The government’s proposal so that Google shares its research data with competitors “would deeply undermine user confidence” by putting permanent requests from potentially less secure competitors, said the research manager of the company Elizabeth Reid on Tuesday.
The Ministry of Justice has proposed to force Google to unionize its classification signals and other research data to competitors, which, according to him, will level the playground and end the monopoly of Google’s research. But Reid argued that the export of these data would shake the faith of users that their research would remain deprived, and its value would create an incentive for pirates to pursue small competitors. “Once he is given to a qualified competitor, there are no other protections that we can give,” she said. “A startup is generally not a target because it is small, but now it has this huge data treasure.”
Google fights the refined proposals of the DoJ, which also include forcing it to sell its Chrome browser, by pleading for more limited modifications to its research distribution contracts (it plans to appeal from the monopoly decision, but cannot do it until the judge Amit Mehta makes a decision to appeal). Reid’s testimony follows that of other leaders, including CEO Sundar Pichai, who said that government’s proposals could radically change Google and the biggest web. The DoJ indicates that its proposals are all necessary to restore competition on the research market, and it argued that Google exaggerates their disastrous effects.
“Maybe they decide not to use Google completely, (or) maybe they decide that they are not looking for certain categories”
Returning the information that feeds Google’s search would not only do its competitors’ goals for hacks, said Reid, but he could undermine confidence in Google products and find out more widely. Today, many people are turning to Google to ask questions that they don’t even feel comfortable asking a friend, she said. “If suddenly, they fear that the data have elsewhere … maybe they decide not to use Google completely, (or) perhaps they decide that they do not seek certain categories.” During his chief case, on the other hand, the DoJ caused a confidentiality expert who testified the research information could be shared safely with certain protections in place.
Reid echoes Pichai’s testimony last week that government data sharing proposals could help rivals or “retro-engineers” spammers of its systems, which facilitates the classification of spam or disinformation in Google’s results. Fighting these bad actors is “always a cat and mouse game, but it suddenly becomes a cat and mouse game where your hands are really attached behind your back,” she said.
The construction of the tools necessary to follow the government’s proposals would divert engineering talents towards tedious compliance work instead of innovation, continued Reid. She testified that more than 20% of the research engineering force should focus on compliance “because it is so extensive and invasive”. Even the gradual changes in small features could trigger additional steps, so Google will probably focus on the domains “less covered by remedies because this is where we can stand out,” she said, although she has not had details.
In addition to all this, Reid said that the maintenance of the tools necessary to distribute all the information that the GM wants it to share with competitors would slow its ability to ship features that improve user research experiences. “It’s just an incredibly important quantity because these modules change constantly,” said Reid. “The trade value of the syndication in relation to the cost simply does not work.”
