When companies like Google tell you how much they are monitoring you, it's hard to pretend this is just a government issue.
The reason we know that companies like Google and Facebook are peering into every aspect of our lives is because they are telling us (or at least telling their investors and marketers) that they are doing this.
Google's Plan To Take Over The World - Business Insider: "After spending three days at I/O this week, it became more apparent than ever that unless millions (billions?) of people suddenly change their mind and start using alternative tech tools, or unless the government steps in waving the anti-trust banner, our lives, our history, and our personal wealth could be managed by one company –– Google."
Each time I read my response, I'm not sure if I'm very clear about what I am suggesting. So let me try again.
I think we have very limited privacy these days and most of the monitoring is coming from private industry. I read a lot of articles directed to advertisers and marketers. The data collection companies are very proud of the fact that they are compiling a ton of data on everyone.
And many tech companies are proud of what they have developed to allow them to use the latest devices to track everything and everyone.
The only time these companies raise the privacy issue is when they want to paint government in a negative light.
And yet, private companies are also working with government. I am skeptical that much is done in DC without corporate input. So whatever policies are coming out of DC have probably been shaped to benefit someone's bottom line.
I think we need to discuss privacy on a big scale and what that means to everyone. The positives are that all of these monitors could improve lives. The negatives are that this info can be used against us. (And don't assume government is the only guilty party here. Insurance companies, credit companies, banks, and so on would love to know who to exclude as customers.)
I just posted this in another thread, but I will put it here too, in case there was an confusion about what I was saying in my above comment (in case your are reading the threaded version).
______
I can't stress enough that complaining about government having access to info while encouraging private companies to have unlimited access to info is essentially the same thing.
If the data is being collected and saved by private companies, it is ultimately available to everyone. It's a fake barrier to suggest that info can be kept out of government hands while simultaneously being available to private companies and hackers/criminals/terrorists.
If you want private companies to be free to collect whatever they want to collect and to monitor whomever they want to monitor and to make their privacy opt-ins and opt-outs so vague that most people don't understand what they are sharing, then you have to recognize that government is part of that eco-system. It doesn't have to directly monitor people and collect data. It doesn't even have to order private companies to turn it over. It just has to set up the right commercial system to obtain the data in a way that these private companies approve and profit from.
I can't stress enough that complaining about government having access to info while encouraging private companies to have unlimited access to info is essentially the same thing.
If the data is being collected and saved by private companies, it is ultimately available to everyone. It's a fake barrier to suggest that info can be kept out of government hands while simultaneously being available to private companies and hackers/criminals/terrorists.
If you want private companies to be free to collect whatever they want to collect and to monitor whomever they want to monitor and to make their privacy opt-ins and opt-outs so vague that most people don't understand what they are sharing, then you have to recognize that government is part of that eco-system. It doesn't have to directly monitor people and collect data. It doesn't even have to order private companies to turn it over. It just has to set up the right commercial system to obtain the data in a way that these private companies approve and profit from.
People have already figured out how to take photos with Google Glass with a wink. No voice or touch needed.
At Google Conference, Cameras Even in the Bathroom - NYTimes.com: "Then I met the man who excitedly told me about his power to snap pictures with his eyelid. (The wink, it should be noted, is not officially supported by Glass, but is essentially a hack 'sideloaded' onto the device.) He explained that he uses the wink-to-take-a-picture feature so much that a few days ago he was not wearing his Google Glass and was confused when he blinked his eye and nothing happened. His mind had played a trick on him, he said."
The future, as has been proposed by quite a few people, is having every device we own collecting data. Every person, place, and thing will be monitored non-stop (kind of like a techno version of God, I suppose).
There are at least four entities with real or potential access to this info: the public, private companies, government, criminals.
So we might as well keep talking about this now and what it means when there is no privacy. How much will be opt-in? How much opt-out? How do we limit who has access? Can we delete what we don't want others to see?
When everything about everything is stored in digital form, what will that mean? How much will be linked to everything else and how much will remain unlinked? How easy will it be to bring down big systems?
I keep trying to point out to people that data is being collected, analyzed, and sold by a number of companies. All government has to do is just privatize security and buy this data like other customers. And I think this will happen.
