Question Forum 5

Hailey Watkins
1. At the beginning of chapter 4, Siva Vaidhyanathan mentions a small town in the north of France, Eu (115). The unfortunate simplicity of the town’s name didn’t allow for the town to stand out in Google searches, due to its constant competition with the EU and even the chemical element Europium. As a result, town officials asked locals to vote between longer names that might draw search results (“Eu-en-Normandie” or “la Ville d’Eu”) which to officially change the town’s name. As the town realized, if something can’t be found on Google, it might as well not exist. Do you agree with this statement? Imagine you own your own business—how would you react if your company’s name wasn’t searchable on Google? Would you consider renaming it, simply to generate searches?

2. In chapter 4, we learn about the Chinese government’s ways of blocking and censoring websites and messages that they don’t agree with. Although Vaidhyanathan states that site censorship affects daily life very little for the Chinese (125), we still learn that the government blocks access to sites and masks the disruption with notifications saying that the connection has failed or is being reset, rather than blocked or forbidden. Why do you think the government misleads its people that way? Why not just say that a site is being blocked? Does this news make you worry if our own government might secretly block or censor sites that are disagreeable?


Kyle Zalewski

Chapter 3: On page 97, Vaidhyanathan mentions that many people are distressed about the invasiveness of Google Street View. It's an interesting argument, since really it's just pictures of public domain posted on a public host. What do you think? Do you think that the pictures these vehicles take are an invasion of privacy that don't earn their keep with utility? Would they be more invasive if they were updated more frequently? What if there were a video aspect?

Chapter 5: Beginning on page 155, Vaidhyanathan discusses the advent of online books. Personally, I tend to think that the digitization of books helps advance the collective knowledge source that the internet has become. Do you think that the invasion of the rights of authors to their intellectual property is excessive?


Shelby Ward

Chapter 3: In the very beginning of the chapter Vaidhyanathan mention that in 2006 the person of the year was "you," was the millions of "yous" that have become a mass network online. The rhetoric of the network is in second person, everything is centered around "you." But how much of an individual do you feel when you are connected online. Do you feel like you have control? Vaidhyanathan also points out that the new ways that companies are advertising is also centered around you. Companies, use other companies (like Google) to custom fit advertisements that you might like. I remember hearing someone saying years ago that the time of the billboard was dead. I now get texts from Victoria Secret's on my phone when they have a sell. Part of me finds these "you" focused ads helpful, the part of me finds them annoying. How do you feel in this generation of you?

Chapter 3: Vaidhyanathan talks about the idea of privacy in several different ways. On page 87 he talks about Google and you in a constant trade agreement of "privacy points." He says on page 93, "Privacy refers to the terms of control over information, not the nature of the information we share." What is privacy to you? What are you willing to give up to keep it? Which do you value more the functionality of Google or privacy? If Google did not have the default privacy setting that it does now, would you opt into it? Have you opted out of it? (88)


Answers:

Anne Cunha

In response to Hailey's first question about the small town in France called Eu, I do actually think that in today's society, people are looking for the most convenient ways to find information about pretty much everything. I do think that people often say to themselves, "If it isnt searchable on Google, It must not be important enough." People also often think that a place that does not have a website that is searchable on Google or that is easy to find is not as reputable or legitimate as a similar business that actually does have a webpage that is easily found. People go to Google for pretty much everything and trust it, almost too much in my opinion. As sad as it is, I do agree with the statement "if something can't be found on Google, it might as well not exist" simply because that is how most people operate in society. I believe I would change the name of my business to make it searchable on google because most people reach out to google for their information and it would spread the word of my business faster. There are so many companies that tell people to "like" their business on facebook for exclusive deals and things so i really believe that people find things easier online and that companies need to be internet savvy for today's culture.

I found Kyle's question about online books and intellectual property to be a really interesting question to ask. I have a kindle so the whole idea of digital books seems fairly common to me. I feel that ideally, yes, the digitization of books can help advance the collective knowledge source that the internet has become (as Kyle put it) but at the same time I think that people can abuse this technology, putting the intellectual property of the authors at risk. People have obviously figured out ways to pirate digital books, the same way that they pirate movies, music, and TV shows. By pirating books, people are not paying for them and essentially encroaching on the intellectual property rights of the authors and pretty much making those rights to the intellectual property nonexistent. The authors are not profiting off of their books when people pirate digital books. This whole issue of pirating books did not matter at all until the advent of the kindle and other e-readers. People used to read all their books in hardcopy so intellectual property invasion in the sense we are talking about now was not at risk.


