Opinion: Chrome’s dilemma | heise online

The US Department of Justice wants to force Google to sell the Chrome browser. On the one hand, this measure is absolutely right and should have been taken a long time ago. After all, browser control strengthens Google’s dominant position in the search and especially advertising market.

Anzeige

This creates an extremely harmful and dangerous end-to-end chain: Google dominates the Internet search and advertising industry. With the browser, the company also has an agent directly on the devices of advertising targets, i.e. end users.

Shameless Google

And Google shamelessly exploits this, for example by continually delaying the long-awaited ban on third-party cookies. Or by deliberately modifying the browser’s internal APIs so that ad blockers can no longer do their job properly in Chrome. There is nothing to discuss: Google is clearly abusing Chrome to protect the advertising sector, its bubbling source of income. And it’s up to the state to do something.

And not just for economic or consumer protection reasons. Google’s dominant position also harms security. Ad blockers are essential security tools today; anyone who surfs without one exposes themselves to a multitude of dangers. It could even be argued that they protect more effectively than conventional antivirus protection.

Furthermore, as a monopoly, Google does not need to take necessary measures against malvertising, i.e. targeted malicious advertising. Google didn’t even prevent malvertising campaigns that would have advertised Google Authenticator, but eventually installed Infostealer. Targeted ads containing malware are one of attackers’ most powerful weapons and have been a growing threat for years.

But what to do?

However, the problem I have with the hard sell is: who is going to buy Chrome? With the best will in the world, I don’t see any scenario in which this could alleviate even one of the problems mentioned. On the contrary: for the investment to bear fruit, the new owner should focus the browser even more on maximizing profits. This would inevitably come at the expense of users and their interests – true to the old Internet wisdom: if you don’t pay, you’re not the customer, you’re the product!

The nonprofit Mozilla Foundation is also not an option, as it would put Chrome in the same pot as Firefox, the last remaining competitor in the browser market. Maybe another foundation will take over. The Apache Foundation, perhaps. At least she has experience with large projects in difficult markets.

But where will the money come from? Ultimately, this is wishful thinking. All that remains is to wait and see. After all, the United States is currently facing a change of government, which will also bring new priorities. Who knows, maybe the new American president will spring a surprise: Trump to the rescue?

(mki)