The government isn't solely responsible for our loss of privacy and suggesting that if we get government out of the business of monitoring people the issues will somehow go away.
My concern is that by pretending that government is the bad guy here, private companies hope to widen the door for their own monitoring.
Many of these comments here reinforce my impression that privacy isn't really a concern amongst people who support these data collection and monitoring companies. They want to have access to everything people do, and along with that they don't want to be told not to do it.
So if Google wants to create a file on every person and place in the world, good. And how dare anyone in government raise an issue about this. Why don't they just turn the job over to us techies and we'll do it better than they will.
A big reason I want complete transparency is so that those aspiring to get their projects made know how the system really works.
If, for example, you're working within a system and already have lots of contacts who pull strings for you, but you pretend that you've done it all on your own, then others who want to do what you have done may follow the path they think you took only to find out it was the wrong one.
I've seen it happen quite a bit with music. What goes on behind the scenes is different than the "public" story. What is in the artist and project bio is a pretend story that gets lots of coverage but doesn't match reality.
So if people ask who is involved in a Kickstarter project, where all the money comes from and a complete accounting of how it is spent, I think that is fantastic. Everyone can learn from this.
Well, we'll see, but I don't see what the problem is as long as it's out in the open.
Yes, that is important.
I've seen it in the music industry. There were a number of musicians "discovered" online who were already signed to a label and it was just a marketing ploy. After awhile, people caught on to the fact that it was mostly PR BS.
Similarly, there have been "indie" music labels which are actually owned by the major labels. People caught on to that, too.
And now people are writing books about how they manipulated YouTube to create "viral" videos. They are explaining how the game is played.
People are waiting to see if the same tactics are going to be used with Kickstarter.
In addition, the nature of crowdfunding leads people to ask tougher questions because they develop a sense of ownership in the project. When Palmer raised a ton of money and then said she still didn't have enough to pay her guest musicians, people were skeptical.
Crowdfunding isn't the typical relationship with consumers. People want to know where their money is going to. If there is any question or if you botch the project, many of them are going to hold you accountable.
I like crowdfunding and I like crowdsourcing, and I hope that as we begin thinking of ourselves as participants in all of these things, we find ways to make sure these really are the crowds' projects, not just what the creators want funded.
And how exactly is this inherently bad? The Rolling Stones have discovered that they've exhausted much of what the market will bear, and now they have to price competitively.
No, it is very good. Most people in this country don't have unlimited funds to spend on anything but the necessities. Hopefully the prices for everything will go down. And entertainment is something that people can find very cheaply. I hope they turn away from the famous people and participate in local entertainment.
And I think that's what some observers are watching closely. To what extent will Kickstarter actually change Hollywood? If the project creators have been part of the traditional Hollywood system and if they are turning the project over to the traditional Hollywood system (which then dictates how the project will be made and/or distributed it), then it's still, for all intents and purposes, a traditional Hollywood project with some fan-driven PR at the onset.
Then some people are morons. Unless it's stated specifically in the project that the resulting product will be released free of charge, there's no reason to assume this - if you understand how Kickstarter actually works. If people have assumed otherwise, they're wrong.
Yes, I think that is an important point. Giving to a Kickstarter project could still mean the project is going to be developed and marketed the way non-Kickstarter projects are going to be developed and marketed. The fact that the fans are involved in the beginning may amount to just that and nothing more. The project itself could still be mostly just part of the old Hollywood system.
One thing I am curious about is the fact that some people have assumed that crowdfunding would totally pay for a TV show, movie, or album in advance and then after completed it would be made available for free at the usual online outlets. (That point came up when I suggested that a subscription to content on YouTube could be thought of as similar to a contribution for content on Kickstarter.)
Now both the Veronica Mars film and the Braff film are entering into more traditional distribution deals where the completed product is not going to be made available for free. In the Mars case the movie studio and in the Braff case the foreign rights purchasers are planning to charge for these films.
Isn't that still working with the traditional Hollywood system? Fans are putting up the money for part of these projects, but they aren't covering enough of the total cost that the creators are free to by-pass the Hollywood system altogether.
