The 10 Principles of Burning Man Analyzed

The 2013 Burning Man is over, participants have returned home to continue their normal lives.  They will return with new experiences and ideas, and they'll change in ways they can't quite explain to their non-burner friends.  Part of Burning Man's appeal is that it eludes formal description and is best understood by direct experience.

The intentions which provide the theoretical foundations of Burning Man (and all other Burning Man regional events) are the 10 principles.  As with Christians and the 10 commandments, most burners haven't memorized the 10 principles and will probably violate some of them.  Unfortunately, the 10 principles come into conflict with one another, aren’t implemented perfectly or lead to undesirable outcomes.

THE 10 PRINCIPLES

Radical Inclusion

Anyone may be a part of Burning Man. We welcome and respect the stranger. No prerequisites exist for participation in our community.

Burning Man is more inclusive than most places, but it's not perfectly inclusive.  The city is divided into camps of people who typically know each other before the event starts, you cannot expect to receive anything from camps you don't belong to. Realistically, you need to spend at least a thousand dollars and take a week off to attend, so poor people are excluded by default. The demographics of Burning Man show that groups (many of which have been excluded throughout history) are drastically underrepresented.  A slight majority of Burning Man attendees are male, and an overwhelming majority are white.  The most successfully included group are LGBQT people, they are overrepresented at Burning Man.

Gifting

Burning Man is devoted to acts of gift giving. The value of a gift is unconditional. Gifting does not contemplate a return or an exchange for something of equal value.

Getting gifts is great, and it's not hard to get gifts from strangers at Burning Man.  But you won't necessarily want the gifts you're given, and other people won't necessarily want what you give them. Many participants put little or no effort into giving gifts and many gifts end up being trashed.  Other gifts (mainly services like massages) are so popular that long lines to receive them.

Decommodification

In order to preserve the spirit of gifting, our community seeks to create social environments that are unmediated by commercial sponsorships, transactions, or advertising. We stand ready to protect our culture from such exploitation. We resist the substitution of consumption for participatory experience.

There is no money, stores, banks or stock exchanges at Burning Man.  Normal economic transactions (besides purchasing ice and coffee) do not occur.  Large amounts of unique art is created for Burning Man.  While Burning Man does succeed in preventing the creation of large numbers of identical products, there exist many services that commidify the Burning Man experience.  You can buy your way into camps which will provide you with everything you need without any participation on your part.

Radical Self-reliance

Burning Man encourages the individual to discover, exercise and rely on his or her inner resources.

To a degree, this principle serves the interest of the owners of Burning Man (Black Rock City, LLC).  The less people rely on BRC, the easier it is for the company to make large profits. Inner resources are of limited use if you're getting dehydrated.  Still, burners do usually leave the event stronger and less dependent on others.

Radical Self-expression

Radical self-expression arises from the unique gifts of the individual. No one other than the individual or a collaborating group can determine its content. It is offered as a gift to others. In this spirit, the giver should respect the rights and liberties of the recipient.

The description of this principle isn't entirely clear.  Gifting is a principle, but here BRC is claiming expressing yourself is a gift to others.  You will see forms of expression at Burning Man you won't see anywhere else. You'll probably receive compliments on your form of expression, no matter how strange it is.  But if Radical Inclusion and Radical Self-expression were both implemented perfectly, Burning Man would be a hotbed of conflict.

Communal Effort

Our community values creative cooperation and collaboration. We strive to produce, promote and protect social networks, public spaces, works of art, and methods of communication that support such interaction.

Building a city from scratch requires lots of work, and most of that work is done communally.  But Burning Man is composed of tribes that usually don't work together.  Large scale Communal Effort does occur, but it's mostly on dance floors or small projects, the big projects are mainly composed by tribes which aren't always Radically Inclusive.

Civic Responsibility

We value civil society. Community members who organize events should assume responsibility for public welfare and endeavor to communicate civic responsibilities to participants. They must also assume responsibility for conducting events in accordance with local, state and federal laws.

This principle also enables BRC to make more money.  Roads, Port-a-Potties, police force and medical care are all provided by BRC or volunteers.  Beyond this, it’s not clear what level of civic responsibility is useful, especially if people are Radically Self-Reliant.

