Slashdot Mirror
Sergey Brin Says Facebook, Apple and Gov't Biggest Threats To Internet Freedom
An anonymous reader writes "Google co-founder Sergey Brin has listed three threats to Internet freedom: Facebook, Apple, and governments that censor their citizens. Brin's comments were made to The Guardian: 'The threat to the freedom of the internet comes, he claims, from a combination of governments increasingly trying to control access and communication by their citizens, the entertainment industry's attempts to crack down on piracy, and the rise of "restrictive" walled gardens such as Facebook and Apple, which tightly control what software can be released on their platforms.'"
Those just happen to be his competitors! What a crazy coincidence!
Should be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer.
Apple is worse than Microsoft ever was. And I am no fan of Microsoft.
But it seems to me he wants to freeze natural development of the market into something more friendly to his core business. I don't think doing so is in OUR best interest as WEB consumers.
For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. - Publius
but, well, they could suck at it
Google will probably be fine $25K for interfering with federal investigation on Google's invasion of privacy, even among nonusers of their services.
kettle black, says pot.
Really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black
i would add an additional item, and move it to the top of the list - companies that aim to track everything you do and aggregate that in one place. you could also add the gov't agencies that collude with them to track citizens. This would put FB and Goog tied at the top of the list. Not sure who is first, but they're both trying.
If Sergey Brin is lamenting Apple's restrictive iOS platform as a threat to internet freedom, then why not get to the root cause of that restrictiveness, which is malware? Spam and malware is a huge reason why companies and developers don't adopt an "anything goes" approach.
Also, I find it highly ironic that he would point to other companies facilitating censorship by various governments, but then doesn't mention Microsoft or Google itself, which largely went along with China's censorship in order to gain market share. Furthermore, it's not as if Google makes me feel more free in terms of the information I have access too. If anything, I am constantly worried about what information they have about me, who they might allow to see that information, and whether I'm leaving a data trail on their servers that the FBI can issue a subpoena for without my knowledge. Google's ubiquity and interconnectedness across all of its services poses a risk to internet freedom through its ramifications on user privacy.
So in short, Mr. Brin, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Seriously, how are Facebook and Apple threatening the freedom of the internet? Sure, I'm restricted if I'm using Facebook or Apple technologies, but there are literally thousands of places I can post and do whatever I want. The internet is a very big place.
Also, the other day I tried to sign up for a second Google+ account but it didn't like the names I was choosing because it didn't consider them "real" names. Seems a bit rich to be accusing others of limiting freedom.
I would not hate Apple if they were not the control freaks that they are. If you deal with Apple in anyway, they own you. iTunes is exactly the type of control over the users that China and Iran want over their citizens.
Keeping the Internet open is critical for many reasons. Google has been made better by the competition it has faced relentlessly over the years. Google+ is better than Facebook because they have had to innovate relentlessly. Android is getting better because they have to keep making it better because of the competition that exists.
If Apple and Facebook had their way, there would be no competition. Three cheers for Brin.
Google, Apple, Facebook...but #1 is government ... although you have to qualify that by defining who the US Government is working for that week. Could be anyone, cable interest, wireless, mpaa...the list goes on. There is only one group you can be sure the US Government isn't working for and that is, "we, the people".
With all of his money and the recent changes to campaign finance, he could have bankrolled a pro-internet freedom presidential candidate plus many candidates for lower offices.
Why hasn't he?
The irony: this comes from a company that wants to know everything about you and shifted its entire strategy to compete with Facebook. A company currently facing DOJ and EU antitrust investigations. A company that just got fined $25,000 for obstructing an FCC investigation into Street View cars' Wi-Fi accidentally scraping personal messages and website visits.
Not to mention that Android is officially endorsed by the Chinese government as its mobile platform of choice (customized as Open Mobile System). You know, the government that has political opposition jailed, censors the Internet, and spies on its citizens in a way that makes the NSA look modest.
Look, Sergey, there are advantages to an open platform, but you're as much of a threat as the others.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but a coercive monopoly with guns is far worse than a mere merchant with a huge market share.
