EU Forces Google To Share Search Data, Open Android To Rivals 51
The EU is imposing new rules requiring Google to share anonymized search data and open up Android to rival AI companies. "Thanks to these measures, we hope to see emerging alternatives to Google Search and Google's AI services, such as Gemini, and that users in the EU can enjoy greater choice of services," Henna Virkkunen, an executive vice president at the European Commission overseeing tech, said. The Associated Press reports: In issuing the two new rules, the commission said it found that AI agents not made by Google were unable to function on Android phones at the same level as Google's Gemini. Google must now allow voice-activation of these alternative AI agents and enable them to run background tasks like booking restaurants via third-party apps. By January 2027, Google must also begin sharing anonymized search data with some rivals. The commission said the move is meant to level the playing field since Google controls a vast trove of user data that no competitor can match. Google argues the measures could weaken privacy and security by exposing user searches and reducing safeguards around third-party AI assistants. "Europeans' private searches would be exposed to unfamiliar companies, without adequate anonymization of the data and without user knowledge or consent," said Kent Walker, president of global affairs for Google and Alphabet. "This would weaken citizens' privacy, risk business trade secrets, and endanger national security."
Anonimisation (Score:3)
Google: "Europeans' private searches would be exposed to unfamiliar companies, without adequate anonymization of the data"
Em.... Google, the data is supposed to adequately anonymised! Sheesh.
Re:Anonimisation (Score:5, Insightful)
Attempts to anonymize data in the past have ended badly. I don't think this is as practical as the EU thinks.
Also, frankly, I don't want Google providing data to third parties. Period. And I don't think we need competition in the AI space, we need the space either shut down completely or regulated. This isn't the EU protecting citizens, it's it applying its boilerplate "Competition is always good" policies to a technology it doesn't understand is actively harmful.
Regulate it to a point it's either a net good with virtually no downsides - the Sloptavists about to reply to this will claim this is somehow possible, so they'll surely (sarcasm) support this kind of regulation - and deal with Google's monopoly position in general by reducing their power, maybe through regulation, maybe by making them sell off their email, Android and AI assets to separate independent companies.
But this? I've never seen such a fucking stupid set of policies in my life. This is the same crap that happened to Bernie, who also became enamoured by the hype. They need to be taking this in a completely different direction.
I've said it before but if the EU had to deal with Mafia protection rackets, instead of shutting down the protection rackets, they'd demand the Mafia split into rival protection rackets to protect competition. This is so ridiculous.
Re: Anonimisation (Score:2)
Maybe don't collect data on a billion people of it cannot be done without violating people's privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be true for a totalitarian government, where if you give up your rights it belongs to the government, and citizens are little more than government property.
A democratically elected government that is answerable to its people on the other hand. You don't give it rights, you give it permission, because such a government needs the consent of the people in order to function or even exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Attempts to anonymize data in the past have ended badly.
You are wrong. While many incompetents have tried and failed to anonymize data in the past, it is well known how to do it competently. Your mistake is thinking you can do this without an actual expert designing things.
Here is a starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Anonimisation (Score:4, Interesting)
It's almost impossible to anonymize search data. Google can do it internally and simply avoid processing it in a way that could reveal identities, to comply with GDPR, but other companies will not be so limited. In theory GDPR applies to them too, but the danger is that we end up in a Facebook like situation with shadow profiles on people who have never used their services.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. Search data can clearly be anonymized competently. Also, if anybody else deanonymizes people in there, then under the GDPR, they have 30 days (!) time to inform everybody they identified and to get informed consent. Any use of that data before they have gotten that consent is illegal. Failure to inform people within 30 days is illegal. Holding the data for longer without having gotten that informed consent (experts think 3 months is about the maximum) is illegal.
Hence nobody sane will try to ide
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about you idiot find out what anti-trust means?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All you are proving here is that you have absolutely no clue how things actually work.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. They should immediately jump on Google: "What do you mean, you do not know how to adequately anonymize search data?"
Have To Agree With Google, In Part (Score:5, Insightful)
On one hand, I agree with the EU that Google should allow alternative AI assistants to operate on Android as the primary, voice activated assistant. Hopefully these new rules aren't ONLY targeting Android, since Apple iOS should have the same requirement.
On the other hand, I don't think Google should be required to provide anonymized search data to rivals. Firstly, that's effectively their intellectual property. We (the users) have an implicit agreement with Google to use their search index in exchange for collecting information about our search habits. But there's also an implied contract toward privacy. This seems like a slippery slope toward invasion of that implied privacy, even if the data is anonymized. And what is a "rival"? Does this open the way for governments to receive search data without a legally obtained warrant because they're a "rival"?
Re: Have To Agree With Google, In Part (Score:2)
we have an explicit contract with alphabet for then to do whatever they want with our data. Turns out those terms and conditions, despite being a contract of adhesion by any reasonable analysis, are in fact binding.
Re: (Score:3)
Hopefully these new rules aren't ONLY targeting Android, since Apple iOS should have the same requirement.
EU regulations are enforced on a retrospective market. They are not applying the rules to iOS because as of right now Apple do not have a fully functioning AI assistant on iOS (Siri AI was announced less than a month ago), much less is there any indication that iOS has a discrepancy in functionality between assistants.