Leaving No Trace

Our community respects the environment. We are committed to leaving no physical trace of our activities wherever we gather. We clean up after ourselves and endeavor, whenever possible, to leave such places in a better state than when we found them.

At a glance, BRC succeeds at this principle tremendously.  But upon further inspection, this principle (and its alleged concern with the environment) is flawed and likely only exists because of a deal that BRC made with the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) in exchange for access to the land where Burning Man occurs.  The Black Rock Desert contains almost no life, if Burning Man didn’t exist it would be a good candidate for a toxic waste dump.  BRC’s is more concerned with clearing biodegradable matter from the desert than discouraging its attendees from bringing gas guzzling Recreational Vehicles from the event. 

Participation

Our community is committed to a radically participatory ethic. We believe that transformative change, whether in the individual or in society, can occur only through the medium of deeply personal participation. We achieve being through doing. Everyone is invited to work. Everyone is invited to play. We make the world real through actions that open the heart.

The amount of effort people put into Burning Man is amazing, but it’s not equally distributed amongst all participants.  The camps which have a track record of participation are in the center of the city.  So new camps on the outskirts will have a hard time finding an audience to participate with, and their members will likely spend most of their time participating in other people's projects.

Immediacy

Immediate experience is, in many ways, the most important touchstone of value in our culture. We seek to overcome barriers that stand between us and a recognition of our inner selves, the reality of those around us, participation in society, and contact with a natural world exceeding human powers. No idea can substitute for this experience.

This principle is the hardest to understand.  Long term planning is necessary for a successful burn.  The man takes hundreds of people months to build and it is almost completely incinerated within half an hour.  When participants return to reality, they won’t remember the many hours they spent preparing or even most of the time they spent on the playa.  They’ll remember the short serendipitous moments  

Though my analysis of the 10 Principles may seem harsh, it should not be taken as a condemnation of Burning Man itself. The event existed before the principles and it's not clear how the Principles have impacted the event. Sometimes codifying a ritual ruins the ritual. It's important for Burning Man participants not to take the Principles too literally or to follow one principle at the expense of another. Ultimately, the Burning Man experience is created by the attendees, not the administrators. Participants should feel free to make their own principles and express and justify them to other participants.

What Can We Learn from Traditional Societies?

I recently finished reading The World Until Yesterday: What Can We Learn from Traditional Societies? by Jared Diamond.  Before writing this review I looked for reviews of his books and was surprised at all the controversy he has generated.  Most reviewers of this book have given undue attention to Diamond's previous work and don't cover much of the content in his most recent work.

I can understand why Diamond generates so much controversy, he makes bold claims and doesn't give them adequate support.  He does reference many works in his book, but the book is dominated by stories of his own personal experience and things his friends have told him.  Of course, Diamond doesn't claim to be a scientist, his books are non-fiction but that's not to say that everything in them is 100% accurate.

If The World Until Yesterday were a fictional book, it would be entertaining and spark the imagination of whoever read it.  But it's not, so we have to question Diamond's conclusions with a healthy degree of skepticism.  Clearly the New Guinean people are culturally different from most people who speak English (and most people who speak the thousands of language not spoken in New Guinea), and language is just one of the barriers of communication between different cultures.  Diamond claims to have an understanding of New Guinean culture, but it's not clear that he does.

Diamond's claims are difficult to disprove.  It's pretty clear that they have a negative effect on the New Guinean tourism industry.  His claims about cannibalism in New Guinea aren't that different from the claims that the Natives of the Carribean were cannibals.  There is no concrete evidence of either.  So while Diamond does inform people of cultural differences, this information isn't 100% accurate and the reader of The World Until Yesterday can't tell what parts are inaccurate without doing some research on their own.

One could interpret Diamond's motives in writing very cynically.  You could say he's profiting from telling lies about cultures that have been oppressed.  That he's an agent of Christian, Western, and Corporate Imperialism.  He is critical of some Western cultural practices but he makes it clear that he prefers living in Los Angeles to New Guinea.  He may be informing people who are extremely ignorant about culture, but he's not enabling Westerners to appreciate New Guinean culture the same way that Westerners appreciate Chinese and other Eastern cultures.  He's just giving people a model of culture that is less wrong than models created by imperialists.