Infuriate left and right
This is unexpected. I have to wonder if this is an effort to deflect scrutiny from his own outfit.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
A "threat to freedom" is any policy that presents a continuing obstacle to his company's business plan.
What about Google collecting, archiving, indexing, data mining, and monetizing clickstream/email/transaction/call log/video surveillance data on every single user of the Internet? *That* is no Big Brother in action? No, that's improving people's lives by figuring out which "Ben Smith" your email refers to so his blog and linkedin profile will appear at the top of your search hits. So that's what the Google policy changes were about! Thanks guys.
The summary is a summary of a ZDnet summation of a Guardian article.
If you actually read the Guardian article, the three things Brin lists as threats are:
He gives Apple and Facebook as examples of the third. Which the sensationalist media (including slashdot) twist around to try and incite a frenzy of condemnation.
The threat to the freedom of the internet comes, he claims, from a combination of governments increasingly trying to control access and communication by their citizens, the entertainment industry's attempts to crack down on piracy, and the rise of "restrictive" walled gardens such as Facebook and Apple, which tightly control what software can be released on their platforms.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
What does Apple's restrictions on their app store have to do with internet freedom?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, folks, truth really IS stranger than fiction.
Now if you will excuse me I have a conference call I have to take, ...
with Ken Lay and Steve Fossett
Top 3:
- Facebook
- Apple
- Government
Top 4:
- Facebook
- Apple
- Government
- Google
"The threat to the freedom of the internet comes, he claims, from a combination of (1) governments increasingly trying to control access and communication by their citizens, (2) the entertainment industry's attempts to crack down on piracy, and the rise of "restrictive" walled gardens such as (3) Facebook and (4) Apple, which tightly control what software can be released on their platforms". link
AccountKiller
The race for control of the seven kingdoms begins!
As long as there are people who can and will create a way to work round these threats, everything will be just fine.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
For what we consider 'the internet', a 'gateway' to unfettered free communication. It will be converted into a heavily restricted, monitored, and regulated, commercial content distribution system at some point. Just a matter of time.
"marketing" has destroyed most everything that they have touched: TV, radio, magazines, even simply driving down the road. There is no reason to think they wont destroy this too. And then you have the government that is scared to death.
There will be some hard core holdouts for freedom, but for the masses, its slipping away.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
"Avoiding the Privacy Apocalypse" .coms could do with every word submitted - ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSYXw87BWXo
Learn how Clinton era laws opened world wide telco interception as US firms wanted a level export price with the EU equipment makers.
Why should one side have to add expensive backdoors and deal with all the short term upgrade costs?
Learn how individual French school children where to be tracked and profiled by the state and what the UK wanted to do with every IM, email in real time.
The govs saw what keyword ad tracking by privacy loving US
they expected the same access.
The video is just a talk, no Q and A at the end
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Sergey Brin has listed three threats to Internet freedom: Facebook, Apple,
...and no mention made at all of Facebook's recent scary support of the SOPA-heir: CISPA? Why wouldn't google want to tar Facebook with that one? ...might it be that google likes CISPA?
Why do you still have yours?
I also don't own any Apple products, and have no plans to buy any in the future, either; I don't recommend anyone buy those, either.
I'd like to remind everyone that you don't need any of these things in your life in order to have a happy, productive life, and in my opinion you're more likely to have a happy, productive life if you don't have them. While you're at it, stop wasting money on cable and satellite TV, and smartphones and the overpriced data plans that they come with, too. Read more books, interact with more people in person, and go outside more often and move your bodies around. I can almost guarantee that these things will make your healthier and happier than what they're replacing.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Link
Link
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Google is more evil than Microsoft ever was.
Aside from throwing mud at Google's competitors, he is deliberately mistaking Web for Web Search. A library is the books in it, not the book index, and some of the books are in the "restricted" area. So what?
You will be absorbed. Your individuality will merge into the unity of good!
