Spelled out in big colorful letters that even Google can understand, the EU is now requiring the Chocolate Factory to share search data with competitors while enhancing Android AI interoperability for bots other than Gemini. <\/p>\n
Needless to say, the company would like to find a way to disable this default.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
The European Commission (EC)\u00a0announced<\/a> a pair of specification decisions on Thursday. The first covers AI vendors’ ability to integrate into Google’s mobile OS, and the other forces Google to give search data to other search engines in order to \u201crebalance the playing field,” as the EC put it.\u00a0<\/p>\n The specification proceeding, the Commission said, isn\u2019t a noncompliance decision and doesn\u2019t attempt to determine whether Google has been flouting its obligations as a Digital Markets Act gatekeeper (i.e., it\u2019s big enough that it controls access to markets for smaller firms). It only wanted to make sure both parties were clear on what the EC actually wants Google to do to lessen its monopolistic hold on search and its control over the operating system on the majority of the world\u2019s smartphones.\u00a0<\/p>\n Gemini gets pried loose from Android<\/p>\n \u201cCurrently, on Android phones, competitors’ AI assistants only have restricted access to key functionalities,\u201d the EC said. \u201cToday’s decision will ensure that users can activate their preferred AI assistant.\u201d<\/p>\n Specifically, Google will be required to give third-party AI providers extensive access to Android-powered devices, including allowing them to be voice-activated in place of Gemini, and to take actions in apps on user\u2019s behalf.\u00a0<\/p>\n Google cried foul, as it has when faced with practically any EU decision spanking it for unfair competition.<\/p>\n \u201cToday’s decisions risk undermining vital privacy and security guardrails for millions of Europeans,\u201d Google and Alphabet president of global affairs Kent Walker said in a statement<\/a>. More specifically to the AI portion of the decision, Walker said the EC\u2019s ruling is unnecessary, as AI assistants “already safely access Android\u2019s capabilities\u201d inasmuch as OEMs let them.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThis Android ruling threatens device security by granting external apps sensitive and powerful device permissions without [OEM] safeguards,\u201d Walker said.\u00a0<\/p>\n Never mind the fact that the Commission spelled out in its FAQ<\/a> for the AI interoperability specifications that Google and OEMs still retain a good deal of control over their implementations.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cIn view of the sensitive nature of some of the features, Google may put in place objective and non-discriminatory eligibility conditions to limit access to third parties meeting certain privacy, security and integrity standards,\u201d the EC said.\u00a0<\/p>\n An unreasonable search seizure?<\/p>\n As for the search half of the specification decision, the EU was concerned Google\u2019s prior attempts at offering to open up were \u201cinnefective so far.\u201d With that in mind, the Commish wants other search engines to be able to access Google data in order to improve their own services and compete more effectively.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cSubject to anonymisation, Google should share the same data that it collects to optimise its own search services,\u201d the Commission said, noting that that includes giving AI chatbots access to that data to improve their services as well. \u201cThe aim of these measures is to allow companies to be able to offer European users a wider and more feature-rich range of options to choose from, both when it comes to their AI services on Android and to search services.\u201d<\/p>\n Google, again, is predictably unhappy.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cEuropeans\u2019 private searches would be exposed to unfamiliar companies, without adequate anonymisation of the data and without user knowledge or consent,\u201d Walker argued in his response. \u201cThis would weaken citizens’ privacy, risk business trade secrets, and endanger national security.\u201d<\/p>\n The Chamber of Progress, which speaks as a voice for the tech industry and is funded in part by Google, similarly<\/a> decried the risks of the decision to user safety.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe Commission is ignoring well documented privacy risks to impose a vision of the digital economy, rather than working with industry to find solutions that are safe and supported by consumer demand,\u201d said the group’s VP for Europe, Kay Jebelli. \u201cThe likely result is services will be pulled while legal challenges are mounted.\u201d<\/p>\n Neither Google nor the Chamber bothered to get specific in their responses, and likely with good reason: The Commission made it clear that Google has final say over what gets shared, and spells out various elements of how it will require search data to be anonymized in an FAQ<\/a> for the search section of the decision.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe decision \u2026 allows Google to assess, before sharing any data, whether sharing such data with a specific third party poses serious cyber security and data protection risks,\u201d the Commission explained.<\/p>\n Per the FAQ, particular technical elements of the search data sharing anonymization include suppressing search records that contain rare items (e.g., usernames and passwords, addresses, bank account info, etc.), generalization of metadata and grouping users into bundles of at least 1,000 people with similar geographic and device data, and the removal of all direct and indirect identifiers.\u00a0<\/p>\n Additionally, search data shared by Google with other providers \u201cwill only be made available to eligible beneficiaries with verified investment plans to improve online search services,\u201d and the use of that data is limited to improving search services. Recipients won\u2019t be allowed to link the data to any other datasets, share it with any third party, and must undergo independent audits to verify safeguards and compliance with EU policy before ever getting access, followed by yearly audits afterward.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe measures will also be subject to biennial reviews to take into account practical experience and any new developments,\u201d the Commission added.\u00a0<\/p>\n Cambridge Analytica redux?<\/p>\n Google’s complaints are nearly identical to those made when the EU\u00a0first told<\/a>\u00a0it to open up search data in April. So we reached out to understand which points were particularly sticky for the search giant. <\/p>\n