It's worth noting that Diamond is a victim of the same phenomena he is creating with his books.  He's descended from Eastern European jews who had the foresight to come to the USA before the Holocaust.  When Diamond was growing up, people were misinformed about jews and judaism, even in the USA.  Diamond has escaped many of the stereotypes jews have suffered from over the course of his life, but he's created a new set of stereotypes for another group of people.

Christianity and Capitalism

Christianity and Capitalism are two of the defining characteristics of Western Society.  In recent years, some have cast doubt on the morality of both.  But the two systems are intertwined, the Republican Party of the US is more capitalist and christian than the Democratic Party.  Likewise, the US is more capitalist and christian than Europe.  So there's a positive relationship between the two ideologies, where you find one you often find the other.  Is that relationship a natural and logical one, or is it one forged for practical gain of the leaders of the ideologies?

"The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again,'Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.'”

Mark 10:24

"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all of them who sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves."

Matthew 21: 12-13

"When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return, and repayment come to you. But when you give a reception, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, since they do not have the means to repay you; for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

Luke 14:12-14

"If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks."

Deuteronomy 15:7

So what's the incentive for a christian to become rich?  If he does, he'll have to share his money with the poor and then he'll go to hell anyways.  While some Christians want to end the separation of church and state, Jesus makes it pretty clear that he doesn't want any sort of capitalist practices in his church.

A few bible passages don't fully explain Christianity, there are many Christians organizations who interpret the bible and instruct the faithful.  In 325 christian leaders met in Nicaea to discuss theological issues, they prohibited usury (lending money at interest) among the clergy.   In 1311 Pope Clement V banned usury and declared all legislation which allowed for usury invalid.  It wasn't until the Protestant Reformation that certain christian churches began to allow for usury, but even in 1776 the secular free market enthusiast Adam Smith advocated an interest rate ceiling, limiting the profitability of loaning banks.  If a rich christian wants to avoid hell, he can give his money away or loan it, at no interest.  But loans are essential to a growing economy, if money can't be loaned then the rich have little incentive to lend it.

The Parable of the talents is clearly applicable to economics.  In it, a master travels far away but entrusts his servants with talents (large amounts of money) while he's gone.  When he returns, the servant who he gave five talents has used the money to make another five talents, the servant he gave two talents has made another two talents, but the servant who was only given one talent hasn't made any money at all.  So the master confiscates his talent, gives it to the servant with ten talents, banishes the third servant and says:

"For to everyone who has will be given, and he will have abundance, but from him who doesn't have, even that which he has will be taken away"

Matthew 25:29

This parable isn't straightforward to interpret, religious scholars don't all agree about what it means.  The master gives money to his servants, he doesn't charge interest but the servant whom doesn't invest the money has his money given to the servant who does.  Perhaps Jesus told it to encourage people with money to spend it on productive ventures.  Banishing a servant simply because he returns the money you gave him and doesn't double it like the other servants have seems unfair.  If lending money at interest is wrong, then why should you expect interest when you give somebody a gift?  Perhaps Jesus told the story as an example of why a rich man is unlikely to go into heaven, he completely avoids his responsibility to the poor.  Or perhaps the lesson isn't moral, but practical, the rich become richer, the strong become stronger and the powerful become more powerful, this is just a fact of life.  Whatever the message, of all the bible passages listed, this is the most pro-capitalist.  The master in the story rewards the servants who spend and punish those who save which sounds like demand supply economics (not the supply side economics Ronald Reagan favored). Yet it advocates taking from the poor to give to the rich, which is not something that most secular proponents of capitalism believe in.

So why do christians support a system that gives a disproportionately large share of money to the top 1%?  There's the cynical explanation that the church is in cahoots with the rich and spreads information to keep the poor poor.  It is hard for a poor person to become rich if he follows christian morality.  First, he can't get a loan.  Second, he has an obligation to help the poor.  Third, his money can be taken away from him and given to the rich.  On the other hand, it's pretty easy for a rich person to stay rich, or even become richer, according to the parable of the talents he should be given wealth, even if he does nothing to earn it.  The middle class (like the second servant in the parable), get a decent deal under christian morality.