And I think that is why some people have seen these Kickstarter projects as ways for Hollywood to generate some pre-release publicity rather than a true break from the Hollywood system.
I'm talking about the PR aspects. Now, we can say that not meeting one's goal is not a failure, but the question is whether celebrities want to be associated with projects that don't meet their goals.
I'm guessing that if a lot of celebrities don't meet their goals, others will be scared off. We can come up with all sorts of reasons why some projects don't meet their goals, but if we understood the process better, then presumably none would be underfunded: every project would be better designed in the first place and they would all succeed.
Like I have been saying, we don't really know yet how all of this will play out. As the number of celebrities go for crowdfunding, the number who don't reach their goals will rise. And there will probably be coverage of those underfunded projects because they make for good stories. How that will affect perceptions remains to be seen.
Again, if million dollar projects are celebrated, that tends to reinforce the idea that big money is better than small money or inadequate money. We may be talking different funding models than in the past, but we're using the same value systems as always.
You know, I suppose one thing I am saying is, "Will becoming trendy be Kickstarter's undoing?" Seems like that happens to a lot of online companies.
I believe in the P2P concept, so I am not suggesting networking and community support will go away. In fact, I think it will only grow stronger. But as a part of that, I see the concept of "celebrity" becoming less important, too. I believe in the democratization of creativity and am not really impressed with Kickstarter projects that can cite millions of dollars raised. By cheering these on, we seem to be using the same standards of success as always: big money gets more attention.
My point is that Kickstarter is Playboy and reality TV in your analogy, so while it may turn out that it attracts has-beens, your example doesn't say anything about how successful it will be, only about the sort of celebrity it may attract. I'm sure Kickstarter would be thrilled to be as well-known, financially successful, and long-lived as Playboy (though without other aspects of their reputation of course).
I'd be more inclined to compare Kickstarter to a daily deal site. As the concept of crowdfunding expands, more sites will develop to serve certain niches. What is happening right now is that Kickstarter may find it doesn't work to be all things to all people.
Kickstarter has already refined what it is by greatly tightening up the design projects. It doesn't want to be a store.
We'll have to see how the celebrity market develops. It might become huge and everyone will do it, or if enough projects fail to hit their goals, celebrities may back off from crowdfunding if they have other ways to raise money.
If it becomes huge, sites catering to celebrities might develop and take business away from Kickstarter. Or Kickstarter might hang on to the celebrities and the unknowns might go elsewhere. Or Kickstarter might have a mix of knowns and unknowns, but other sites will develop platforms to serve particular target audiences.
I guess for Kickstarter the challenge will be for it to maintain its "cool" factor. So how people use it will be a branding issue for the company. Sooner or later all tech and social media companies get replaced by the new generation of companies and that will likely to happen to Kickstarter, too. No, I don't think it will disappear, but some new crowdfunding or crowdsouring or creativity site will catch everyone's fancy and off we'll go to the next big thing.
Yes, I think people may start to become cynical if they see this happening routinely. Kickstarter just becomes another PR device for the major studios, which many have suspected all along.
From the article link you posted:
"Basically, the issue here is that Braff's intentions to subvert the studio system and do things his own way without interference from a financial backer don't seem genuine at all now."
I don't know, as far as I know Playboy and reality TV are both still going strong.
Oh, Playboy and reality TV are going strong, but the celebs who appear on them are often perceived as lacking any other opportunities. It's the sort of thing you do to keep yourself in the public eye when better offers aren't coming. (Kind of the celeb version of jumping the shark.)
But, like I said, it's probably still too soon to tell whether lots of celebs will successfully crowdfund, whether many of them will try but not hit their goals, or whether most celebs will decide to fund in less visible ways.
And it may turn out that Kickstarter works better for sequels to successful projects than to fund original material.
Worth a read
When companies like Google tell you how much they are monitoring you, it's hard to pretend this is just a government issue.
The reason we know that companies like Google and Facebook are peering into every aspect of our lives is because they are telling us (or at least telling their investors and marketers) that they are doing this.
