Google, which had previously faced feasible anti-trust actions from the Biden administration, is attempting to convince Trump’s DOJ that a Chrome sale would become a national security risk.
According to Bloomberg, Google met with the DOJ team last week to make the case for a lighter regulatory touch. Specifically, Google has stepped up its claims that forcing it to spin-off Chrome and limit AI investments could harm US national security, as well as security at the user level.
“We routinely meet with regulators, including with the DOJ, to discuss this case,” says Google’s Peter Schottenfels. “As we’ve publicly said, we’re concerned the current proposals would harm the American economy and national security.”
Apparently, they are making the argument that without the backing of a large tech company like Google, Chrome would not have as frequent security updates.
Google refused to provide specifics about how its control of search supports national security. However, it has previously suggested that Android and Chrome would be less secure because Google invests in updates that may not happen as frequently without Google backing.
It’s not hard to see how splitting up a company that is so foundational to the Internet could have unintended consequences. The sheer scale of Google brings with it some synergies, allowing it to create an interconnected security apparatus across all its products—including Chrome. That said, companies don’t need to be sprawling Internet behemoths to have functional security. Mozilla’s track record with Firefox is no worse than megacorporations like Google.
While Google’s security implementation has always been well-developed , I don’t think these “drawbacks” are that realistic. Admittedly, this may impact open-source Chromium projects if Chrome’s potential buyer fails to give timely security updates however unlikely it is.
It’s an interesting argument to say that you as a company would totally abandon your Pixel hardware users if the work you put in didn’t directly strengthen your overall monopoly at the same time
In reality Google and Samsung and other OEMs would still have plenty of incentive to continue supporting an independent Android.
It’s not just about security update time. It’s about developing and maintaining the security of a browser which goes far beyond just fixing some bugs. And Google did an exceptionally good job at this, both for AOSP and Chrome/Chromium. I don’t think any other major tech company would have done a similarly good job. Just think about what would have happened if Microsoft developed these.
We don’t have to wonder, edge and explorer were both awful before sense prevailed and they went with chromium. Modern edge is still awful if you are not using the enterprise version.
People blaming google just have not seen the early internet culture of silos and IBM. Google was a pioneer in open source development and open access, still is. Youtube alone has changed humanity as far as democratized information goes. People look at their products to pass judgements about their projects, when both are entirely different causes.
Modern browsers should probably be funded by something like the UN as a universal good for all.
Now that we are here in the UN can we have a global security initiative ala World Health Organization? Something like a World Cyberhealth and Online Safety Organization?
Fair enough. To be more on-topic, I’m not sure that Chrome being forcefully divested will meaningfully change much. I am very much against 1 org having that much power over 90% of the world’s internet experience. Doesn’t really matter who it is; so long as it’s driven by profits, things probably won’t improve.
It’s more of a philosophical or values argument for breaking them up anyways.
It is entirely possible for Google being exceptionally great at developing secure products and making open-source contributions. They’re also (to put it bluntly) an evil ad-tech company that would ruin an open internet if given the chance.
I don’t think any other major tech company would have done a similarly good job. Just think about what would have happened if Microsoft developed these.
I think this is a misestimation. Your opinion of Microsoft on the security front is probably a little coloured by efforts they have made in the context of hardware they don’t control and backwards compatibility/legacy cruft they have to contend with.
I believe Microsoft Edge (the EdgeHTML engine version) had a fairly good reputation security-wise.
Windows 8/10 Mobile had a stronger security model in comparison to desktop versions of Windows. Remember that the Xbox One (its successors) and the Microsoft HoloLens are also clear examples of security successes for Microsoft.
Let us disband raytheon and boeing first then. Controlling companies critical for national security does not make sense as it stifles any competition (government monopoly) for better solutions. If government takes over chromium and makes it a national standard, everything else just dies.
I agree. Relinquishing corporate control won’t do any good here with and to Chrome.
That said, we’ll be back to square one in the browser wars and finally get that modern competition in the tech space to see who can make a better browser we’ve never had thus far.
Now the money men can decide and invest in new projects that show potential that avoids all the traps and pitfalls of browsers and the companies that make them to make something truly good and lasting the right way in an independent manner.
But as I say this I’m realizing said money men are VC and enshittification inevitably follows along with centralization of all things related to this tech and little actual listening to the user base. This would mean the browser company itself should be (made or structured) such that it can’t be overrun or taken over by VC - they just have to be strong enough to say no to millions if control is what they’re actually trying to buy and not honestly trying to find and fund new tech development because they need to understand that even FOSS products can be monetized through other innovative ways.
Chrome is still on the chopping block! As for Android, the DOJ wants to monitor Android and restrict the mandatory use of Google’s AI products on Android.
Previously, the government offered Google the option to sell Android in lieu of making any changes to how the platform operates. However, the divestment option is no longer on the table, not that Google was anxious to rid itself of such a key piece of its business. Now, the Justice Department wants the court to impose a raft of restrictions on how Google can promote its products on Android.
The government proposes that Google should be prohibited from making any of its search or generative AI products mandatory on Android, for example, by limiting access to AI Core or other APIs. Similarly, Google would be prevented from pressuring its partners to use Google search or AI services over the competition. If none of this is effective at breaking up Google’s monopoly, or if Google attempts to ignore the remedies, the government could force Google to sell Android. In this instance, the government would have the final say on who buys the operating system.