Palm trees and 8
the monopoly is accountable to you through your vote. it is an extension of your will, not an imposition of an alien will on you
in fact, if you were to remove the monopoly, there would be no absence of monopoly, the merchant would merely fill the power vacuum, and he isn't accountable to you. he's accountable to the quest for more profits, at any cost, including the raping of your freedom. then he buys the guns and points them at you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_Government_Services,_Inc.
for the modern parable, see blackwater. what would blackwater become with no government already in place? the police, accountable to the corporation, not to you, which your real police department is
so your opinions and your views are illogical and historically wrong. they speak of a propagandized individual (corporate funded propaganda like fox news, the real threat to your freedom, not your government, which you VOTE for)
of course, where your government doesn't represent your will, it is because it is bought out by... corporate financial interests
heal YOUR government by removing the corporate infection, and understand the real threat to your freedom: the merchant you allude to
but make YOUR government your enemy, and see the corporate financial interests as harmless, and you are basically giving away your own hard won freedoms won by your forefathers (see pinkerton's above) to forces which have no interest in your freedoms at all, especially when your freedoms represent a threat to bottom line. then hiring goon sqwuads, with no government around to stop them, makes perfect capitalistic sense
there is your daily dose of anti-propaganda, i hope you aren't kneejerking too much right now
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Microsoft is the only company I can think of that actually tried to monopolize the internet.
Only?
Uh, excuse me? Haven't you seen how Google has been pushing into just about every other business the internet? Mostly failing, but they're trying.
Or let's look at Apple, shall we? Their plan, viewed from afar, looks to me like they want to cut the internet out. Meaning, if you have Apple products, you'll be stuck in Apple land if they have their way.
And Facebook. The damage that I'm seeing being done on our society, its norms about privacy and worst of all, norms about government and employer spying on people chills me.
Microsoft during its peak never had that kind of power. Sorry, having their software products being shipped on 90% of computers is nothing compared to the damage on our society that Apple, Facebook, Google and governments will every do.
I'm beginning to think that "Freedom" in open source is going to have many more meanings in the future and don't be surprised if F/OSS starts becoming illegal.
Walled Gardens or "channels" each with specific content heavily protected and of course crack down on the discussions going on over the net blogs and forums.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Funny. How I see it, Google is one of the worlds biggest threats.
With it's incomprehensible collection of data on the behaviors of people, from it's search, ad, and payments networks...
A company that brags that they've never deleted a single search query...
Who needs JE Hoover and his files on politicians and celebrities? Google has information on virtually anyone who's even remotely anyone.
As a matter of fact, Apple is a much smaller danger to Internet freedom than Google. :) )
A person can easily avoid using Apple products or systems (and save a ton of money while doing so). They are popular, but surely not mandatory. It is trivial to buy hardware and software that is not made by Apple (and most of the world still does
At the same time, it's very hard to escape Google tentacles. Large percentage of web sites (perhaps majority) use Google-provided webmaster tools to track visitors and send information back to Google. So, unless user employs fairly sophisticated tools and does so very consistently - the only way to avoid Google grasp is to use virtually no Internet at all (certainly not for web browsing of any kind). That's a pretty big threat if you ask me.
But hey, what's obvious facts vs. Sergey bashing some of his biggest competitors :)
The internet is dead. Love live the inter-nets.
Taco lickers.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
If Google is the Disneyland of the whole internet why the f*ck I cannot access google/groups without a google account?
...because if they did, they might remember a little incident of assisting the chinese government with its great firewall. And those pesky others? Coincidentally competitors. For a company with such deep search capabilities, they are amazingly blind sighted when it concerns themselves.
The FBI can never go bankrupt
Not technically true, for details see "Greece".
... is it control for control's sake? It seems that it is easiest means to their vision - an outstanding customer experience.
Google on the other hand is selling *you*.
Freedom, Privacy, Internet
Pick
2 out of 3
Get it wrong you == LOSE
Greece can go bankrupt because it is in the Eurozone and not in direct control of its own money supply. The U.S. can avoid bankruptcy by simply printing more dollars. That has ill effects, but it is not going bankrupt.
