Look At 'Ownership' Society
Another piece rethinking ownership
On the post: A Look At 'Ownership' Society
People are moving away from owning things
When you couple that with what is happening online, there's an expanding movement to change the nature of ownership and what we own. It could be quite revolutionary.
Living With Less. A Lot Less. - NYTimes.com: "Like the 420-square-foot space I live in, the houses I design contain less stuff and make it easier for owners to live within their means and to limit their environmental footprint."
On the post: A Look At 'Ownership' Society
Re: Re: Re: Re: A great discussion of commons
However, there is so much sharing, crowdsourcing, commons, and P2P going on around and among us, that it is becoming "us" even if not everyone has caught on to the changes yet. Wikipedia, free online education, crowdsourcing, these are happening successfully and showing that collective effort can be effective. If people discover they don't need to own what they need and if they discover that "free" services can provide what they once paid for, their idea of what is doable can change.
43 Essential essays on the commons and Peer 2 Peer theory | Permanent Culture Now
On the post: A Look At 'Ownership' Society
Re: Re: Re: Re: A great discussion of commons
On the post: A Look At 'Ownership' Society
Re: Re: Re: A great discussion of commons
I'm not exactly who you mean by copyidiots, but I think that as more gets shared online, more people get comfortable sharing off-line. And as decentralization becomes the norm, there's less reason for big corporations to form.
There are some people getting wealthy via tech stock sales, but trends being what they are, I think we'll see more ownership headed the other way -- more sharing and less concentration within a limited number of hands. Income inequality leaves a lot of people with very little to own so they don't have much reason to support the status quo when it comes to ownership. Of course, we are seeing those in power hoping to keep those without ownership from influencing the vote. If you don't think people will vote for what you want, you find ways to keep them from voting.
On the post: A Look At 'Ownership' Society
Re: Re: Re: A great discussion of commons
Design Principles for CPR Institutions
Ostrom identified eight "design principles" of stable local common pool resource management:[19]
1. Clearly defined boundaries (effective exclusion of external un-entitled parties);
2. Rules regarding the appropriation and provision of common resources that are adapted to local conditions;
3. Collective-choice arrangements that allow most resource appropriators to participate in the decision-making process;
4. Effective monitoring by monitors who are part of or accountable to the appropriators;
5. A scale of graduated sanctions for resource appropriators who violate community rules;
6. Mechanisms of conflict resolution that are cheap and of easy access;
7. Self-determination of the community recognized by higher-level authorities;
8. In the case of larger common-pool resources, organization in the form of multiple layers of nested enterprises, with small local CPRs at the base level.
These principles have since been slightly modified and expanded to include a number of additional variables believed to affect the success of self-organized governance systems, including effective communication, internal trust and reciprocity, and the nature of the resource system as a whole.[20]
Ostrom and her many co-researchers have developed a comprehensive "Social-Ecological Systems (SES) framework", within which much of the still-evolving theory of common-pool resources and collective self-governance is now located.[21]
On the post: A Look At 'Ownership' Society
Re: Re: A great discussion of commons
Commons as a New Paradigm for Governance, Economics and Policy - P2P Foundation: "Professor Elinor Ostrom of Indiana University – who passed away several months ago – was the most prominent academic to rescue the commons and rebut Hardin. It took years of painstaking field research and innovative theorizing, but in her path-breaking 1990 book, Governing the Commons, Ostrom identified some basic design principles of successful commons. Over the past several decades, she and many colleagues have shown in hundreds of empirical studies that people can and do successfully manage their land and water and forests and fisheries as commons. Some commons have flourished for hundreds of years, such as the Swiss villagers who manage high mountain meadows and the huerta irrigation institutions in Spain."
Next >>