Who’s watching Google?

Over the past decade, Google has risen from regular search engine, competing with the likes of Yahoo and MSN, to omnipresent corporation with fingers in pies ranging from satellite development to social media and analytics tools. Because of its position as search engine of choice for around two-thirds of global internet users, and its access to 425 million active Gmail accounts, Google has an unparalleled insight into the private lives and choices of its users.

While some might believe that with great power comes great responsibility, Google’s track record suggests it believes that with great power comes great business opportunity. With or despite its ‘do no evil’ motto, Google has persevered in aggravating competitors, regulators and consumers alike.

When the Federal Trade Commission scrapped its antitrust investigation of Google last November, many failed to comprehend the decision. After 18 months of investigation, the FTC concluded that, while some of the internet behemoth’s actions were questionable, there was no proof that consumers were being harmed – only competitors.

Some called it a victory for Google, while others questioned the motivation behind the decision and the use of lobbying to secure a favourable ruling. Whatever the reason for the dropped anti-trust investigation, it has certainly raised a few questions and more than a few eyebrows. The FTC investigation was only one of a similar number of inquests around the world.

Cracking the code

Google’s triumph is a set of algorithms that allow it to search websites for suitable answers to our questions. Because of the volume of people who use the search engine on a variety of websites, formats and devices, Google has accumulated significant insights into its users and with it an invaluable trove of information for advertisers.

Because of the prevalence of the algorithms, companies must tailor their online content to Google’s formulae, or risk breaching its guidelines and getting lost in the depths of the web.

Being able to understand what makes Google tick can be the difference between huge success and monumental failure. That puts Google in a highly advantageous position, but it has been accused of using this information to the detriment of its competition in violation of antitrust regulation.

The main charges in the now defunct FTC investigations and the ongoing EU investigation are that Google manipulates search results unfairly in order to promote its own services to the detriment of other service providers. JoaquÌn Almunia, the EU’s competition chief, has insisted Google’s absolution in the FTC investigation will not affect the EU’s verdict on the matter. He said: “We are still investigating, but my conviction is they are diverting traffic [to its own services].”

Google has not only raised the ire of regulators, but also that of its competitors, who have started forming unlikely alliances

If proven, this would constitute abuse of dominance and is a big deal, especially considering the search engine holds 90 percent of the European market in its grip (compared to a mere 67 percent share in the US). According to Almunia, the problem is “the way things are presented” by Google.

Though FTC investigators concluded there was no evidence consumers were being harmed by Googleís practices, Almunia begs to differ. He said: “The way the US looks at abuse of dominant position is different from the European one.”

Beyond antitrust

Google has been embroiled in other controversies aside from its allegedly anti-competitive search results presentation. Much has been said about the privacy policies across its services. Given the amount of information Google holds on every one of its users, it is more alarming to imagine it might be abusing that power than violating competition rules.

In March 2012, the company published a new set of privacy policies, unifying all policies across platforms in one fell swoop. Google has cited ‘usability’ as the main reason for consolidating the privacy settings in over 70 of its applications. But what the unified policy amounts to in effect is a way for Google to start collating user information from all its services in one place. It is of particular concern to YouTube and Gmail users, who have seen their accounts unified, and their searches and clicks saved and stored together.

In a blog post to users last March, Google’s Director of Privacy, Product and Engineering, Alma Whitten, wrote: “Our new privacy policy makes clear that, if you’re signed in, we may combine information you’ve provided from one service with information from other services. In short, we’ll treat you as a single user across all our products, which will mean a simpler, more intuitive Google experience.” The trouble with that is the amount of information Google has amassed over the years. Not only does the company have access to personal information through emails, information about users” location, and searches, it also has control over the information on the web; who can find it, where and how easily. Hundreds of millions of books, documents, films, songs and products are all online under Google’s thumb.

Voices of concern

Canada’s privacy commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, was the first to raise questions about the policy. In an open letter to Google, she wrote: “As we understand it, the policy changes do not mean that Google is collecting more information about its users than it currently does. They do, however, mean that you are going to be using the information in new ways – ways that may make some users uncomfortable.”

Last October, French press regulator CNIL followed in Stoddart’s footsteps and gave Google four months to revise its policy. In total, 12 separate recommendations were published – and signed by 24 of Europe’s 27 data regulators – in order to bring the internet giantís policies up to EU standards.

It has been suggested: users be allowed to choose under what circumstances data about them could be collected and stored; a centralised opt-out service should be offered, enabling users to choose which services provide data about them; and Google should limit its tools to comply with a limit to how data can be used (for instance, targeted data can be used to improve security but not to target advertising).

