This is the script of my national network radio report yesterday on
the massive privacy, security, and other risks inherent in DOJ's
Google antitrust proposed "remedies", including (but not limited to)
forcing Google to sell off the Chrome browser to some other entity. As
always there may have been a few minor wording variations from this
script as I presented the report live on air.
Also see my recent blog post on this issue:
https://lauren.vortex.com/2024/11/21/dojs-proposed-antitrust-remedies-against-google-would-be-a-disaster
- - -
So to set the stage, we need to keep in mind that there have been a
number of antitrust actions -- from both political parties -- taken
against Google over the years with various results. This current one
we're talking about right now is a Biden administration effort, but
there have been various antitrust proceedings against Google by the
previous Trump administration, a number of different states and
assorted combinations thereof. And while the current case is almost
certainly going to be headed down a long appeals path, the judge is
proceeding to consider various so-called "remedies" to punish Google
and in theory "repair" the competitive issues involved in this case.
Now obviously I have disagreements with various of Google's policies
and decisions especially lately, but I have to say that I have never,
ever, heard non-techie consumers tell me that the thing they really
want is for Google to be broken up and for consumer user data to be
potentially split among various other firms, and for consumers'
computers and phones and other devices to become even more complicated
to work with. Unfortunately that is a very likely outcome of various
of these supposed remedies that are being floated regarding Google
right now.
But the complications actually go far beyond that. DOJ is proposing
that Google be forced to sell off its Chrome browser to some other
somebody or somebodies somewhere. And they're pushing for data
sharing, and for prohibitions on default browser deals and various
other stuff.
And the reaction from a lot of tech observers, including me, is that
most of these proposals are absolutely awful, and potentially
dangerous because they could put the billions of Google's users at
risk for more privacy and security problems. In fact some of the
proposals are so bad that even Mozilla, who makes the competing
Firefox browser, is concerned that the proposals go too far and could
end up actually hurting smaller companies like them.
And really it's puzzling to try figure out how some of these proposals
have been created. Because the impression seems to be that either the
officials making them don't really understand the technical realities
of these systems and data, or just don't seem to care about how many
problems for ordinary people these proposals could cause in the name
of a kind of competition that most people don't seem to want and that
would make their daily dealings with this tech even more confusing and
frustrating than they often are now.
In any case, clearly Google has its faults and I've talked about some
of those right here at various times in the past, but it's also the
case that Google has first class -- world class -- security and
privacy teams and I do trust Google to handle the related data
properly. And I don't want that data being handed off to perhaps
multiple other firms to satisfy competition demands that again aren't
something that most people apparently are concerned about.
Usually consumers just want to get their work done that they need to
do on the Web with minimal confusion or hassles or problems. The
security and privacy risks in some of these proposals in particular
are MAJOR and Google puts a tremendous effort into keeping their
systems secure. A very significant part of how they do that so
successfully, a very important part, is integration between the Chrome
browser and these security systems for malware checking and a range of
other systems that are used to help keep Internet users as safe as
possible as they use the Web.
So when it comes to antitrust "remedies" a key test should be "first,
do no harm to consumers". And at least right now, it appears that
these overall current proposals for these so-called "remedies" in this
case seem to be failing that test, and sadly, failing it rather
dramatically indeed.
- - -
L
- - -
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
[email protected] (https://www.vortex.com/lauren)
Lauren's Blog: https://lauren.vortex.com
Mastodon: https://mastodon.laurenweinstein.org/@lauren
Founder: Network Neutrality Squad: https://www.nnsquad.org
PRIVACY Forum: https://www.vortex.com/privacy-info
Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility
_______________________________________________
google-issues mailing list
https://lists.vortex.com/mailman/listinfo/google-issues