Sarah Brown

Kyle question #2:

As a huge online and digital reader myself, I even have “The Googlization of Everything” on my Kindle. I think in the next few years, bookstores will even begin to go out of business because the majority of authors are learning to switch to digital. Now are there currently many issues with people pirating these books, of course. Will this always be an issue, probably not, especially as technology begins to advance with this “new” way of reading. Until more and more writers begin to understand where society is shifting towards, I think any copyright issue etc. will be taken care of before books are even placed online or to be read via Kindles. Any copyright laws that are used for Print I think will shift equally if not more severely to digital laws. Invasion of an authors rights, I wouldn’t say its excessive. It’s probably very frustrating knowing your book is able to be read without being purchased; especially if you write for a living. You want your moneys worth. But as an individual of society, knowing how technology functions, it’s also your responsibility (as an author) to make sure that if your book is placed to be digital there is some form or written agreement where you will receive your “moneys worth.” Everyone knows that there are people who abuse privacy laws and are able to manipulate systems. So if you’re that fearful of copyright issues, then you shouldn’t allow your book to be placed online in the first place.

Hailey question #1:

The idea that my business wouldn’t appear on a Google Search because of it’s size would make me furious. I completely disagree with the statement "if something can't be found on Google, it might as well not exist." My reason being, I went to Ireland over the summer with a friend, to visit her relatives who owned a small family run business for generations. It was pretty popular in Ireland (more locals would be there vs tourists) so does this make their business any less reputable or unimportant? Definitely not. Just because they don’t have a website, doesn’t make the business any less important than a popular tourist restaurant five miles down the road. You shouldn’t have to change the name of your business, especially if it’s a family-owned business to re-brand your identity, just to appear on Google.


David Kistler

Kyle question #1:

Google street view is a very neat technology, but I do not think it is an invasion of my privacy. There are many arguments against this technology because people are in fear. They fear that someone will see something they aren't supposed to, they are going to get robbed or even judged. Due to all of the complaints, Google has even made it possible to block out the view of your house. Personally, I think if it was updated more often that it would be a greater threat to privacy. I do not necessarily think that it would be an invasion of my privacy, but if there was a video aspect that could get tricky.

Shelby question #2:

Throughout this class we have talked about 'watching' what we put online and understanding the consequences of our decisions online. For me, privacy online is just not a concern. I know not to put inappropriate things online and to be cautious in my purchasing. I am not concerned while online especially when it comes to privacy because I feel safe. There is plenty of safeguards to online shopping and keeping my identity safe, so I let the technology do what it is supposed to. I definitely value the functionality of Google more because I want Google to do what I want it to. If the privacy settings limit what I can do then I will opt out of using them.


Kayla Vanderlyn

Hailey

1. I would agree that a web presence is important now. While it might not be critical for towns, after all there are many Greenvilles and Franklins and Oxfords, it is essential for businesses. A web presence only helps if the town is attempting to connect with the rest of the world, whether for economic, social or political reasons.
As far as businesses go, if you can’t find the business on Google, it really doesn’t exist. I tend to look up nearly every business I patron to find out what other people thought about the quality of goods they offer and the quality of their service. If I can’t find anything, I’m far less likely to trust them. And while I wouldn’t expect every small business in the New River Valley to have one, back home in northern Virginia, I would. If my business wasn’t searchable on Google I would change the name, unless I had been in business for quite some time. Without any sort of following, Google is one of the only ways to build up a customer base.

2. I don’t think that the government is actively censoring everything I see. While I know it is possible, right now it would be difficult to do so undetected. That isn’t to say they aren’t trying. With the Department of Homeland Security taking down sites for suspected copyright infringement and suspected terrorism, it would be impossible to believe otherwise. If the US were to attempt what the Chinese government is, I doubt it would be through system timeout errors. Since most websites are hosted in the US or countries friendly to the US, the government would likely just seize the applicable servers and pretend the site never even existed. Websites disappear all the time, and hardly anyone mourns their passing.

