Google has more reasons why it doesn't like antitrust law that affects Google
(2022/06/08)
- Reference: 1654710309
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2022/06/08/google_antitrust_legislation/
- Source link:
Google has a fresh list of reasons why it opposes tech antitrust legislation making its way through Congress but, like others who've expressed discontent, the ad giant's complaints leave out mention of portions of the proposed law that address said gripes.
The law bill in question is [1]S.2992 , the Senate version of the American Innovation and Choice Online Act (AICOA), which is [2]closer than ever to getting votes in the House and Senate, which could see it advanced to President Biden's desk.
AICOA prohibits tech companies above a certain size from favoring their own products and services over their competitors. It applies to businesses considered "critical trading partners," meaning the company controls access to a platform through which business users reach their customers. Google, Apple, Amazon, and Meta in one way or another seemingly fall under the scope of this US legislation.
[3]
Google VP of engineering for privacy, safety and security Royal Hansen [4]penned Google's latest take on the bill, which he said undermines Google's ability to secure its platforms and protect users.
[5]
[6]
Google security teams work around the clock, Hansen said, typically blocking more than 100 million phishing attacks and tracking more than 270 government-backed threat actors from 50 nations. "This work requires us to make judgment calls quickly, based on indicators and alerts from a huge variety of sources. Responding … without hesitation is critical to protecting millions of internet users," Hansen said, adding that AICOA could hurt Google's abilities to keep products secure.
Hansen claims Google would be banned from basic product integrations, like spam filtering and malware scanning built into Gmail. Integrations like those "could be prohibited simply because competitors offer their own versions of spam filtering, malware scanning and other security services," Hansen claimed.
[7]
It's true that Google would be prevented from materially restricting, impeding, or unreasonable delaying "the capacity of a business user to access or interoperate with the same platform, operating system, or hardware or software features."
In this case that might mean simply offering a third-party spam filter alongside Google's own. The mega-corp isn't under any obligation to offer products that would harm its security nor derail its own products by stripping out features completely.
[8]Amazon not happy with antitrust law targeting Amazon
[9]DoJ to Congress: Thumbs up for big tech antitrust bill
[10]Lawmakers launch bill to break up tech giants' ad dominance
[11]Makers of ad blockers and browser privacy extensions fear the end is near
From the [12]bill : "It shall be an affirmative defense to protect safety, user privacy, the security of nonpublic data, or the security of the covered platform; or maintain or substantially enhance the core functionality of the covered platform."
Hansen also said the bill would require Google to open its platforms to bad actors, which "would inevitably be exploited by foreign companies looking to understand US technical infrastructure, and access data from American businesses and citizens." Referring again to the above passage, Google would be under no obligation to put its platform or users in danger. The bill also said that preventing a violation of, or ensuring compliance with, existing state and federal laws was a justifiable defense.
Hansen also said the bill would prevent Google from taking action against purveyors of misinformation, and "would create a legal environment that encourages companies to err on the side of not protecting users." Nothing in the bill directly leads to that assessment.
[13]
It does specifically mention China, foreign state-owned companies and other foreign adversaries as not being protected under the act, which Hansen said would be difficult to prove because "modern threat actors use compromised third-parties or shell companies to conduct operations."
What Hansen may actually be unhappy about is requirements in the bill that [14]imply tech companies are responsible for performing their own due diligence. According to the proposed legislation, nothing in it may be construed to:
Require a platform operator to divulge IP or trade secrets
Prevent a platform from asserting its preexisting IP rights
Require a business to share data with entities prohibited from economic activity in the US or identified as a national security risk
Require an operator to take an act that would lead to its data being transferred to the government of a foreign adversary
Place liability on platforms for offering encrypted communication services or paid subscription services for consumers
Other complaints against AICOA have been formed along similar lines, including [15]Amazon 's that said the mandate would make it difficult to ensure Prime's two-day shipping.