Google's Plan To Take Over The World - Business Insider: "After spending three days at I/O this week, it became more apparent than ever that unless millions (billions?) of people suddenly change their mind and start using alternative tech tools, or unless the government steps in waving the anti-trust banner, our lives, our history, and our personal wealth could be managed by one company –– Google."
Re: Re: When everything we do is monitored
Each time I read my response, I'm not sure if I'm very clear about what I am suggesting. So let me try again.
I think we have very limited privacy these days and most of the monitoring is coming from private industry. I read a lot of articles directed to advertisers and marketers. The data collection companies are very proud of the fact that they are compiling a ton of data on everyone.
And many tech companies are proud of what they have developed to allow them to use the latest devices to track everything and everyone.
The only time these companies raise the privacy issue is when they want to paint government in a negative light.
And yet, private companies are also working with government. I am skeptical that much is done in DC without corporate input. So whatever policies are coming out of DC have probably been shaped to benefit someone's bottom line.
I think we need to discuss privacy on a big scale and what that means to everyone. The positives are that all of these monitors could improve lives. The negatives are that this info can be used against us. (And don't assume government is the only guilty party here. Insurance companies, credit companies, banks, and so on would love to know who to exclude as customers.)
Re: Re: Privacy concerns legit; single sided critique via grandstanding
I just posted this in another thread, but I will put it here too, in case there was an confusion about what I was saying in my above comment (in case your are reading the threaded version).
______
I can't stress enough that complaining about government having access to info while encouraging private companies to have unlimited access to info is essentially the same thing.
If the data is being collected and saved by private companies, it is ultimately available to everyone. It's a fake barrier to suggest that info can be kept out of government hands while simultaneously being available to private companies and hackers/criminals/terrorists.
If you want private companies to be free to collect whatever they want to collect and to monitor whomever they want to monitor and to make their privacy opt-ins and opt-outs so vague that most people don't understand what they are sharing, then you have to recognize that government is part of that eco-system. It doesn't have to directly monitor people and collect data. It doesn't even have to order private companies to turn it over. It just has to set up the right commercial system to obtain the data in a way that these private companies approve and profit from.
Re: When everything we do is monitored
I can't stress enough that complaining about government having access to info while encouraging private companies to have unlimited access to info is essentially the same thing.
If the data is being collected and saved by private companies, it is ultimately available to everyone. It's a fake barrier to suggest that info can be kept out of government hands while simultaneously being available to private companies and hackers/criminals/terrorists.
If you want private companies to be free to collect whatever they want to collect and to monitor whomever they want to monitor and to make their privacy opt-ins and opt-outs so vague that most people don't understand what they are sharing, then you have to recognize that government is part of that eco-system. It doesn't have to directly monitor people and collect data. It doesn't even have to order private companies to turn it over. It just has to set up the right commercial system to obtain the data in a way that these private companies approve and profit from.
Re: Re:
More about it.
The Google Glass Wink Feature Is Real | TechCrunch
Re:
People have already figured out how to take photos with Google Glass with a wink. No voice or touch needed.
At Google Conference, Cameras Even in the Bathroom - NYTimes.com: "Then I met the man who excitedly told me about his power to snap pictures with his eyelid. (The wink, it should be noted, is not officially supported by Glass, but is essentially a hack 'sideloaded' onto the device.) He explained that he uses the wink-to-take-a-picture feature so much that a few days ago he was not wearing his Google Glass and was confused when he blinked his eye and nothing happened. His mind had played a trick on him, he said."
Re: Privacy vs. anonymity
You make a good point.
But people also have to realize you can't be non-anonymous to the public and to private companies but somehow anonymous to government.
As info about people becomes more available, the government will have access to it, too.
When everything we do is monitored
The future, as has been proposed by quite a few people, is having every device we own collecting data. Every person, place, and thing will be monitored non-stop (kind of like a techno version of God, I suppose).
There are at least four entities with real or potential access to this info: the public, private companies, government, criminals.
So we might as well keep talking about this now and what it means when there is no privacy. How much will be opt-in? How much opt-out? How do we limit who has access? Can we delete what we don't want others to see?
When everything about everything is stored in digital form, what will that mean? How much will be linked to everything else and how much will remain unlinked? How easy will it be to bring down big systems?
