[221] in Privacy_Forum
[ PRIVACY Forum ] Google and Monopolies
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (privacy@vortex.com)
Tue Oct 17 17:26:19 2006
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 09:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <200610171652.k9HGq7VB028617@chrome.vortex.com>
To: privacy-list@vortex.com
From: privacy@vortex.com
Reply-To: PRIVACY Forum Digest mailing list <privacy@vortex.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Errors-To: privacy-bounces+privacy-forum=mit.edu@vortex.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Google and Monopolies
( http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000195.html )
Greetings. In the wake of Google's seemingly pricey acquisition of
YouTube, some observers have suggested that Google is on its way
toward effectively monopolistic control over many Internet services.
The question of who is or isn't a "monopoly" is interesting, but
trying to use standard definitions may lead us somewhat astray
from key issues.
First, Google isn't currently a monopoly by any classic definition
and is unlikely to become one in a general sense. Google clearly
isn't a utility in the vein of residential water, electricity, or
natural gas delivery, which despite attempts to introduce "competition"
still are obvious "natural" monopolies.
Google isn't even "oligopolistic" in any broad sense, unlike
conventional phone services or "last mile" ISPs, where only limited
practical consumer choice exists.
And Google obviously has never had the leverage that Microsoft has
with consumers who buy PCs, since for the vast majority of PC users
there is no simple turnkey alternative to the Windows systems that come
bundled on their computers. Many consumers don't even realize that
there is a difference between the hardware and OS of their PCs.
Google is different. It can be argued -- with considerable validity
-- that Google can't become a "monopoly" for most Internet
applications since consumers can easily switch away from Google to
other services, with little or no monetary cost associated with such
a choice -- just enter a different URL. At least, this is the case
so long as Net Neutrality (which Google strongly and admirably
supports) is the basis of the Internet.
But this is all only part of the equation. The ability to choose
alternate services depends upon the availability of the desired
information on those services. When we're only talking about search
engines, this is not a big issue -- there are lots of search
services, and I've never yet seen a conventional Web site that
limits search spidering only to Google. The fact that Google has
become the dominant search engine is a tribute to the quality of
their product, not to nefarious manipulations.
Even Google's YouTube acquisition doesn't automatically prevent other
entities from competing in various ways in the user-contributed video
space. We're likely to still end up with more competition in that area
than, say, in national radio networks and other aspects of conventional
media.
The bigger issues come into focus in two aspects -- "exclusivity"
deals and data retention. To the extent that Google or other
entities engage in contracts (such as the Book Search scanning deal
with the University of California) that restrict the ways in which
those scans can then be used by others, most consumers are inevitably
steered toward Google if they wish to have access to that data.
Now, it takes two to tango, and in this case it would seem obvious
that Google would reasonably wish to retain leverage over these
materials. It's far less clear that it is appropriate for UC to
accept such terms as a public institution.
However you might wish to parse the motives, the end result is
that consumers' choices can be significantly limited in these kinds
of situations, and of course as the data corpus grows the tendency
for further concentration of these materials becomes ever greater.
This leads us inevitably toward the data retention issue. To the
extent that consumer choice becomes limited by the structural and/or
financial tapestry of these systems, the responsibility of the
dominant players (e.g. Google) when it comes to data collected from
their users is increasingly paramount. This is the case regardless
of whether or not the term "monopoly" or even "oligopoly" can be
reasonably applied to such firms.
I won't get into specific data retention arguments here
(please reference http://www.vortex.com/google-privacy-initiative
and http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000188.html for my "Open
Letter to Google" and related essays for more details on this topic).
The executive summary is pretty simple. Issues and problems related
to these kinds of Internet services are unlike those in any other
field. The associated risks (whether the result of benevolent
intent with unintended consequences, impartial structural evolution,
or other factors) are not obviously delineated by classical
competitive categorizations.
Or to use the vernacular -- just because you're a genuinely good guy
doesn't mean that what you've built can't be utilized by others in
negative ways that you never intended. With size and power comes
the responsibility for helping to ensure that such outside forces
can't do evil with your magic.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren@vortex.com or lauren@pfir.org
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
- People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, IOIC
- International Open Internet Coalition - http://www.ioic.net
Co-Founder, CIFIP
- California Initiative For Internet Privacy - http://www.cifip.org
Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
DayThink: http://daythink.vortex.com
_______________________________________________
privacy mailing list
http://lists.vortex.com/mailman/listinfo/privacy
