Big Brother and Google's Storage?

For all you Googlites out there, there is a very intriguing article on CNN.com regarding security and privacy concerns of Google's massive email storage and vast archive capability as a search engine.

"In an era of increased government surveillance, privacy watchdogs worry that Google's vast archive of Internet activity could prove a tempting target for abuse.
Like many other online businesses, Google tracks how its search engine and other services are used, and who uses them. Unlike many other businesses, Google holds onto that information for years.
Some privacy experts who otherwise give Google high marks say the company's records could become a handy data bank for government investigators who rely on business records to circumvent Watergate-era laws that limit their own ability to track U.S. residents."

Google argues that its large memory and space allows for better customer service and innovative products. It goes on to argue that IP addresses and cookies from searches on the Internet are not necessarily traceable to one individual. Google also notes that its site minimally infringes upon privacy and that even its employees must be granted executive permission before monitoring traffic data.

Unlike AOL and Yahoo! email service, in which emails are purged after a certain period of time, G-mail's excessive storage space also may have some privacy risks.

"Most people don't know that a 1986 law gives less protection from government searches to messages more than six months old, said Ari Schwartz, an associate director at the Center for Democracy and Technology... That doesn't mean that Google needs to change its technology, but they do need to do some consumer education."

Should Google lauch a Web privacy advocacy campaign? Is Google's memory and storage space really a threat to privacy? Will the overly watchful eye of the government use Google as a way to track "evil-doers?"

A Revolution for the Confidence of the "Little Guys"

Outside Damage raises an excellent point when it comes to the Internet and fundraising.

"One thing that is important to consider in online fundraising is that it targets people who would not traditionally able to afford typical political fundraisers. The internet is key in raising money from people who are in lower tax brackets then the typical political donors. This link to a whole new group of donors is revolutionary for fundraising"

The fact that the Internet can cultivate so many low dollar donors IS a revolution for fundraising -- but it is also a revolution in the political process. By being able contribute via the Internet, no matter how small the donation, empowers voters. It brings them a sense of importance and value to the campaign. They have a stake in its outcome. The value voters feel, simply by donating, fosters a sense of participation and activism in the political process. People who normally would not have given money or been involved are now able to through the Internet and its easy service to contribute small dollars.

Raising Money Online? Promote it Offline!

Nash and Ireland's chapter on Secrets of Successful Online Fundraising, brings yet again, another interesting point to light. A candidate cannot raise money online without promoting the website offline.

According to Nash and Ireland, "Promoting your site offline is one of the surest methods of boosting online contributions. In fact, if you don't actively promote your site offline, you won't raise money online."

They go on to site the important symbiotic relationship between direct mail and the Internet, in that, you can utilize one medium to promote the other. For instance, a campaign may launch a direct mail drive to get voters to visit the campaign website to further educate them on a particular hot-button issue. While visiting the site, voters may be persuaded to volunteer, give money, sign up for campaign updates, and email their friends telling them about the candidate's site.

There are many positive things that can happen for a campaign simply by a voter's visit to their website. And for people who don't think to utilize the web to learn about upcoming elections or candidates, direct mail is a perfect way to guide those voters to the website.

How to get money...Don't ask so much?

IPDI's, "The Political Consultants' Online Fundraising Primer" brings up an interesting point on the solicitation of a candidate's donor base -- don't ask donors for money every time.

The piece goes on to say, "Cultivate their enthusiasm by communicating with them on a regular basis about your campaign activities, successes, and challenges - without always asking for a donation." The article stresses the importance of connectivity and inclusion in online fundraising, more so than the repeat appeal for money. The idea reflects the readings from previous weeks -- that the most fundamental benefit of technology is its' ability to connect people.

By making donors feel important, tuned into the campaign, and appreciated will indirectly motivate them to give more, without always having a big "ask" on every email.

The Press and the Internet? Well, duh.....

Reviewing Winning Campaigns Online chapter on Online Media Relations, I came to the very obvious and delayed realization that, the press refer to candidate websites when covering campaigns and races. I never lent much thought to the idea of reporters using campaign websites as a resource for information. I always thought of a campaign website and its design, in terms of reaching out to voters and donors and communicating to the press via phone, in-person, and faxed press releases.

Given the influence the press and their coverage has in campaigns, it is important not only to create a website strategy that is appealing and informative to voters, but will also assist the press in doing their job, as well. It is imperative to provide reporters will the tools they need to write, preferably, favorable stories about the candidate.

Nash and Ireland advise creating an "online press kit" for reporters. They go on to say that a big mistake in online relations is that "candidates treat their websites as if they were printed brochures: something to be read once and then discarded."

With the popularity of the Internet and blogs, I am sure this is something subject to change. Upon reflection, I think that very notion is why I thought that websites were more geared toward luring voters, not the press.

It makes perfect sense, but I had never put much thought into the press and its utilization of information posted on websites.

We know where you shop...

I posted pieces over the weekend about the convenience of technology and if it is making life too easy, or too intrusive, so to speak.

In that same vein, I found The Economist article's thoughts on personalized advertising a tad concerning. The article suggests that "location-based services" are the up and coming thing in wireless technology. Meaning, that if I am walking near a GAP, my mobile device will receive advertisements from the GAP when I am in a certain distance from that store.

Albeit, location-based services also include driving directions, weather reports, and entertainment information, which can be very helpful. I know I cannot have it both ways, but there is something about my mobile receiving unwanted spam by a company knowing my exact location a bit concerning and well, creepy.

Mind Numbing Convenience?

Idealist raises an interesting point in her post about the mobile applications hypothesized in Fogg's book, Persuasive Technology.

"A computer that tells you what you should study and an implant that lets your coach know if you're drinking enough water? With a computer to tell you when to study, will students learn to manage their time by themselves? Will new technology take away our ability to think for ourselves?"

Of course, everyone loves for things to be convenient. The faster and easier we can have or do something, the better life is, and the happier we are. We strive towards a world of instant gratification, and technology is certainly paving the way for such a world. Despite all the magnificent ways technology has made our lives easier, is there a point where technology is making lives too easy?

For example, having your mobile phone tell you when you should call your mom because a specific time period has elapsed; a computer telling you how, when, what to study; handheld device telling you that you should take the bus to work after you entered some information about the day.

Is society so obsessed with convenience that we are willing to allow devices to think for us, even when it is something as simple as when to eat lunch? Are people so busy in today's society that they can no longer think for themselves? In other words, is technology taking away guesswork of functioning day to day?