Chrome OS, Huh? Will It Be Based on a Google Analytics Kernel?
by John Paczkowski
Posted on July 8, 2009 at 7:35 AM PT
So Google has finally copped to developing an operating system–Chrome OS, a software platform “created for people who spend most of their time on the Web, and…designed to power computers ranging from small netbooks to full-size desktop systems.”
It is an extraordinary market play. And an unsettling one. For it seeks to place Google (GOOG), which already collects vast amounts of data about our Internet use, at the very center of our information experience.
The privacy implications are, of course, horrendous. And while Google will inevitably dismiss such concerns as paranoid and argue that any data the company might collect at the OS level will be used only to improve its services and benefit users, it should still give us all pause. Because when it is finally launched, Chrome OS will be yet one more deep well of consumer data to which Google will have access.
There are already quite a few such wells, including Google Search and Chrome, that profile user interests and surfing habits: Gmail, which gives the company access to our email conversations, and Google Voice, which gives the company access to our spoken ones. Add to this Google Street View and Latitude, a service that tracks the physical location of its users, and mobile and desktop operating systems and, well…that kind of consolidation of Internet-based services around a single dominant company should give us all pause.
Lest we forget, Google is in the behavioral targeting business. Why would people ever use an OS developed by a company whose business is based on meticulously recording and analyzing their online behavior? Because they enjoy using its other services, I suppose. But there is a privacy-vs-ease-of-use tradeoff here. And with Chrome OS, it is unprecedented. Further, while Google might tout its “don’t be evil” motto as reason enough to trust the company with our data, there are other entities that don’t always share that sensibility. Remember, it wasn’t so long ago that the federal government tried to force Google to turn over user search data to the Justice Department…
“Competition in the OS market should always be welcome, but Google is the special case,” Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, told Digital Daily. “It has become dominant across many essential Internet services–search, mail, video, online apps, and advertising. Coupled with Google’s growing profiles of American consumers and reluctance to adopt meaningful privacy safeguards, we expect that antitrust authorities in the US and Europe will view Google’s entry into the OS market with enormous skepticism.”
Jeff Chester, executive director of The Center for Digital Democracy, echoed Rotenberg’s concerns. “Google’s new OS has to be placed under the data collection X-Ray by US and EU privacy regulators and advocates,” he said. “Any expansion into the marketplace by either Google or Microsoft should generate intense scrutiny, especially for the privacy implications. These two are engaged in a global data collections digital arms race, which has far-reaching implications for consumers and their information.”
Comments
If Chrome OS were closed source software, your statements would make sense.
If Google acts as promised, the code will be available for anyone to read, audit or change, as with any other free/open software.
Posted by Arnaldo Pereira at July 8th, 2009 at 8:17 amJohn No one is forcing us to use google services. There are alternates to every service that google provides. Why not use them. I think we are being paranoid. They will use the data they have about us to serve ADS. They are not going to transfer money from our A/c to theirs. Dont use google if we are so afraid of them. There are alternatives for everything
Posted by Sidharth Dassani at July 8th, 2009 at 8:57 amGoogle’s not the only thing to worry about here. Remember, it wasn’t so long ago that federal government tried to force Google to turn over user search data to the Justice Department.
Posted by John Paczkowski at July 8th, 2009 at 9:27 amI agree with previous comments. The most dangerous thing we can do is stick with a monoculture of dependency on Microsoft, which has demonstrated that security concerns are low on their priority list, way behind locking users into both the OS and the Applications they vend.
For all we know the Feds may have a few patches in Windows of their own. I’m not that concerned about being spied on (yet) but for those who are, nothing could be better than an OS that you have the option of compiling on your own comuter and reviewing every line of code personally if you have the time.
What we DO need is a true general purpose competitor to Windows, and Apple has demonstrated nothing but a cozy attitude toward competing with MS, whether that arrangement is in writing or in smoke signals doesn’t matter (to me, although it seems to matter to the DOJ).
My only concern is that even Google isn’t big enough to pull it off. The Rottenberg assertion is ridiculous. An alternative to Windwos isn’t going to come from Cajun Joe’s Computer Emporium. Only big companies need apply, and from here on out, I’d say only an Open Source system has even a chance of succeeding.
Sorry, but much of what I’ve read from “experts” has collusion written all over it.
Posted by Mac Beach at July 8th, 2009 at 12:19 pmAnd who’s going to dig through all that code, Mac? You, maybe. But the netbook-using public? I don’t think so.
And, FWIW, while Chrome OS is a Linux distro, my understanding is that Chrome itself is not GPLd. So while you might be able to look over what’s going on in the back-end, you won’t be able to see what’s going on in the front.
Posted by John Paczkowski at July 8th, 2009 at 5:15 pmLet’s not forget we wouldn’t be forced to use it or pay for it whenever we buy a computer. In order to use it, one has to go out of their way to get it.
Posted by Alan Smithee at July 8th, 2009 at 11:24 pm@Arnaldo Pereira
The trouble is that Google are tricky when it comes to using terms like Open Source. For example, Chrome has been built using Open Source technology, but you can’t actually download the source code for Chrome. IIRC, you can download the source code for the V8 JavaScript engine, and for “Chromium” which is the open source codebase which Chrome is based upon.
But Chrome itself is really a closed-source fork of an open source project, a bit like StarOffice compared with OpenOffice.org. There is no way to verify exactly what non-OS code might have made it’s way into the released product.
So I can see how Google could claim that Google OS is based on open source technology, but isn’t itself actually open source as we would typically define it. While we can verify the code of individual components, who knows what is in the final release build that is proprietary?
Posted by Jon Sidnell at July 9th, 2009 at 8:11 amJohn: Nope, I won’t be looking through the code base. But I know a whole lot of people who are more privacy fanatics than am will be. All it takes is for one of them to see questionable connects back to the mother ship for it to get big attention. A MS employee leaking such info would be subject to termination, and the sort of people they hire there aren’t likely to risk that.
Jon, John: yes, a lot of finagling can be had with the Open Source terminology. The most open system imaginable can be subverted by the user downloading and installing a malicious browser plug-in or some such.
I’m not saying that Google is the ultimate in trustworthiness, but I trust them further than a company that has a lock on business and government desktop computing and that will be true until there is real competition in that space once again.
First step (which is all this amounts to) is for companies to no longer being cowed into denying competing with Microsoft for fear of retribution. I’m tired of waiting for the Justice Department to do their job (but note who they are actually picking on at this point).
Posted by Mac Beach at July 10th, 2009 at 8:48 pm> The privacy implications are,
> of course, horrendous
As horrendous as your Windows PC being part of a botnet without your knowledge? Your entire system controlled by organized crime? Aside from black hats you also have Microsoft, a convicted felon with a very bad privacy record. The idea that anyone who is using Windows right now has privacy is absurd.
With Google OS, at least you have a chance that only Google has your data, and is using it according to specified terms.
And each browser window in Chrome is sandboxed, and there is no native app layer where viruses and malware can run.
It seems quite possible to me that a typical everyday Windows user who moves to Chrome OS could dramatically improve their security and privacy. Not just because Chrome has those features, but also because Windows lacks them.
Posted by Fred Hamranhansenhansen at July 13th, 2009 at 6:54 pm