Kyle

1. I’m not bothered by street view. I think that everything outside is visible to the public anyway. I frequently use streetview to look at places I’ve never been. Reddit scours streetview all the time to find awesome stuff and I don’t see anything wrong with it. It’s no worse than anyone else taking a picture of my house, and at least the Google car tries not to take pictures of specific people and such. Even if the pictures were updated more frequently it wouldn’t bother me. As for video, while it would be a bit strange, there are already websites that livestream video footage from specific locations, like the one at the Abby Road Crossing: http://www.abbeyroad.com/crossing

Shelby

2. The ideal privacy policy for me would be the company not retaining whatever information I give them without my express permission. This though, is never the case. I suppose I would consider my phone number, age, real name and primary email address things I wouldn’t want others to know or companies to share. I prefer an internet with greater anonymity. It was one of the things that drew me to the internet to begin with. The idea of meeting strangers from across the world, and neither of you knowing anything about the other always fascinated me. I’m not sure though, that I’d be willing to give up that much specifically for privacy. I’ve always understood that anything I put up on the internet or post to facebook has become public. I prefer to give up information knowingly, and only the information I wish to. I’m fine with Google not connecting everything though. I don’t care if I have to log into YouTube, Google+ and gmail separately. Ideally I’d not log into anything ever. As for the privacy settings and opting out, I tend to do as little stuff on Google while logged on that I can. I’ve set everything I can to the most restrictive. When on the internet everything you do can be capitalized on, and I do my best to give people as little as possible for free.

Kyleigh Palmiotto

Chapter 3: In the very beginning of the chapter Vaidhyanathan mention that in 2006 the person of the year was "you," was the millions of "yous" that have become a mass network online. The rhetoric of the network is in second person, everything is centered around "you." But how much of an individual do you feel when you are connected online. Do you feel like you have control? Vaidhyanathan also points out that the new ways that companies are advertising is also centered around you. Companies, use other companies (like Google) to custom fit advertisements that you might like. I remember hearing someone saying years ago that the time of the billboard was dead. I now get texts from Victoria Secret's on my phone when they have a sell. Part of me finds these "you" focused ads helpful, the part of me finds them annoying. How do you feel in this generation of you?

With everything being centered around “you” there is no way to get privacy anymore. The start up of computers allowed you to be whoever you wanted to be online. You could have multiple screen names on AIM, say whatever you want to on myspace and not worry about it affecting your future. Now whenever you want to tweet or like something on facebook you always second guess if you should post it or not.

As individual online I do feel connected in the fact that everyone else is online as well. I actually just had to get rid of my facebook and twitter and I feel disconnected because I do not know what is going on within my chapter, friend’s lives, and even the world beyond facebook. With everyone running all over the place today facebook is the best way to stay connected. We can catch up old, distant friends by simply searching their name or find out what your friends did that weekend by going through their mobile uploads. I think because we can’t not be ourselves anymore online that we are individuals.

I do feel less of an individual when websites follow me through my social media sites and plant advertisements on my facebook page, etc. I feel like this is invadiong on my privacy. Now whenever I click on something I know someone is watching me. We go online to escape from the world for a little, but now that we are just research subjects I feel that we are just a number.

Vaidhyanathan talks about the idea of privacy in several different ways. On page 87 he talks about Google and you in a constant trade agreement of "privacy points." He says on page 93, "Privacy refers to the terms of control over information, not the nature of the information we share." What is privacy to you? What are you willing to give up to keep it? Which do you value more the functionality of Google or privacy? If Google did not have the default privacy setting that it does now, would you opt into it? Have you opted out of it? (88)

Privacy to me is doing something and knowing that I only know about it. If I wanted people to know if I was doing something, then it would not be private would it? There were reasons why we had private journals when we were younger. We wanted to keep our thoughts, beliefs, and actions private. It is the same today, but through digital media. If we click on a certain website that we do not want others knowing about, then why is it okay if companies get to see this? Even though we have a facebook and add pictures or events to our profile for all our friends to see we still have the option to leave it out. For example if you are in a relationship, but do not want the facebook world to know then you do not have to post if you are single, dating, etc. If we had a crazy weekend then we do not have to upload the pictures, but if you go onto Google and ask how to cure a hangover plenty of drug sites get that information. I would rather have my facebook friends know about it than people I don’t know. I don’t ever click on those ads so it really isn’t necessary for me to have Google or whoever follow my every click. If I could/knew how to I would put on a privacy setting for Google. If I need to find something online I can figure it out without the help of Google Ads or any ads for that matter.


