6 ms·

Is it not worrying that this kind of response is left to Google? They are not a benevolent actor but a business who ultimately only does things to improve their

Is it not worrying that this kind of response is left to Google? They are not a benevolent actor but a business who ultimately only does things to improve their own bottom line and their reach over the internet. [edit: I'd appreciate a response if you are going to downvote as is being done to me]

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
vinkelhake 5y ago
The question you ask is valid. If I were to guess (I didn't downvote you), it's because of your second sentence. It hints that you're thinking about it in a zero-sum kind of way. Google benefits from a healthy and secure web. This means they are going to engage in projects that aren't directly tied to what they do, like letsencrypt, Project Zero and TAG.
rossdavidh 5y ago
You have a point, but I recall that when WW2 started many car companies started making tanks, etc, and mostly for the same reason: a specialized skill set that the government simply didn't have the capacity to meet at that time. The unmet need for IT security related work in government is vast.
KarlKemp 5y ago
There is absolutely no way that Google will derive direct financial benefits from defending some Ukrainian journalism project from DDOS attacks. So it should be obvious that your assumptions about their motivation is wrong. Yes, maybe their actions will garner some sympathy among the public. But that mechanism is so generic, it just leads to the same conclusion, i. e. that companies are capable, interested, and legally free to act in the public interest.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Is it not worrying that this kind of response is left to Google? What do you mean “left to” (or “response” for that matter)? Google chooses to do report this information (which is a mix of info gathered from other sources and it's own work to protect it's own critical infrastructure), no one leaves it to them. The government does it's own publication of extensive cybersecurity information of this type, too; see, generally: https://www.cisa.gov/uscert/ncas https://www.cisa.gov/uscert/ncas
- fulafel 5y ago
  Many governments do, not just the US.
- twelvechairs 5y ago
  Thanks for the response (and to others too). In retrospect my point wasnt clearly made. I think somw have understoof but not others. To spell it out further - My concern is google effectively becoming essential internet infrastructure here - the only reason i see for them to support such a process is a view that they can charge a for profit service for the same in the future (though may still remain free to some). In the past the internet has been a free, open, equitable and low cost platform. Googles interest as a commercial company is not to stop ddos altogether but to commodotise and profit from it. Is that the internet we are heading towards? Are there better alternatives?
runeks 5y ago
> They are not a benevolent actor but a business who ultimately only does things to improve their own bottom line and their reach over the internet. Google has interests, just like you and I. Neither you, me or Google are “benevolent actors”. I don’t at all mind when less-than-perfect entities help people — regardless of what else they do that is right or wrong. Google, as a group of human beings, does both good and bad. To claim that it’s problematic to accept help from people who are members of a group of people who also do bad things means we would also have to deny help from e.g. well-meaning Russian citizens.
- philovivero 5y ago
  > Neither you, me or Google are “benevolent actors”. This is nihilism. Google is definitely not a benevolent actor, as we can determine by examining the actions of the company over the past many years. I assume you also are malevolent, by your own admission. But your insinuation, that no-one is a benevolent actor, is so far off the mark I struggle to imagine how you hold that opinion. Have you considered therapy?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
lrem 5y ago
Disclosure: I work at Google. Look at this from pure selfish Google perspective. With the large market penetration, Google earns some share of the total ad revenue of the Internet. Hence, it is in Google's selfish best interest to see the Internet grow and stay healthy.
- bitcharmer 5y ago
  I am yet to see Google putting effort in keeping internet healthy. Have you heard of AMP? We might have drastically different definitions of "healthy".
curt15 5y ago
No company is benevolent. Every company ultimately seeks to maximize its bottom line. The whole premise of capitalism is that in a healthy market there will be some agents whose selfish interests happen to align with your own. For example, while Apple finds it advantageous to play up the privacy angle when competing with Google in the US, its PR statements shouldn't be confused with benevolence. In this case, Google burnishes its image from flexing its internet muscles to "help the little guy".
dhosek 5y ago
This recent Science Friday segment talked about that (among other things) https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/cyber-warfare-russia-ukraine/#segment-transcript https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/cyber-warfare-russia-...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

vinkelhake 5y ago

The question you ask is valid. If I were to guess (I didn't downvote you), it's because of your second sentence. It hints that you're thinking about it in a zero-sum kind of way. Google benefits from a healthy and secure web. This means they are going to engage in projects that aren't directly tied to what they do, like letsencrypt, Project Zero and TAG.

