Google Ideas - Who watches the Watchmen?
Recently, Google’s ‘Google Ideas’ - a division that is ostentatiously, their 'think/do-tank’ unveiled three products in a summit they hosted in New York. The summit is called ‘Conflict in a Connected World’. Of these three projects, two make the mind quite uncomfortable.
The first project that they unveiled is called Project Shield. In short, Project Shield is Google using its mammoth technology to create mitigation methods for DDoS (distributed denial of service) attacks. I understand that DDoS attacks are aggressive and, in a manner of speaking, unchecked. However, one could argue that until now, DDoS attacks themselves were, ironically, the best form of free expression that people not governed by any corporate or a government had. For example, when Wikileaks was running out of money, the political aisle had seen a chance to get their claws into Assange. Eventually, Visa, Mastercard and Paypal denied their services to people who wanted to donate to Wikileaks. When this happened, Anonymous launched DDoS attacks against all 3 services and shut them down. It might be open to debate as to whether or not this was the right thing to do. It is, however, important to note that this act of aggression was a way for people to express their rebellion against this act. It was a voice of protest. It is not without reason then, that DDoS attacks are called 'online riots’ by the media. With Project Shield, effectively, Google has devised a sophisticated product to deny people from holding mass, non-violent, protests.
Of course, one can debate whether or not the web is a democracy to warrant the right to protest in the first place, but let’s face it - the internet actually is the purest form of, and the best representation for democracy anyone could expect in technology. Everything about the web is distributed, and is dependent on numbers and widespread acceptance (read: votes, for continuing the analogy of democracy). Project Shield claims it will help non-profits and media organisations to remain DDoS free and retain their power of “free expression”. What about the power of “free expression” that is due to anyone who is not from the media, a non-profit or some other arbitrary institution that Google deems needs protection?
The second project is uProxy. If the fact that ‘proxy’ figures into the name of a product being rolled out by a company the size of Google doesn’t cause concern, perhaps its function might set some bells off. It is, for all practical purposes, a Google-approved and manufactured proxy server that can be installed as an extension to Chrome or Firefox. In countries like China, this extension will allow the users to create a VPN that will bypass the Great Firewall of China and let them access services like Blogger, YouTube and Facebook. In effect, it looks like this is Google taking a policy level decision for China - a country that isn’t the one that Google belongs to, isn’t even any over-dependent, developing neighbour that the US has, but actually is one of the most rapidly progressing countries on the other side of the Earth from the US that dares to have a different philosophy. Yes, Google can argue that if it is providing a service to people willing to use it, it should be allowed to devise means to get the service to them. It’s business right? Well - so is dealing drugs. Drugs are illegal but they sure as hell have buyers and sellers both bent upon doing business. When they devise means around the country’s law, they become outlaws. When Google does that, it is lauded as a visionary. In the very least, we can construe that Google is doing this for what it thinks is the betterment of the Chinese people.
Indeed, Google’s blog post makes all these three services sound quite benevolent and conforming to Google’s famous ‘don’t be evil’ motto - a proactive step towards protecting the world’s fragile freedom. They might even be right in their own viewpoint - Google might have the best intent at its heart. The important question then, is this: If it is Google holding the reins for all of this, and if the line between the US government and Google is blurring rapidly everyday, then, well, who watches the Watchmen?
Just take a look at the person heading Google Ideas: Jared Cohen. With a lifetime spent in the service of the US government at positions that weren’t trivial to say the least, surely, he wasn’t hired because of his stellar Javascript skills.
Are these ‘services’ to be one of the first steps Google is taking publicly towards becoming an internet bully? There have been instances of Google baring its claws in the FRAND lawsuits. Here’s a scary example. That, however, was a business decision that Google took and although they claim that their motto is to not do any evil, there isn’t any mandate as such for them to keep from being selfish. However, with these Google Ideas projects which span beyond the boundaries of business, Google evidently thinks that the definition of ‘right’ is ‘whatever the hell we tell you’. For a while, Google did have us convinced that it could do no evil - and even today, it hasn’t done anything that can be deemed decidedly evil. These doubts are, probably, mere musings now but as it gathers more and more command over our lives, how inclined should we be to take Google at its word?