Tony Pagliaro

2. In chapter 4, we learn about the Chinese government’s ways of blocking and censoring websites and messages that they don’t agree with. Although Vaidhyanathan states that site censorship affects daily life very little for the Chinese (125), we still learn that the government blocks access to sites and masks the disruption with notifications saying that the connection has failed or is being reset, rather than blocked or forbidden. Why do you think the government misleads its people that way? Why not just say that a site is being blocked? Does this news make you worry if our own government might secretly block or censor sites that are disagreeable?

The Chinese government likely sees itself as protecting its citizens by blocking certain sites. However, its citizens likely don’t see themselves as needing protection while on the internet. Such measures, if visible, could inspire significant pushback from Chinese civilians. Those who know about these practices actually often do push back and try to spread the word when they can. They work to get around the government firewalls and tell their stories to the rest of the world. One way for the government to fight this is by making their censorship less visible, and they can do this by blaming the technology. By using a “connection is being reset” error instead of outright saying that it is blocked or hidden, the user then moves their blame away from the government to the technology. They will begin to see the technology as unreliable and ultimately might think that it’s not worth it to explore the internet. This will lead to either less internet usage or severe stagnation in the growth of Chinese networks.

I know that our own government doesn’t block disagreeable sites because I’ve been to some quite disagreeable sites (/b/ anyone?) that have been uninterrupted for years. In fact, the government is often behind private hackers by a couple of years when it comes to skills and expertise. With this in mind, it’s not surprising that most battles over internet websites are between groups of hackers, and do not involve the government. The hacker super-group known as Anonymous frequently targets corporations that they think are doing immoral things. They have attacked and temporarily paralyzed the websites of Amazon and Visa, among others. There are also hackers on the other side, who attempt to shut down more grassroots-style websites that may be operating in legal gray areas. One such peer-to-peer website called what.cd has been, as of this posting, unavailable for the past 3 days because some random people are attacking the servers.

Am I worried that the government may catch up someday and be able to stage these attacks on their own? Not especially. They sometimes recruit elite hackers, but these hackers often serve more as spies for their own interests than as useful tools for the government. There will always be more skilled people on our side than with the government, and if a significant power-grab is made then black market networks will spring up to support those who know how to get around the firewalls.


Michele Stulga

Atkins 1) It seems crazy to me that an entire town would consider changing its name based on Google search results. I completely understand the careful consideration put into naming a company—issues of naming and branding have always been in play in the business world. If the internet is crucial to the success of your business, then, yes, you better set yourself apart from others in that forum. But are we to the point where we are willing to compromise a town’s history for the sake of search results? That seems a little sad to me. I come from a small town—no, village—that absolutely prides itself on its history. The historical preservation society is more or less the governing body of the town. Coming from that background, I cannot imagine my tiny little town compromising the integrity of its history based on Google. Ever. See, I think that I’m approaching the issue with some sense of nostalgia, whereas that town in France is trying to look at their town as a business of sorts. If it’s a matter of money, money will win out every time.

Zalewski 1) Okay, I have to answer this question based entirely on this hilarious picture I saw online of someone falling down in front of the Google street view car. Basically, someone was walking down the street, tripped, and fell right as the car drove by capturing images for the street view maps. And you get to relive the whole experience over and over again on the internet. I’m honestly giggling just thinking about it again. Here’s the link if you need a good laugh: http://flowerpoop.com/2012/01/11/google-street-view-catches-a-lady-falling-down-in-brazil/

But to answer the question, these images show a true-to-life picture of what an area looks like. They don’t show anything you wouldn’t be able to see if you were actually in that place. So, no I don’t think they are especially invasive. I think it’s no different than taking pictures in public places. As long as I’m not on the street using a telephoto lens to look in your windows, I can take pictures on the street outside your house—even OF your house. It’s totally legal. Yeah, I think the video element would be crossing the line. Any sort of live, constantly updated imaging doesn’t even seem necessary for the purposes of the street view maps.