California could go bankrupt, but the FBI never will.
I am here just to say, sadly, sorry - The World we know is about to collapse. What's about to come is unknown. Scary. ( Islam ? China ? Which one ? ) But they are arriving. - Slowly was it in the past but now it is faster and faster every year.
China controls about 95% of raw metal productions - Here in Quebec we're about to loose our own legitime iron/raw metal reserve to China - thanks to our dear traitor Prime Minister Charest ( La charrogne ) who is selling/destroying our identity in the name of Free World Trade Act. ( Right now he is in Brezil to gather Brezilian students to replace the ones here in Quebec who will be unable to pay the new augmented costs to study)! Not talking about Islam psychopaths taking place in Canada. They are about to completely swallow our culture and food is already controled by them as Halal food - financing their mosqués and their terrorsits partners ( New 'passive' Jihad strategies ... )
I am telling you, The world as we know is about to end. Not for better!!!
So Sergei, when exactly will I be able to look at all the information Google has on me and share it with other search engines if I so choose? Oh...I can't huh, wow, your garden is so very, very open I cannot believe it.
Monstar L
I'd argue that any organization, whether it be a Government or an business having control over the internet is a direct threat to it. Including Google. I think the one thing that the internet has taught us is just how shackled we were before it came along. The guards are quickly trying to put the chains back in place, and in fact, replacing the older ones with new and improved ones. We must all hope, that we'll eventually find a way to communicate that can not be controlled, monitored, manipulated... Technology is both freedom and a prison.
Pot, kettle, black, you know the drill.
That's the best you can come up with?
A clip is not a user-serviceable part.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Whether they are corporatists or socialists, what they have in common is not just a distrust of people thinking for themselves, but a fear of it. They are paternalistic as hell, thinking only they know what is good for everybody. Big business and big government just recycle executives. They squabble about the details, but the essence is the same: Big Brother, victimless morality laws, and endless wars.
The solution is individual power. Of course, statists will say that is laissez-faire to the max, but they are wrong; the so-called laissez-faire which is reputed to have existed is nothing more than big business and big government helping each other maintain the status quo.
Instead of the government controlling every step of the justice system, let victims prosecute, of course with penalties for bogus prosecutions, but in particular, let them prosecute companies for sloppy, inconsistent, or arbitrarily enforced policies, and eliminate all victimless crimes which let busybody Little Brothers ape Big Brother. That will keep monopolies in check, and keep the government from choosing what crimes to investigate and what criminals (both people and companies) to prosecute.
Anything of that sort scares the statists half to death. Only they have the wisdom and experience and farsightedness to guide the masses. That is why they prosecute morality, especially victimless crimes, and why they start wars and build empires -- it provides a distracting excuse for their heavy hand. The last thing they want is a society of free people.
Infuriate left and right
Libertarians are not the enemy of anyone except Big Brother. Their whole mantra is to leave people to their own devices.
You seem to think Big Business and Big Government are enemies of each other. Nothing could be farther from the truth. They are the same, differing only in tiny squabbles which distract voters. The last thing either wants is for people to actually run their own lives and take the corporations to task.
If you actually think the coercive monopoly is going to use their guns to help people battle merchants, you are living in some weird alternate dream world. The only merchants who get in trouble are the few who don't go along with the other merchants and their government buddies.
That's the weirdest thing about Occupy Wall Street. They identify half the problem, corporations out of control, but then they refuse to see the other half, which is Big Brother actively assisting them. They are one and the same, and the government will never do anything to the 1% just because a few 99% rabble camp out in parks and shout for the government to come rescue them. Only individuals taking charge and upsetting BOTH Big Government and Big Business will solve anything.
Infuriate left and right
Google. (I see them as the biggest threat of all, google-analytics anyone?)
...even two very well fiscally endowed dot coms. I guess I don't undestand Brin's criticism of Apple and Facebook. On the open market, don't they have a right to control their respective platforms? Facebook, with their web service platform, and Apple with their mobile, desktop, and server platforms? These aren't community-owend coops - I fail to see the principles of the concern.