It will come, but first Apple need to actually deliver something before the EU would complain about it stifling competition.
We (the users) have an implicit agreement with Google to use their search index in exchange for collecting information about our search habits.
You need to re-read your agreement. You don't have an implicit agree
Re:Have To Agree With Google, In Part (Score:5, Informative)
You need to re-read your agreement. You don't have an implicit agreement that Google will hold your data. Quite the opposite. You have an *explicit* agreement that Google is allowed to share your data anonymised as it sees fit. Anonymised data has been sold by Google since it first realised data was worth something. Your privacy isn't impacted here by this requirement, only Google's wallet is.
Google states explicitly that they do not sell your data. What they sell is targeting. The advertiser specifies what they are looking for, and Google directs the advertising to those who match the profile selected.
"Google will never sell any personal information to third parties; and you get to decide how your information is used." - Sundar Pichai
The EFF has an article about it [eff.org] (from 2020) that goes into some details. Or you can read it straight from Google [about.google].
Re: (Score:2)
Personal information and anonymised data are not the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all. Google's core property is your targeted data. Anonymised data is no where near as valuable and they have provided anonymised data in the past to various groups.
Re: (Score:2)
intellectual property (Score:3)
Oh, I wouldn't worry about that. I'm sure the others will do something transformative with the data.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, I don't think Google should be required to provide anonymized search data to rivals.
They could instead be prohibited from operating in markets where that data would give them an unfair advantage.
Firstly, that's effectively their intellectual property.
Both corporations and intellectual property are legal fictions, they are not real property. They are supposed to exist only for the benefit of The People. Work it out.
Lawmakers' Ignorance (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:1)
reason to pull out of doing business in the EU entirely.
Such idiotic policy sounds to me like a reason for shareholders and the board to remove you from any decision making position in a company.
Like seriously what moron would give up $100 BILLION in revenue because they have to comply with a regulation?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably cheaper than having someone like you not understand the regulation. Precisely no IP or trade secrets were requested. Anonymised data is not the same as what is used for targeted advertising.
Maybe understand what is being asked before jumping to conclusions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
However, why couldn't Google just yank their servers out of the EU..and station them all around the EU. Sure, there might be a little performance hit, but at least they'd not be compelled to follow the EU rules, and I doubt the EU will firewall all things google, you know?
Re: (Score:2)
I agree they can't toss the EU completely away...
However, why couldn't Google just yank their servers out of the EU..
Google's business model does not work in this case. 1) If Google stops having a business representation in the EU, then mobile phones will have to come pre-loaded with competitor OSes; 2) If Google isn't GDPR compliant, then companies doing business in the EU cannot in principle purchase services from them.
Re: (Score:2)
but at least they'd not be compelled to follow the EU rules
Google is an established European corporation in 15 EU countries. Moving servers does not allow you to not follow rules, all that would do would be put them in breach of data sovereignty rules and force them to give up all government contracts while still having to obey all other rules.
What you actually want is for Google as a multinational to de-register in 15 countries making up the largest market share of wealthy westerners in the world, subjecting them to external barriers to sale.
That would give up a s
Re: (Score:1)
Such idiotic policies would sound to me like reason to pull out of doing business in the EU entirely.
Who are you? Nobody? Oh, OK. Feel free.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Even Microsoft and YouTube react very fast when they get a GDPR request. Nobody sane wants to lose the EU.
Re: (Score:2)
And why, oh so wise one, have they not done that blatantly obvious and cheap thing?
Re: (Score:2)
If you think anti-trust law that gets actually enforced is "idiotic", you are welcome to stay in your oligarcist hell-hole.
Would settle for basic voice commands (Score:3)
One thing I miss is the ability to talk to my phone via BT HFP to do basic tasks like make calls or send texts. Used to be able to do much of it decades ago on my blackberry yet with Android it was always Google malware or nothing. There are now amazing local full text STT IMEs and TTS... yet there does not seem to be anything anywhere that glues it all together.
The closest I know of is Dicio yet it blows up and doesn't work at all when the screen is off rendering it useless. Something that you can enter a URL to talk to an LLM of your choice would be nice too yet I would settle for just having the basics. This has always been baked into the profile and I never understood why it seems to be abandoned or there is very little interest. I've looked for years and it is always crickets.
Kent Walker (Score:1)
Kent Walker does not appear to know how to speak to European Commission authorities. This is so rude and disrespectful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Kinda sounds like China's business model, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just that it is neither IP not trade secrets this is about. Try to keep up, you sound very stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is something you just made up. In fact you can only have an antitrust ruling based on law and the current news is that the European Court of Justice dismissed a legal complaint from Alphabet against a prior ruling. So we are not anymore on a level where one could make a political argument. The disrespectful remarks of Mr. Walker are unprecedented. You don't attack courts.
Re: (Score:2)
Just Google ??!!?? (Score:1)
Cue the no-clue Americans .. (Score:2)
This is about keeping the market _diverse_. It is anti-trust measures that keep capitalism from devolving into monopolies. It is good for consumers and keeps vendors on their toes. It keeps innovation going. But lots of clueless Americans apparently want to be abused by big-tech.