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

[Adam Peake]

On Mar 17, 2014, at 11:05 PM, Guru गुरु wrote:

> David,
> 
> On 03/17/2014 11:16 AM, David Cake wrote:
>> 
>> On 10 Mar 2014, at 6:26 pm, Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net> 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. 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.
>> 
>>  Indeed. It is particularly unclear because many in civil society, or government for that matter, might oppose it becoming public knowledge. Such a course of action would almost certainly lead to many Google searches returning results ranked according to the most industrious search engine optimisation service customers, rather than having at least a reasonable chance of being ranked in a useful way. 
> 
> Adam also mentioned the issue of searches being gamed and I did give a response ...


Hi Guru,

Apologies, I took your reply as agreeing with the points I made, so I didn't bother to reply further.  You agreed to a high probability of gaming occurring... and suggested research.  I took this as you agreeing that you had been too enthusiastic when stating that Google's search algorithm needs to be public knowledge. 

Best,

Adam




> the issue of technical challenges needs to be considered, but anyone familiar with public policy making knows that policy making is a very complex activity with many possibilities, probabilities, difficulties, technicalities etc... the first sign of technical difficulties is no reason to abandon a public policy measure. The world of IT is supposed to be the world of great innovation, here innovation can serve public interest purpose (by identifying methods by which gaming can be reduced if not eliminated), rather than private profit.
> 
>>  Google have revealed quite a few aspects of how they store search information, and how they use it
> 
> Who have they revealed it to?
> How do we ensure that what they are saying reflects reality/truth?
> 
> In the spirit of public policy making (which normally involves considerable cross understanding, give and take), I am willing to consider possibilities that google does not make its search algorithm open to all, but shares it with a group/body of identified public interest actors, who can in confidence, scrutinise it to ensure that the search engine is not violating our rights for its commercial purposes (and for the political interests of its masters). Would you support this idea? This is one possibility, we may need to figure out many other possibilities, exceptions etc
> 
>> , and what they have revealed is of significant value in assessing the privacy implications (and FWIW, they de-identify most search data after 6 months, or at least that was the case when I was last given a detailed briefing in 2012).
>>  But they have good reasons for keeping the details of their search algorithms secret that go beyond simple desire to keep the details of their business secret - an algorithm that is public is one that will be gamed by search engine optimization         services, thus rendering the service significantly less useful. I don't see rendering googles searches vulnerable to SEO to be a useful public policy goal. I appreciate the idea of their basic algorithms being part of the cultural commons,
> 
> Much thanks for appreciating that search for information in the "information society" is indeed part of cultural commons, it ought to work for the public interest and not be coloured by private interest. This I think is a basic principle. Today we really have no idea what malignant pieces of code are hidden in the search algorithm that violate various human rights .....
> 
>> but they have revealed their basic technique
>>  I'm not arguing against oversight. But expecting revelation of trade secrets, even when it destroys both the commercial advantage gained by their development, AND the utility of the service to the general public, seems to push that principle too far. 
>>  Cheers
>> 
>>  David
>>  
>>> 
>>> 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:
>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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