Started using it months ago...
Though not the worst offender, Google's ability to mislead, sell data, etc puts it up there, between Apple and Farcebook.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
I agree with Sergey. Facebook and other such sites represent the opposite of what the Internet was meant to be. Instead of creating an open facebook or twitter protocol for anyone to implement, they've closed it off and put a wall around their own little internet. Imagine the same was done in the early days; instead of SMTP we'd just have Hotmail. Instead of HTTP we'd have AOL. Eeeewww
That is strange because last I remember you can run any a dmg installer on any mac OS and install things without apples permission. what is the walled garden you speak of?
Last I checked the copyright laws in the US were enforced by the FBI. Rather than being a simple dispute that could be settled in civil court.
Is there really a difference when a big company can make a few phone calls to have you raided at gun point?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
A lot of people seem to assume that Sergey Brin is wrong simply because he commits hypocrisy due to his background, which is a fallacious way to reason.
It IS a problem, no matter who points it out.
It's true that all the information Google collects enables huge privacy infringement in scale that only Facebook can match, barely. I don't think for a second that Google as company is in any significant way better that others, but you must give it to Google that they at least initially tried. Some of that naivety is still there.
Dyslexics have more fnu.
Says the pot calling the kettle black!
Ex-Google CEO, Eric Schmidt, gave some contrasting statements in the past. See: Privacy Worries Are For Wrongdoers.
On related subject Facebook is one supporter of controversial CISPA law project.
Google is by now means perfect, by I still trust then more than the alternatives.
MOD THE CHILD UP!
I believe Google, Facebook, Apple, and Microsoft should be in the list.
I renamed my Facebook account, deleted all my posts, deleted all my friends and photos. I urge you all to do the same. Before it's too late.
It's not just Government gleening, it's also employers, coworkers, friends, wives, family members, etc. I prefer my privacy. I don't want to know
that my sons girlfriend is thinking about getting a tattoo on her him, or that my son got on a remote road to see how fast his car can go at full throttle.
I don't want to know that my other son broke up a fight at a bar. I don't want my employer snoopping on me. I don't want girls I used to data when I was a teenager trying to friend me and my wife asking who is this ? I don't want old friends from 25 years ago tracking me down. If we didn't remain close along life's journey there's a reason for it.
I home facebook is just a fad. Many younger adults think it's social. I don't think so. I think it promotes bad addictive behavior.
Accessing their FB while driving ? DAMN keep you eyes on the road! Accessing while in the bathroom ? DAMN you phone is nasty!
Accessing while out on a date , damn live for the physical here and now, forget about the virtual. Leave it for later when you call or see the person.
You will have something to talk about.
I don't know why many people are now social exhibitionist I prefer to have some mystery to my life, keep em guessing.
They don't like the government they have, therefore this must be because votes are being manipulated. Or the wrong people are voting.
Whreas, since corporations don't have elections, and only the richest people (i.e. the right people) are listened to on AGMs, there is no problem with the wrong people voting. Even if it's because there is no voting.
How is that contrasting? Brin never mentioned privacy as one of his concerns. Also, it was by an entirely different person, who's now an ex-employee of the company.
I also never liked Schmidt. He seemed to much the manager, forced on to the actual productive people by the venture capitalist. He sounds like a bit of a sleaze, both personally and professionally.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
They can't even break the top 3!
Like anyone can even know that
Mostly agree. Only 1 correction. Eric Schmidt is still a Google "empoyee" (if you can call it that way). He is executive chairman.
MOD THE CHILD UP!
A company so desperate to take over everything, that they back up Verizon on destroying wireless net neutrality.
The biggest enemies of open web are the wireless carriers, but Google is too afraid of them to say anything about THOSE, instead it just joins the club and helps them further to achieve their controlled-web interests.
App Store iGun
Now you've joined the assholes club together with Vic Gundotra, Andy Rubin, Eric Schmidt and David Drummond. I hope Larry does not become an idiot like you've done.