rossdavidh 5y ago

You have a point, but I recall that when WW2 started many car companies started making tanks, etc, and mostly for the same reason: a specialized skill set that the government simply didn't have the capacity to meet at that time. The unmet need for IT security related work in government is vast.

KarlKemp 5y ago

There is absolutely no way that Google will derive direct financial benefits from defending some Ukrainian journalism project from DDOS attacks. So it should be obvious that your assumptions about their motivation is wrong. Yes, maybe their actions will garner some sympathy among the public. But that mechanism is so generic, it just leads to the same conclusion, i. e. that companies are capable, interested, and legally free to act in the public interest.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Is it not worrying that this kind of response is left to Google? What do you mean “left to” (or “response” for that matter)? Google chooses to do report this information (which is a mix of info gathered from other sources and it's own work to protect it's own critical infrastructure), no one leaves it to them. The government does it's own publication of extensive cybersecurity information of this type, too; see, generally: https://www.cisa.gov/uscert/ncas https://www.cisa.gov/uscert/ncas

fulafel 5y ago
Many governments do, not just the US.
twelvechairs 5y ago
Thanks for the response (and to others too). In retrospect my point wasnt clearly made. I think somw have understoof but not others. To spell it out further - My concern is google effectively becoming essential internet infrastructure here - the only reason i see for them to support such a process is a view that they can charge a for profit service for the same in the future (though may still remain free to some). In the past the internet has been a free, open, equitable and low cost platform. Googles interest as a commercial company is not to stop ddos altogether but to commodotise and profit from it. Is that the internet we are heading towards? Are there better alternatives?

runeks 5y ago

> They are not a benevolent actor but a business who ultimately only does things to improve their own bottom line and their reach over the internet. Google has interests, just like you and I. Neither you, me or Google are “benevolent actors”. I don’t at all mind when less-than-perfect entities help people — regardless of what else they do that is right or wrong. Google, as a group of human beings, does both good and bad. To claim that it’s problematic to accept help from people who are members of a group of people who also do bad things means we would also have to deny help from e.g. well-meaning Russian citizens.

philovivero 5y ago
> Neither you, me or Google are “benevolent actors”. This is nihilism. Google is definitely not a benevolent actor, as we can determine by examining the actions of the company over the past many years. I assume you also are malevolent, by your own admission. But your insinuation, that no-one is a benevolent actor, is so far off the mark I struggle to imagine how you hold that opinion. Have you considered therapy?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

lrem 5y ago

Disclosure: I work at Google. Look at this from pure selfish Google perspective. With the large market penetration, Google earns some share of the total ad revenue of the Internet. Hence, it is in Google's selfish best interest to see the Internet grow and stay healthy.

bitcharmer 5y ago
I am yet to see Google putting effort in keeping internet healthy. Have you heard of AMP? We might have drastically different definitions of "healthy".

curt15 5y ago

No company is benevolent. Every company ultimately seeks to maximize its bottom line. The whole premise of capitalism is that in a healthy market there will be some agents whose selfish interests happen to align with your own. For example, while Apple finds it advantageous to play up the privacy angle when competing with Google in the US, its PR statements shouldn't be confused with benevolence. In this case, Google burnishes its image from flexing its internet muscles to "help the little guy".

dhosek 5y ago

This recent Science Friday segment talked about that (among other things) https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/cyber-warfare-russia-ukraine/#segment-transcript https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/cyber-warfare-russia-...