Maybe christians are in favor of capitalism because it is the opposite of communism, an economic system which demands the destruction of religion.  In a communistic system, the state helps the poor and there are no rich.  In most capitalist systems, there are a few rich (and if the parable of talents is followed, much of their wealth comes from the poor) who will probably go to hell.  But christianity doesn't decry middle class people or small business owners, so the people between poor and rich can lead good lives, and they are encouraged to make the lives of the poorest better.  If you believe in heaven, the christian system is similar to reincarnation.  The rich who enjoy life on earth the most are reincarnated in hell.  People who don't manage to acquire massive sums of wealth and give what little they have to those poorer than themselves are reincarnated in heaven.

What's the deal with Apple Computers?

I recently received a Macbook Air from my new job.  I started using my first Mac when I was in diapers but I haven't owned one since I was 14 (incidentally this time period roughly coincides with Steve Job's period away from Apple).  Since becoming a Windows (and later Ubuntu Linux) user I had developed a minor disapproval for Apple Computers as well as their business model, since using my new Mac I've had some new thoughts on what makes Apple so distinct.

Most customers have some brand loyalty toward the products they buy, Apple is an example of a company that inspires fierce brand loyalty in its customers.  Apple consumers are so loyal that they are willing to spend more for Apple products than comparable non-Apple products, PC World Magazine estimates the cost between equivalent PC and Mac computers to be between $300 and $500.

Apple products are well designed, innovative and all work well together.  But unlike most other products, it can be hard to switch from Apple to another brand.  I've spoken with many Mac/iPhone users who feel that they couldn't adequately learn to use a new system and thus can't switch to a new device.  Most people manage to transition to using Apple products without much trouble, so it seems as if Apple usage can only grow, perhaps justifying the company's impressive stock price.

At a fundamental level, there isn't a difference between Mac computer and other computers (or between iPads, iPhones and iPods and all the other phones, mp3 players and tablets/ereaders).  All these devices have ways of displaying information, input devices to receive information and ways of computing information.  The screens, keypads/touchpads, and operating systems make the devices look and feel different, but below the surface, where the actual computing occurs they are about as similar as Pepsi and Coke.  So, why are Apple users willing to pay so much more for their devices?

Henry Ford is alleged to have said that his customers could have a car in any color they wanted as long as it was black, which was efficient because black paint dries faster than any other color.  So Ford saved some money in producing his cars, but since customers are willing to pay extra for products that look good and are easy to use probably lost money by denying customers a choice in color.  Manual transmission have many advantages over automatic transmissions: they cost less, they generally get better gas mileage, they are easier to fix and they give the driver more control over the vehicle.  Despite these advantages, manual transmissions are being produced less and less within the US and may eventually only be available on sports cars or large trucks.  The reason why is clear, they are harder to use than automatics.  It's not incredibly hard to drive a manual, in some areas outside of the US the majority of cars are manuals.  In most of those countries, cars are more of a luxury.  The suggestion the history of car user interfaces suggests for the future of computers is a trend towards computers which are easier to use at the expense of efficiency and affordability.  So the important question isn't why are Apple consumers paying for more for their computer but why aren't Apple's competitors using Mac OS and paying more attention to the design and usability of their computers?

Mac products exist within what technologists call a walled garden, Apple controls the interactions between Mac products and third party software and hardware.  This explains why their software is generally of better quality (but also why much software, some of it very useful isn't available for Macs).  Additionally, this policy is partly why viruses infect Windows machines more than Macs (which is suggested by the sterile appearance and hospital-white color of Apple products).

Microsoft took a different approach to distributing its software than Apple did, there are limitations to how third party software and hardware can interact with Windows and Microsoft products, but these limitations are not nearly as stringent as Apple's.  Microsoft made a large effort to make all computer hardware compatible with its operating system, in doing so it almost became a complete monopoly but it allowed businesses to exchange information without having to worry about different data formats.   Microsoft applied same philosophy to software, it's relatively easy for a software developer to create a product which windows user can download and use (though some of these products will be viruses).  Though some form of the  windows operating system is on about 90% of computers (and it is possible to install Windows on a Macintosh computer), Microsoft doesn't manufacture any of the computers that use its software.