Astleigh Hobbs

Shelby's Second Question:
When I first think about privacy I think about the large hedge bushes that stand in between houses in the suburbs. The purpose of those bushes is to keep you business in and from going out. So privacy to me is just that, it's the ability that each individual has to display or keep quiet his or her personal business. There are many ways in which people can protect their personal information, but there are even more ways to let that information out and share it with one or millions of people. When social media sites were abound on the Internet the idea of privacy became twisted. Or rather it sneakily made its users think the information they shared on their account was protected….but in essence that information went all over the world wide web and that's where its still being stored. And just googling yourself will bring up the your name and a link to your page.

I think that privacy is starting to become an idea instead of an actuality. I think that people need to understand their rights to privacy before they enter into internet sites so they can make informed decisions about sharing their life with others that have access to what they are putting out there….and with the internet it's important to remember that not much is private. So would I choose privacy over being able to use a specific site? Of course I would. What each of us does on the internet will be around years from now to hover over our heads. So why not keep your most personal stuff private?

Hailey's First Question:
I completely agree with the idea that if something isn't on Google, then it's not there at all. I myself am guilty of thinking just that. If I cannot find it after searching in Google (mind you that means maybe going to the fourth page) then I have no hope of ever finding it. I'm not sure when this originated for me or where it really comes from. But I think that it is a way of thinking for many Internet users and in part it is due to the convenience we expect from Google. And such convenience includes quickness, effectiveness, and answers to questions at the tips of your fingers. Really, if Google can't find it then who can? False, it's just what a lot of us have come to falsely accept. So if it came to marketing a business or brand, then I think it would be in the best interest of the owner/creator to make something that can easily be found on Google. If someone is using the internet to get the word out there, it would be silly to not market in the smartest way with the most outreach. If it's important enough to be found, then you might as well let finding it be simple and easy.


Jessie Abell
Hailey's Question #1)
While changing an entire town’s name in order to produce more favorable Google results sounds crazy on the surface, it makes sense when you consider the power of Google search rankings. In Blown to Bits, authors Hal Abelson, et. al write about a company called KinderStart that sued Google in 2005 because when Google lowered Kinderstart’s PageRank to zero, their business subsequently declined by 70% (136). KinderStart claimed that Google’s PageRank “is not a mere statement of opinion of the innate value or human appeal of a given web site and its pages,” that “Kinderstart had a free speech right to be more visible in Google searches,” that “Google was a monopoly guilty of antitrust violations,” and that “KinderStart’s PageRank of zero amounted to a defamatory statement about the company” (136). The judge ruled in Google’s favor on all the claims.

In a company’s eyes, therefore, it makes perfect sense to assume that if your company isn’t appearing on the first few pages of Google’s results, then it “doesn’t exist” to the consumer. I would definitely consider renaming my business to generate more favorable search results; in fact, there is a whole booming business based on this. Companies hire people whose sole job is Search Engine Optimization (SEO)—altering their website to produce more favorable search engine rankings.

Kyle's Question #2)
I find the digitalization of books incredibly interesting, especially as the entire publishing industry is being turned on its head over this issue. I have mixed emotions about digitizing books, particularly Google’s book project, I guess just because it makes me uncomfortable to think of Google “free riding on [publisher’s] content to offer a commercial and potentially lucrative service without any regard to compensation or quality control” (159).

While I agree with you, Kyle that the digitization of books “helps advance the collective knowledge source that the internet has become,” I think this advancement does negatively affect the way we think about copyright and intellectual property. As Google gains power and influence, I think it becomes easier for the company to argue that its book project does not violate copyright, even if it does.

The other day, my boss and I were discussing digital books, and I said something along the lines of “I just can’t get on board. I hate the idea of books dying…I love the way they feel and look. I can’t read off of a screen.” She responded, “Yeah…but I remember when people used to say that they couldn’t write on a screen—on a computer, and think about how that’s changed.”
Her comment made me think a lot about how technology changes our perspectives and habits, and I agree that digital books will almost certainly become more popular than paper books. I don’t agree, however, that the inevitable popularization of digitizing books means that we should think of Google’s rights to an author’s property as also inevitable just because they are one of the biggest and most powerful digital companies.


Juliane Preisser

Hailey #1
I completely agree that if Google doesn’t know who you are, there is a good chance that other people won’t either. Or, it’ll make it extremely difficult for someone to find you if they were interested in you. If I owned a business, I would highly consider changing my name in order to come up in the searches. If people don’t know who you are or what services you offer, it can be extremely hard to make a living. There are other ways to do it, such as word of mouth or putting ads in the paper, but search engines are probably the best way to find out something about anything. So yes, I would more than likely change the name of my business in order to come up in searches. In the long run it would help my business, and myself.