Google has not responded, insisting its policy is compliant with EU regulation. European authorities have threatened action before the end of the summer, but given the internet company’s legal history, it seems unlikely it will be much fazed by this latest incursion into the European legal system. A spokesperson said: “We have engaged fully with the CNIL throughout this process, and we’ll continue to do so going forward.”

Sign in

In fact, it seems Google might be holding all the cards in this particular game. Ninety percent of internet users in Europe turn to the mighty search-engine-cum-online-empire with their queries, and they were not dissuaded from using its services when their privacy policy suddenly changed without approval from regulators.

Nor did users seem concerned about how their private information might be used by giant faceless corporations. The fact European regulators have called the controversial privacy policies ‘high risk’ but have stopped short of declaring them illegal is telling in itself. It seems that consumers are, when it comes down to it, by-and-large unconcerned or uneducated about the consequences of Google’s information hoarding.

Ninety percent of internet users in Europe turn to the mighty search-engine-cum-online-empire with their queries, and they were not dissuaded from using its services when their privacy policy suddenly changed without approval from regulators

Larry Dignam, writing for ZDNet and TechRepublic, says the company’s policies are nothing short of scary. He wrote: “Google will know more about you than your wife does. Everything across your screens will be integrated and tracked. Google noted that it collects information that you provide from your usage, device information and location.”

But users cannot help but produce these pieces of information if they are online, and there is no way of opting out. Unavoidable as these ‘information trails’ may be, it is questionable if the mere fact they exist gives Google the right to use them: especially as Google provides little or no benefit to the users in return.

House of cards

There is also a question of power. As Google targets ads and search results based on algorithms generated from personal information, it is in effect deciding what content is most suitable for each user. If restricting is too strong a word, Google is certainly guiding each userís internet experience for its own financial gain.

Google has not only raised the ire of regulators, but also that of its competitors, who have started forming unlikely alliances in a bid to curb some of its influence. Most of these lawsuits centre on Google’s mobile platform, Android, which is used on smartphones from a variety of manufacturers. Apple and Microsoft have recently teamed up to challenge Google on some Android patents, at a cost of billions to the two challengers.

Oracle, makers of the Java platform on which Android apps are built, is also embroiled in a legal battle with Google over the allegedly unlicensed use of its software. While the Apple/Microsoft slew of litigation threatens to destabilise Android, if Oracle is successful it could destroy the platform. Other search engines, like Yahoo, clearly have nothing but contempt for Google. Over the years, there has been much bickering between the two, with Yahoo accusing Google of taking ideas it implemented first but which were never entirely successful because of Yahoo’s modest market share. Amazon has taken issue with Google over the cloud storage market; a feud that is likely to be reignited as Amazon continues to invest in its own Android app store.

For technology columnist MG Siegler this animosity with competitors stems from “Google’s desire to do everything,”. He says: “Once just a search company, they [sic]  now actively compete with Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, Facebook, Amazon, Twitter, Yelp, Groupon, Color, Path – just to rattle off a few.”

Siegler argues it is Google’s right to do whatever it considers best for the company and that its vast funds are more than enough to take on these challenges, “but the alienation of other companies,  many of which were former allies, isnít helping it. And if any of these Android lawsuits go through, or if they [sic] fail to eventually obtain the patents necessary to protect themselves, Google could find themselves in serious trouble.”

Feeling lucky?

Google has been in the habit of extricating itself from difficult situations: The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) called the company’s absolution by the FTC an ‘escape’ rather than a victory. WSJ has also noted the amount of money Google has spent on lobbying over the past 12 months. The US Centre for Responsive Politics has estimated the internet giant spent in excess of $14m on lobbying in 2012, pertaining to the antitrust probe and other issues. Over the same period, Apple spent $2m.

Others have not failed to observe how Google’s Executive Chairman, Eric Schmidt, has become a seemingly omnipresent figure in Washington, socialising with Republicans and Democrats alike. Politico and WSJ published a review of a letter by Democratic US Senator Mark Udall from Colorado: after meeting with Schmidt, Udall took it upon himself to contact the then-chairman of the FTC, Jon Leibowitz, urging him to proceed cautiously with the antitrust investigation.

The FTC maintains it dropped the investigation because it could not make a case against Google, not because of political pressure. Of the paltry commitments the FTC did manage to get from Google in return for dropping the investigation, Leibowitz said: “It is good for consumers, it is good for competition, it is good for innovation, and it is the right
thing to do.”

Google might have less political influence in Europe, but it has more users. As it continues to extend its reach across platforms, media and even industries, the thought of the company being allowed to continue uncensored is truly terrifying. As many internet sceptics and conspiracy theorists have suggested, Google has grown from a quirky search engine into a modern day Leviathan that might already be too big to bridle.