Apple manufactures both software and hardware and instead of trying to get its software onto other manufacturers hardware it actively prevents them from doing so.  Their goal is to have 100% of computers running the Mac OS to be manufactured by Apple.  Independent individuals create 'Hackintoshes' with regular hardware and the Mac OS to avoid paying the $300-$500 premium, but when Psystar (a Miami based computer company) tried to sell Mac OS on computers they'd manufactured themselves, Apple filed a legal injunction preventing them from doing so.  Apple's walled garden policy has also led to their devices having cables which are different from the standardized PC cables (and naturally cost more).

Mac products are better designed and it is easier to use them for elementary tasks, but in a world where digital literacy is increasingly important, Apple is doing a disservice to its customers.  When I got my first Windows machine, I spent a lot of time figuring out how it worked, there were some things that I couldn't initially figure out how to do but I persevered and learned lessons about how my machine worked.  Discovering how to use a computer is a frustrating yet educational process, but Apple's walled garden policy prevents users from understanding much of how their device works.  Linux/Unix machines are even more frustrating and educational than Windows machines, but since their source code is openly available, you can modify them to your heart's desire and distribute your modifications to whoever you want (you need to be computer savvy to do so).  The flexibility of Unix led Steve Jobs to use the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) branch of it to recreate the Mac OS, by adding aesthetically pleasing design he was able to charge costumers for what they could get for free.

Since I've used my Macbook Air for a while, the initial appeal has worn off I've had several complaints about its design:

• the sharp edges of the computer give me wrist pains as I type
• whenever I alter the volume I hear an annoying beep, interrupting whatever I'm listening to
•  the lack of a screen protector has left dust on my monitor that I can't clean easily with my finger 
• the white body of my computer makes the minor specks of dust much more visible
• the lack of the traditional pg up, pg dn, home and end keys make navigating documents harder
•  the lack of a delete and backspace key makes editing mistakes slightly less convenient(Macs just have delete, which does what backspace does on PCs, the delete function should let you remove characters to the right of your cursor rather than the left)
• The single button mouse prevents me from doing what I could do on another system 
• The scrollbar isn't always visible.  
• There's no easy way to see all the programs I have without opening a new program (Mission Control)
• There's no CD/DVD drive so I can't play movies or install certain software

So the race to design a perfect user interface for a computer isn't over just yet.  Apple may be in the lead, but there's still a long way to the finish line and it Apple's competitors would realize the importance of design and take some risks and deviate from the standard black box-like machine running Windows, they might become even more successful than Apple.

My thoughts on the tenth Anniversary of 9/11

Today marks the 10th anniversary of the one of the deadliest attacks in US History. This event triggered a huge reaction not just in America but the rest of the world. In all likelihood, the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya as well as the entire Arab Spring wouldn't have happened without 9/11. Even the global recession would have unfolded differently or not happened if the World Trade Centers hadn't fallen...

It isn't clear to me how we should commemorate this anniversary. Some of us might feel like waving flags and talking about how great the USA is. But is America better off today than it was before 9/11? I don't think so. Not only did the attacks weaken us, but so did our response to the attacks. I think Americans need to ask themselves: What we could have done differently between 9/11/01 and today, what mistakes have been made in the last ten years have made us worse off?

The wars that this country has entered in the past ten years have been huge mistakes. The people that were so confident that Hussein had WMDs and that fighting the Iraq war would be easy and inexpensive have been proven wrong. There is no connection between Libya or Iraq to the 9/11 attacks and when we finally found Bin Ladin he was in Pakistan. Politicians have used 9/11 and the fear of another terrorist attack to drum up support for unrelated conflicts. We have little to gain from winning any of the three wars we're in, and it's not clear what exactly our victory conditions are (except perhaps in Libya, but who knows what will happen to that country when its ruler of 40 years is deposed or assassinated). We've lost more military personnel in these conflicts than we lost citizens in 9/11, not to mention all the non-Americans who've died. These wars are unpopular among US citizens and especially unpopular with citizens of other countries. Yet we continue them because we think that somehow fighting and killing will lead to a better outcome.

