[bestbits] Re: [governance] need for regulation ....

[Lee W McKnight]

I agree with Adam and Carlos there is a confounding of the issue in terms of Guru asking for the proprietary algorithm to be public. Google tweaks that almost daily it is my understanding, so even if yesterday's agorithm was public, it wouldn't do much good - today. It would make it much harder for Google to do business, and would lead to the algorithm-gaming behavior of other firms that Adam predicts.

On the other hand, regulatory review of possible bias/self-dealing in search results and their impact on competition in a market is fair game, even if the US FTC said 'play on' in its own review.

In that sense, the India competition policy review of Google is a relatively routine analysis of a firm in dominant positions in multiple markets.

For example, re the ongoing EU inquiries on Google's practices, and possible remedies, see:
http://www.euractiv.com/innovation-enterprise/google-remains-eu-scrutiny-news-533755 

Lee
________________________________________
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net <bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> on behalf of Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 11:49 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Guru गुरु
Cc: Best Bits
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] need for regulation ....

Hi Guru,

On Mar 10, 2014, at 7:26 PM, Guru गुरु wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Not clear, how in Multistakeholderism, where the private sector has an equal footing in public policy making, we will get Google to agree that its search algorithm, as the key factor organising the worlds information/knowledge for all of us, needs to be public knowledge, not a commercial secret.


Are you sure about this?  If the algorithm's public then it will be gamed.  Logical extension of this is searches will no return accurate results, no longer be trusted, and a very useful resource will be pretty much be made useless.  Is this your intention?

Best,

Adam


> The need for it to be public knowledge stems from privacy/surveillance concerns, because such fundamental knowledge ought to be available as 'cultural commons' that others can take/re-use/revise, fostering competition etc.
>
> regards,
> Guru
>
> Google faces Rs 30,500-cr fine in India
> New Delhi, PTI: March 9, 2014
>
>  Google can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion if it is found to have violated competition norms of the country.  Google, which is facing anti-trust investigation in India by fair trade watchdog Competition Commission of India (CCI), can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion (Rs 30,500 crore) if it is found to have violated competition norms of the country.
>
> Google said it is “extending full cooperation” to the CCI in its investigation. The conclusion of a two-year review by the US antitrust watchdog has concluded that the company's services were good for competition, it added. The case has been before the CCI for over two years now, and it relates to allegations that Google is abusing its dominant position. Under competition regulations, an entity found violating the norms could be slapped with penalty of up to 10 per cent of its three-year annual average turnover. In the case of Google, its annual revenues in the last three years amounts to a staggering $49.3 billion (Rs 3.01 lakh crore), and the maximum penalty can be up to nearly $5 billion.
>
> When asked about the ongoing probe and the potential penalty, a Google spokesperson said: “We are extending full co-operation to the Competition Commission of India in their investigation.”  The emailed statement added: “We're pleased that the conclusion of the Federal Trade Commission's two-year review was that Google's services are good for users and good for competition.”
>
> A complaint filed with the CCI cannot be withdrawn. The complaint against Google, also one of the world's most valued company, was first filed by advocacy group CUTS International way back in late 2011. Later. Matrimonial website matrimony.com Private Ltd also filed a complaint. Last year, CCI chairman Ashok Chawla had said the complaint was that the Google search engine favours platforms it wants to support.
>
> “That is, when you click on Google under a certain category, you will get the platforms where there is a tendency to put them in a certain order which may not be the fair and non-discriminatory. So, what is the software and what is the algorithmic search, (that is) what the investigation team is looking at,” Chawla had said.
>
> source - http://www.deccanherald.com/content/390977/google-faces-rs-30500-cr.html
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t