Challenge to Google: Don't be evil (really)

With so many features like GoogleVoice (coming soon), GoogleHealth, Gmail, Google Docs and the like, it seems that Google is creeping into every aspect of our lives.

If Google were to ever acquire Facebook, LinkedIn or MySpace the game would be up. Google would officially own my life -- or, at least, that which occurs with the aid of technology. Which is most of it.

Privacy advocates are growing increasingly concerned. Question is, what will Google do with all this information?? We already know the answer to this: advertising. And, market research to target those ads.

So how can Google (continue to) not be evil?

I propose that Google collaborate with privacy advocates to draft and display disclosure statements approved by privacy advocates.

Particularly, the risk associated with using a number of services, since the aggregation of services seems to worry advocates more than each service in singleton.

Privacy advocates can give such statements a stamp of approval, ensuring that users are well informed, that the language is clear and that the risks of using each service are well enumerated. Inviting a third-party organization (or several) to give their stamp of approval would demonstrate that Google is dedicated to their goal: don't be evil.

While the act of inviting such input could gain the trust of users worldwide, and may even increase Google's user base, it could backlash if an agreeable disclosure policy could not be agreed upon. In this case, it would cause me to wonder: what is Google (really) up to?

Links:

• Google Voice: Press "1" to invade your privacy
• Google as Big Brother
• Google's new behavioral ads already raising privacy worries
• Google: "Complete Privacy Does Not Exist"
• Google balances privacy, reach
• Google To Begin Behavioral Targeting, Give Users Access To Profiles
• Googlization of Everything
  

Sphere: Related Content

The future of the political net

There is a recent explosion in online websites promoting political transparency and increased participation. At the heart of this movement, there seems to be the supposition that the barriers to political organization are twofold: (1) lack of information and (2) lack of communication / empowerment.

In other words, taken together, these sites seem to argue that people don't get involved because it's too difficult to keep track of what's going on, or because they don't see a way to get involved that has a reasonable chance of effecting change.

Personally, I want to believe that there is a better way to 'get involved' than either writing a letter to a congressman (unlikely to effect change) or causing a disruptive protest. I would love to see websites focusing on political action with a more dedicated function than Facebook groups currently provide.

So, below I have made a list of the most interesting political action sites I have come across so far. Most aim to tackle one or both of these goals simultaneously, leaving open the question of whether each goal would be better attacked separately. The fact that there are so many means that there will be a competition between them to shape the future of the political internet.

The list is organized into 3 broad categories -- sites focusing on participation, those focusing on transparency, and a group of sites aiming to set up a parallel (online-only) governance structure and thus promoting both transparency & participation.

Note that the list is hardly comprehensive. Many, many more projects exist; a more complete list is available here.

Sites focusing on participation

1. change.org
   - participation : users submit & vote on broad policy goals. Top ranked ideas are presented to Obama administration for consideration. Voting done within a deadline.
   - transparency : proposals provide links to information resources.
2. whitehouse2.org
   - participation : users submit & vote on both broad and specific policy ideas. Voter support displayed graphically over time.
   - transparency : policy ideas contain links to resources, and whether or not the Obama administration endorses the idea.

Sites focusing on transparency

1. USAVotes
   - participation : none
   - transparency : find out how your representatives voted on various legislative measures
2. lowercase d
   - participation : forum for New York State community members to endorse/oppose legislation, comment on legislation, and propose alternatives
   - transparency : advocate for open access to legislative measures pending in NY
   

Sites proposing parallel governance

1. metagovernment.org
   - participation : anyone with internet access can propose legislation, submit alternatives to pending legislation, endorse or oppose pending legislation
   - transparency : all proposals submitted within the system can be reviewed by users, though no interaction with proposals made in existing parliament or legislative bodies. The legislative history of any proposal within the system is viewable by users.
   
2. Open Direct Democracy
   - participation : citizens of Iceland can vote on, discuss or propose alternatives to any legislative measure under consideration in Iceland's parliament
   - transparency : all legislative measures under consideration in Iceland's parliament are posted for citizen review / comment.
3. Govit.org
   - participation : internet users can vote on, discuss or propose alternatives to existing legislative proposals. Registered users can click on a link to very quickly contact their representative regarding a particular policy proposal.
   - transparency : policy proposals are updated as they are posted online. Provides a usable, searchable resource for policy information relevant to a particular user.

Sphere: Related Content

should we let bad banks fail?

Yesterday on ABC news, Rep. Shelby argued that the US should let the bad banks fail. (Shelby: 'Dead' Banks Should Close; Citigroup a 'Problem Child')

Arguments for:

• cheaper in the long run
• quicker recovery
• "The new banks will be more credible once they no longer have these liabilities on their back." create a market for the so-called 'toxic assets', and thus they can be realistically evaluated
• existing banks would be more competitive than they would be under a nationalization scheme, since existing banks will not have to compete with state-run entities
• confidence is already so low in the banking system, and stockholders have already been wiped out, that allowing the struggling banks to fail won't cause much more damage

Arguments against:

• widespread bank failures would wipe out shareholders and deposits in the short-term, thus reducing liquidity in the marketplace and further damaging the chances of economic recovery
• widespread bank failures would damage confidence across the board, like we saw after the failure of lehman brothers but on a larger scale.
• no solution should be one size fits all -- need to address each struggling bank with a unique solution. Maybe let some banks fail, but there may be others that really should be rescued.

Sphere: Related Content