As a country, we can't admit when we're wrong. If we were the dominant superpower, that strategy might be viable, but with Europe uniting, China rising and the economic growth of most of the so called "third world" exceeding that of the "developed world" the US cannot expect to grow in international power and prestige if we remain so stupidly stubborn.

Americans have also lost a lot of civil liberties in the past ten years. I know it's cliche, but I feel obliged to use the Benjamin Franklin quote:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Now we're harassed more at airports, can have our telephones conversations eavesdropped upon and many of the liberties established by the US Constitution have been limited. Of course, defenders of the Patriot Act and similar legislation would probably point out that there hasn't been an attack on the US in ten years, and claim that's evidence that these measures are working; they might also claim that unless you are hiding something you have nothing to fear from a loss of civil liberties. I find those claims to be naive for the following reasons:

1) There have been plenty of attacks against the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why would these terrorists go all the way to the USA to kill innocents when they can kill US soldiers and contractors without being racially profiled on the plane flight? This isn't to say I believe that these wars are a deterrent for terrorists, but that these wars make it easier for terrorists to harm Americans.

2) There have been attacks in Europe, India, Pakistan, throughout the Middle East, Russia and Indonesia. It's not clear to me that this is because these places have an abundance of civil liberties.

3) The intelligence community had the ability to violate various civil liberties in the name of national security before 9/11/01 yet they failed to prevent the attacks. Why should we give up more civil liberties for security when doing so in past hasn't worked?

4) Osama had specifically stated that the attacks occurred because of the US support for Israel, its intervention in Lebanon and the US military presence in Islamic holy land. I'm not suggesting that we start taking orders from our enemies, but I do believe we should listen to our enemies. I believe rescinding support from Israel and withdrawing US troops from the Middle East would be a small price to pay if it ensured that the War on Terror would end.

The World Trade Towers were filled with the same bankers that would cause the economic crash and demanded a bailout. Can anybody honestly say that justice wouldn't have been served if Bernie Madoff died in 9/11? While many innocent Americans died on 9/11, many of the bankers and soldiers who died were guilty of causing damage to the world. This isn't an attempt to justify the attacks, but we should at least be aware that the purpose of these attacks was not simply to kill innocents. We should try to make sure that when we fight our enemy, we use more ethical tactics and harm less innocents or else they (as well as the rest of the observing world) will feel justified in killing innocents when they fight us.

I think in order to win or achieve honorable peace in this War on Terror, we need to understand the perspective of our enemies. Some would like to portray them as sociopaths who are beyond understanding, but I don't think that's true. I think our enemies are more like ourselves than we realize. Our enemies have the same desire for world domination as us. It's true that withdrawing for our wars and changing our policies may cause our enemies to perceive us as weak and attack us again. But it's also true that our enemies aren't fully united, if they don't perceive the USA as a threat to them, they will begin seeing each other as enemies and fight amongst each other.

So to commemorate 9/11 we should remember what America and the world were like before the horrible event happened. We should try to restore the more peaceful world that we had on 9/10/01. Americans should acknowledge and respect those that died on this tragic day, but also show concern for those that have died in our misguided and vengeful wars in the last ten years.

New Statesman - Assange: "WikiLeaks is the intelligence agency of the people"

New Statesman - Assange: "WikiLeaks is the intelligence agency of the people"

My informal opinion on Wikileaks and Julian Assange

Would like to write something about the wikileaks fiasco, but lacks time and fears that when he has time, the story will no longer be in the media, so I'll write a short summary.

Julian Assange mediated the release of documents of powerful organizations. These documents reveal things which have made those institutions seem less credible. He's in jail for having consensual sex where a condom broke (but Dick Cheney shoots someone in the face and walks free).

How does this make sense?

Julian Assange may be a criminal for releasing confidential information, but I'm not going to moralize and I'm not a legal expert, but I don't want to see him go to jail. This is because I'd like to know what all these huge organizations are hiding.