Re: Privacy concerns legit; single sided critique via grandstanding
I keep trying to point out to people that data is being collected, analyzed, and sold by a number of companies. All government has to do is just privatize security and buy this data like other customers. And I think this will happen.
The government isn't solely responsible for our loss of privacy and suggesting that if we get government out of the business of monitoring people the issues will somehow go away.
My concern is that by pretending that government is the bad guy here, private companies hope to widen the door for their own monitoring.
Many of these comments here reinforce my impression that privacy isn't really a concern amongst people who support these data collection and monitoring companies. They want to have access to everything people do, and along with that they don't want to be told not to do it.
So if Google wants to create a file on every person and place in the world, good. And how dare anyone in government raise an issue about this. Why don't they just turn the job over to us techies and we'll do it better than they will.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A big reason I want complete transparency is so that those aspiring to get their projects made know how the system really works.
If, for example, you're working within a system and already have lots of contacts who pull strings for you, but you pretend that you've done it all on your own, then others who want to do what you have done may follow the path they think you took only to find out it was the wrong one.
I've seen it happen quite a bit with music. What goes on behind the scenes is different than the "public" story. What is in the artist and project bio is a pretend story that gets lots of coverage but doesn't match reality.
So if people ask who is involved in a Kickstarter project, where all the money comes from and a complete accounting of how it is spent, I think that is fantastic. Everyone can learn from this.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, we'll see, but I don't see what the problem is as long as it's out in the open.
Yes, that is important.
I've seen it in the music industry. There were a number of musicians "discovered" online who were already signed to a label and it was just a marketing ploy. After awhile, people caught on to the fact that it was mostly PR BS.
Similarly, there have been "indie" music labels which are actually owned by the major labels. People caught on to that, too.
And now people are writing books about how they manipulated YouTube to create "viral" videos. They are explaining how the game is played.
People are waiting to see if the same tactics are going to be used with Kickstarter.
In addition, the nature of crowdfunding leads people to ask tougher questions because they develop a sense of ownership in the project. When Palmer raised a ton of money and then said she still didn't have enough to pay her guest musicians, people were skeptical.
Crowdfunding isn't the typical relationship with consumers. People want to know where their money is going to. If there is any question or if you botch the project, many of them are going to hold you accountable.
I like crowdfunding and I like crowdsourcing, and I hope that as we begin thinking of ourselves as participants in all of these things, we find ways to make sure these really are the crowds' projects, not just what the creators want funded.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Growing the pie vs. taking a slice
And how exactly is this inherently bad? The Rolling Stones have discovered that they've exhausted much of what the market will bear, and now they have to price competitively.
No, it is very good. Most people in this country don't have unlimited funds to spend on anything but the necessities. Hopefully the prices for everything will go down. And entertainment is something that people can find very cheaply. I hope they turn away from the famous people and participate in local entertainment.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I think that's what some observers are watching closely. To what extent will Kickstarter actually change Hollywood? If the project creators have been part of the traditional Hollywood system and if they are turning the project over to the traditional Hollywood system (which then dictates how the project will be made and/or distributed it), then it's still, for all intents and purposes, a traditional Hollywood project with some fan-driven PR at the onset.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then some people are morons. Unless it's stated specifically in the project that the resulting product will be released free of charge, there's no reason to assume this - if you understand how Kickstarter actually works. If people have assumed otherwise, they're wrong.
Yes, I think that is an important point. Giving to a Kickstarter project could still mean the project is going to be developed and marketed the way non-Kickstarter projects are going to be developed and marketed. The fact that the fans are involved in the beginning may amount to just that and nothing more. The project itself could still be mostly just part of the old Hollywood system.
Re: Re:
One thing I am curious about is the fact that some people have assumed that crowdfunding would totally pay for a TV show, movie, or album in advance and then after completed it would be made available for free at the usual online outlets. (That point came up when I suggested that a subscription to content on YouTube could be thought of as similar to a contribution for content on Kickstarter.)
Now both the Veronica Mars film and the Braff film are entering into more traditional distribution deals where the completed product is not going to be made available for free. In the Mars case the movie studio and in the Braff case the foreign rights purchasers are planning to charge for these films.