Kyle #2
I love the option of online books. I love my kindle, and these days the only books I read in hardback form are certain text books. I’m not entirely sure how authors’ rights are being invaded because they are still their books, they’re being sold, and they’re being read. The only difference is they’re through the internet or e-reader. So I agree with you that the digitalization of books has furthered our knowledge source. The only downside I see to online books is the “Ctr+5” motion. Instead of reading the entire book or chapter, people can type that function into the computer and simply look for key words. I know I’m guilty of doing that when I can, and although I’m not convinced it will hinder our learning experience, it is something to think about.

Shelby #1
When I go on Facebook, I see ads that are geared towards me. For a while I didn’t understand why that was happening, I thought it was a happy coincidence. So when I log on I’ll see anything from a Torrid ad, to an ad for the new Supernatural season. It wasn’t for a few months where I started to piece together that Facebook was gathering this information from my Google searches. So I did a little experiment. I started searching things that really didn’t interest me, such as garden hoses. Within a few days of fairly constant searching I started to get ads for Lowe’s and Home Depot, all about their garden hose sales. So that is incredibly fascinating, and kind of scary. Who else knows of my pretend obsession with garden hoses? But in response to the actual question, I mainly feel in control when I’m online. I control where I go, what I look at, who I talk to. The only thing I don’t control is who else see’s everything. It’s a little scary, but I remind myself that I do nothing wrong or hurtful on the internet. The chances of someone taking a vital interest me is small, unless they’re a potential employer. As long as I’m careful what I say and do, I’m not really worried.


Barrett Sorrells

Hailey Watkins #1
I agree that the people of Eu felt a need to change the name of their town to something that would appear on the Google search pages. Since Google is now a globally used search engine and everyone uses it to provide them with information on a certain subject, it makes sense that one would want their town, company, school etc. to show up on the first page of a Google search. In Vaidhyanathan’s book he says, “Municipal leaders considered purchasing ads on Google and hiring a firm that specializes in optimizing search-engine ranks to raise the profile of the town” (115), which would help the town increase its ranking on Google. The higher up on the list you are, the better your chances of being seen by those who are conducting the search. If it were my place of business that I had invested money in to get it started and Google’s search-engines didn’t ‘find’ my webpage, I would take every measure possible to ensure that my site appeared on the first pages of the Google search.

Kyle Zalewski #1
I don’t personally feel that Google Street View is invasive towards my privacy, nor towards anyone else's. I understand that people may feel like they are being violated because this service could provide pictures of someone doing something illegal or provide a would-be robber with pictures of your house; however, if your weren’t engaging in illegalities to begin with then you would have nothing to worry about and a robber isn’t going to pick your house because he saw it on Google Street View because it provides no detail on the surroundings of your house. I think people just want to have something to complain about and it’s usually the newer technological advances.


Elizabeth Haydu

Side note: I thought these had posted and when I came to read what other people wrote after the discussion, they weren't there. Sooooo round two!

Kyle Zalewski #2:
I do believe that Google needs to be more preceptive to the feelings and wants of the authors. I would imagine that some authors just do not want their works digitalized unless they absolutely have to have them digitalized. Digitalized books could be great to get that knowledge and those books to a wider audience, but should you do that at a cost to the authors intentions for that work? Probably not.

Shelby Ward #2:
Where the internet is concerned, privacy basically does not exist. Just because something is password protected does not mean it can't be accessed. The law talks about how things that happen in public aren't private. The internet might be one of the most public places our society has ever known. Because of this, the line between public and private on the internet is blurred. Many people consider their browsing history to be private, but that information is actually very easily accessed. Another area that people think is private is their internet in their apartment itself. I have a friend who is a CS major who asked me why I would pay for internet when he can easily just help me "borrow" my neighbors internet. He is paying for it, it is a private IPPD address, but I could use it easily. I didn't, I just got my own, but the whole idea scared me a little. Who is maybe "borrowing" my internet? What else can they get into? Do they see my emails? My private messages to my parents and siblings? My grades? I have, and will continue to, go into the internet with the notion that nothing I do there is private.