AICOA has bipartisan support and stands a significant chance of being signed into law – if it passes the Senate. A vote isn't scheduled, and senior Democrats are reportedly trying to push it through before the midterm elections, as Republicans have indicated that AICOA would not be a priority were they to seize control of one or both halves of Congress. ®
Get our [16]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2992/text
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2022/03/29/doj_to_congress_thumbs_up/
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YqEcAdOOgjVHjRXmASvnqAAAAMU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/public-policy/how-congress-anti-tech-bill-undermines-security/
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YqEcAdOOgjVHjRXmASvnqAAAAMU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YqEcAdOOgjVHjRXmASvnqAAAAMU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YqEcAdOOgjVHjRXmASvnqAAAAMU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/01/amazon_antitrust_bill/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2022/03/29/doj_to_congress_thumbs_up/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2022/05/19/senate_ctda_advertising/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/08/google_blocking_privacy_manifest/
[12] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2992/text#idf2fc1d1c9b9f490bbbeb80d976779fdc
[13] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YqEcAdOOgjVHjRXmASvnqAAAAMU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[14] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2992/text#id42F37A3CCBE34A87B901733C1DB23995
[15] https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/01/amazon_antitrust_bill/
[16] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
The law bill in question is [1]S.2992 , the Senate version of the American Innovation and Choice Online Act (AICOA), which is [2]closer than ever to getting votes in the House and Senate, which could see it advanced to President Biden's desk.
AICOA prohibits tech companies above a certain size from favoring their own products and services over their competitors. It applies to businesses considered "critical trading partners," meaning the company controls access to a platform through which business users reach their customers. Google, Apple, Amazon, and Meta in one way or another seemingly fall under the scope of this US legislation.
[3]
Google VP of engineering for privacy, safety and security Royal Hansen [4]penned Google's latest take on the bill, which he said undermines Google's ability to secure its platforms and protect users.
[5]
[6]
Google security teams work around the clock, Hansen said, typically blocking more than 100 million phishing attacks and tracking more than 270 government-backed threat actors from 50 nations. "This work requires us to make judgment calls quickly, based on indicators and alerts from a huge variety of sources. Responding … without hesitation is critical to protecting millions of internet users," Hansen said, adding that AICOA could hurt Google's abilities to keep products secure.
Hansen claims Google would be banned from basic product integrations, like spam filtering and malware scanning built into Gmail. Integrations like those "could be prohibited simply because competitors offer their own versions of spam filtering, malware scanning and other security services," Hansen claimed.
[7]
It's true that Google would be prevented from materially restricting, impeding, or unreasonable delaying "the capacity of a business user to access or interoperate with the same platform, operating system, or hardware or software features."
In this case that might mean simply offering a third-party spam filter alongside Google's own. The mega-corp isn't under any obligation to offer products that would harm its security nor derail its own products by stripping out features completely.
[8]Amazon not happy with antitrust law targeting Amazon
[9]DoJ to Congress: Thumbs up for big tech antitrust bill
[10]Lawmakers launch bill to break up tech giants' ad dominance
[11]Makers of ad blockers and browser privacy extensions fear the end is near
From the [12]bill : "It shall be an affirmative defense to protect safety, user privacy, the security of nonpublic data, or the security of the covered platform; or maintain or substantially enhance the core functionality of the covered platform."
Hansen also said the bill would require Google to open its platforms to bad actors, which "would inevitably be exploited by foreign companies looking to understand US technical infrastructure, and access data from American businesses and citizens." Referring again to the above passage, Google would be under no obligation to put its platform or users in danger. The bill also said that preventing a violation of, or ensuring compliance with, existing state and federal laws was a justifiable defense.
Hansen also said the bill would prevent Google from taking action against purveyors of misinformation, and "would create a legal environment that encourages companies to err on the side of not protecting users." Nothing in the bill directly leads to that assessment.
[13]
It does specifically mention China, foreign state-owned companies and other foreign adversaries as not being protected under the act, which Hansen said would be difficult to prove because "modern threat actors use compromised third-parties or shell companies to conduct operations."