Isn't that still working with the traditional Hollywood system? Fans are putting up the money for part of these projects, but they aren't covering enough of the total cost that the creators are free to by-pass the Hollywood system altogether.
And I think that is why some people have seen these Kickstarter projects as ways for Hollywood to generate some pre-release publicity rather than a true break from the Hollywood system.
Re: Re: Re: Not that easy even for celebs.
I'm talking about the PR aspects. Now, we can say that not meeting one's goal is not a failure, but the question is whether celebrities want to be associated with projects that don't meet their goals.
I'm guessing that if a lot of celebrities don't meet their goals, others will be scared off. We can come up with all sorts of reasons why some projects don't meet their goals, but if we understood the process better, then presumably none would be underfunded: every project would be better designed in the first place and they would all succeed.
Like I have been saying, we don't really know yet how all of this will play out. As the number of celebrities go for crowdfunding, the number who don't reach their goals will rise. And there will probably be coverage of those underfunded projects because they make for good stories. How that will affect perceptions remains to be seen.
Again, if million dollar projects are celebrated, that tends to reinforce the idea that big money is better than small money or inadequate money. We may be talking different funding models than in the past, but we're using the same value systems as always.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not that easy even for celebs.
You know, I suppose one thing I am saying is, "Will becoming trendy be Kickstarter's undoing?" Seems like that happens to a lot of online companies.
I believe in the P2P concept, so I am not suggesting networking and community support will go away. In fact, I think it will only grow stronger. But as a part of that, I see the concept of "celebrity" becoming less important, too. I believe in the democratization of creativity and am not really impressed with Kickstarter projects that can cite millions of dollars raised. By cheering these on, we seem to be using the same standards of success as always: big money gets more attention.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not that easy even for celebs.
My point is that Kickstarter is Playboy and reality TV in your analogy, so while it may turn out that it attracts has-beens, your example doesn't say anything about how successful it will be, only about the sort of celebrity it may attract. I'm sure Kickstarter would be thrilled to be as well-known, financially successful, and long-lived as Playboy (though without other aspects of their reputation of course).
I'd be more inclined to compare Kickstarter to a daily deal site. As the concept of crowdfunding expands, more sites will develop to serve certain niches. What is happening right now is that Kickstarter may find it doesn't work to be all things to all people.
Kickstarter has already refined what it is by greatly tightening up the design projects. It doesn't want to be a store.
We'll have to see how the celebrity market develops. It might become huge and everyone will do it, or if enough projects fail to hit their goals, celebrities may back off from crowdfunding if they have other ways to raise money.
If it becomes huge, sites catering to celebrities might develop and take business away from Kickstarter. Or Kickstarter might hang on to the celebrities and the unknowns might go elsewhere. Or Kickstarter might have a mix of knowns and unknowns, but other sites will develop platforms to serve particular target audiences.
I guess for Kickstarter the challenge will be for it to maintain its "cool" factor. So how people use it will be a branding issue for the company. Sooner or later all tech and social media companies get replaced by the new generation of companies and that will likely to happen to Kickstarter, too. No, I don't think it will disappear, but some new crowdfunding or crowdsouring or creativity site will catch everyone's fancy and off we'll go to the next big thing.
Re:
Yes, I think people may start to become cynical if they see this happening routinely. Kickstarter just becomes another PR device for the major studios, which many have suspected all along.
From the article link you posted:
"Basically, the issue here is that Braff's intentions to subvert the studio system and do things his own way without interference from a financial backer don't seem genuine at all now."
Re: Re: Re: Not that easy even for celebs.
I don't know, as far as I know Playboy and reality TV are both still going strong.
Oh, Playboy and reality TV are going strong, but the celebs who appear on them are often perceived as lacking any other opportunities. It's the sort of thing you do to keep yourself in the public eye when better offers aren't coming. (Kind of the celeb version of jumping the shark.)
But, like I said, it's probably still too soon to tell whether lots of celebs will successfully crowdfund, whether many of them will try but not hit their goals, or whether most celebs will decide to fund in less visible ways.
And it may turn out that Kickstarter works better for sequels to successful projects than to fund original material.