--
Disclaimer: I work for TAGA (The Arrogant Google Assholes)
The fact that Facebook and Apple are Google's competitors in certain markets -- namely advertising and mobile eco-system -- doesn't diminish his point that a walled-garden, unsearchable web (Facebook) is a poor substitute for what we had 10 years ago, and that a walled-garden mobile eco-system that ties you to a single hardware vendor (Apple) is similarly no good. Google+ posts are searchable on Bing or any other search engine and if you don't link your Samsung Galaxy SII, you can replace it with an HTC Rezound or a Motorola Razr Maxx without losing your apps or data.
You haven't addressed the points he makes about Facebook and Apple, nor his concern about governments imposing restrictions on use of the internet and surveillance legislation that affects internet users' privacy. Stating that Facebook and Apple are competitors isn't insightful - it's obvious, and it doesn't invalidate his argument.
Web freedom faces greatest threat ever from Google.
http://donttrack.us/
Casteism
Facebook? Ahhahhhhahhaaaaaahhh. The king is fallen. Someone sounds scared. I can see the other two, as they control quite a bit, and people almost MUST go through them (more specifically in the case of government, but certainly apple if you're in the song-purchasing crowd), but if facebook EVER threatens freedoms to people, it will simply be dropped for another social network that doesn't have the same negative effect. YEah yeah yeah, people are lazy and won't change, blah blah blah, this argument only lasts so long. There's a breaking point. There always is. ;p
This is getting old and tired. Not everyone finds "walled gardens" to be a problem. If you do, you're free to use something else.
This from the guy who founded a company that just started a social network which has no API and forces you to join whenever you want to sign up for an account for any of their services?
I'm choking on all the irony.
Blackwater, AKA Blackwater USA, AKA Blackwater Worldwide, AKA Xe Services, AKA Academi.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/15/web-freedom-threat-google-brin
Note that he was talking less about "government" in general than about those of China, Iran, and Saudia Arabia.
I didn't think board members were employees. But maybe that's just me being wrong - not familiar with operations at those levels :P
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
but the common response to this state of affairs is:
1. don't vote. as if not voting means you aren't subject to the will of the government. it's worse than voting randomly
2. "revolution!" cries the anarchist fanboys. that bloody mess is 10,000x worse than the plutocracy we both hate. and nobody controls what kind of government comes out on the other end
the right response?
3. heal your government. vote. get involved
to the problem of the apathetic angry bird player above, i add the problem of the spastic twit who sees corporations trying to influence their government, throw a fit, and completely gives up and cede the entirety of their government to corporate control. wtf?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I am very glad to find your post. Thanks for sharing.
http://www.testkiller.me/
http://www.testpapers.me/
http://www.certkiller.me/
http://www.examquestions.biz/
http://www.examsdumps.com/
Has either copied or inspired brin
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/17/tim-berners-lee-monitoring-internet
they are profit-oriented, but Facebook is worse. They are tracking their user's surf-behaviour with the 'Like!'-buttons practically everywhere. It is sufficient if users log in to their account once per day, so their IP address can be associated to all the 'Like!'-button-infected pages, they visited recently.
Once people are aware of that fact, they probably don't want to continue being members of that service, or alternatively begin using other frontends to communicate with their favorite contacts, thus giving less data to Facebook.
Both companies act in centralistic and intransparent ways and actually when Facabook managed to supersede Google in leading the page-hits statistics in the USA, this was mostly due to their 'Like!'-user-tracking.
It is recommended to use a properly configurable web-browser, to turn off accepting third party cookies and to delete any cookies at the end of each browser-session by default. It is really the most expensive service around in terms of privacy. It is in fact very much like smoking cigarettes in my opinion: Too expensive and with really no positive effects at all.
Everybody who maintains a FB fanpage should be aware of the fact that he or she not only get lots of user data, but also produces valuable user data. It works two ways and it seems reasonable that data from people or organizations who have a certain mass-impact are weighed differently than those from average users.