What Hansen may actually be unhappy about is requirements in the bill that [14]imply tech companies are responsible for performing their own due diligence. According to the proposed legislation, nothing in it may be construed to:
Require a platform operator to divulge IP or trade secrets
Prevent a platform from asserting its preexisting IP rights
Require a business to share data with entities prohibited from economic activity in the US or identified as a national security risk
Require an operator to take an act that would lead to its data being transferred to the government of a foreign adversary
Place liability on platforms for offering encrypted communication services or paid subscription services for consumers
Other complaints against AICOA have been formed along similar lines, including [15]Amazon 's that said the mandate would make it difficult to ensure Prime's two-day shipping.
AICOA has bipartisan support and stands a significant chance of being signed into law – if it passes the Senate. A vote isn't scheduled, and senior Democrats are reportedly trying to push it through before the midterm elections, as Republicans have indicated that AICOA would not be a priority were they to seize control of one or both halves of Congress. ®
Get our [16]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2992/text
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2022/03/29/doj_to_congress_thumbs_up/
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YqEcAdOOgjVHjRXmASvnqAAAAMU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/public-policy/how-congress-anti-tech-bill-undermines-security/
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YqEcAdOOgjVHjRXmASvnqAAAAMU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YqEcAdOOgjVHjRXmASvnqAAAAMU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YqEcAdOOgjVHjRXmASvnqAAAAMU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/01/amazon_antitrust_bill/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2022/03/29/doj_to_congress_thumbs_up/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2022/05/19/senate_ctda_advertising/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/08/google_blocking_privacy_manifest/
[12] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2992/text#idf2fc1d1c9b9f490bbbeb80d976779fdc
[13] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YqEcAdOOgjVHjRXmASvnqAAAAMU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[14] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2992/text#id42F37A3CCBE34A87B901733C1DB23995
[15] https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/01/amazon_antitrust_bill/
[16] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: While I applaud the Democrats
MrDamage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrWoG8IckyE
Re: While I applaud the Democrats
Mahhn
Reminds me of the Patriot Act, that removed the right to a hearing of any kind if "suspected" of X. Should have been called the vanishing law.
Didn't Pink Floyd say?
chivo243
Tear down the walls? Google is so big, that good or bad, legislation works for the people... Not FSCK%N google...
Bad actors
Warm Braw
Perish the thought that some international megacorporation might find a way to monetise the destruction of your privacy.
So easy to kills laws
Snowy
If it looks like a law you do not want is going to pass just add a rider to for something many would not agree on and the bill will be dead before you can blink.
For example statehood for Washington DC, looked like that was going to pass a few years ago until a rider was added that would have abolished all gun control.
So to kill this just add a rider that would outlaw all private gun ownership in the US and this will be deader than a very dead thing.
Professional Jealousy
Claverhouse
Hansen also said the bill would require Google to open its platforms to bad actors, which "would inevitably be exploited by foreign companies looking to understand US technical infrastructure, and access data from American businesses and citizens."
.
That's our job.
Cry me a river
ecofeco
Tough luck, google.
While I applaud the Democrats
for trying to level the playing field between ginormous companies and the rest of us little people, it would take reading the entire bill to know if it really does that. So many Democrat-written bills do the polar opposite of what they claim the bill will do before the vote.
ACA jumps immediately to mind, which had the effect of ruining medical insurance for those who pay for it in order to provide coverage that requires a poor person to spend their entire takehome before insurance pays a dime to those who didn't have it. A cheaper and better solution would have been to require pre-existing condiions to be covered, then use federal taxpayer dollars to buy coverage for the uninsured. While I wouldn't ike my taxes paying someone else's medical insurance, at least it would have cost me less and not ruined my own medical coverage.
Another poorly thought out bill was California regating power costs to consumers without regulating production costs, which resulted in power companies legally hypergouging power production costs on the spot markets, selling the power to consumers at a loss, and hanging the bill for the difference on the taxpayer who was required by law to pay.