net.wars

Review: Tor

Tor: From the Dark Web to the Future of Privacy
by Ben Collier
MIT Press
ISBN: 978-0-262-54818-2

The Internet began as a decentralized system designed to reroute traffic in case a part of the network was taken out by a bomb. Far from being neutral, the technology intentionally supported the democratic ideals of its time: freedom of expression, freedom of access to information, and freedom to code – that is, build new applications for the Internet without needing permission. Over the decades since, IT has relentlessly centralized. Among the counterweights to this consolidation is Tor, “the onion routing”.

In Tor: From the Dark Web to the Future of Privacy (free for download), Ben Collier recounts a biography that seems to recapitulate those early days – but so far with a different outcome.

Collier traces Tor’s origins to the late Ross Anderson‘s 1997 paper The Eternity Service. In it, Anderson proposed a system for making information indelible by replicating it anonymously across a large number of machines of unknown location so that it would become too expensive to delete it (or, in Anderson’s words, “drive up the cost of selection service denial attacks”). That sort of redundancy is fundamental to the way the Internet works for communications. Around the same time, people were experimenting with ways of routing information such as email through multiple anonymized channels in order to protect it from interference – much used, for example, to protect those exposing Scientology’s secrets. Anderson himself indicated the idea’s usefulness in guaranteeing individual liberties.

As Collier writes, in those early days many spoke as though the Internet’s technology was sufficient to guarantee the export of democratic values to countries where they were not flourishing. More recently, I’ve seen arguments that technology is inherently anti-democratic. Both takes attribute to the technology motivations that properly belong to its controllers and owners.

This is where Collier’s biography strikes a different course by showing the many adaptations the the project has made since its earliest discussions circa 2001* between Roger Dingledine and Nick Mathewson to avoid familiar trends such as centralization and censorship – think the trends that got us the central-point-of-failuire Internet Archive instead of the Eternity Server. Because it began later, Dingledine and Mathewson were able to learn from previous efforts such as PGP and Zero Knowledge Systems to spread strong encryption and bring privacy protection to the mainstream. One such lesson was that the mathematical proofs that dominated cryptography were less important than ensuring usability. At the same time, Collier watches Dingledine and Mathewson resist the temptation to make a super-secure mode and a “stupid mode” that would become the path of least resistance for most users, jeopardizing the security of the entire network.

Most technology biographies focus on one or two founders. Faced with a sprawling system, Collier has resisted that temptation, and devotes a chapter each to the project’s technological development, relay node operators, and maintainers. The fact that these are distinct communities, he writes, has helped keep the project from centralizing. He goes on to discuss the inevitable emergence of criminal uses for Tor, its use as a tool for activism, and finally the future of privacy.

To those who have heard of Tor only as a browser used to access the “dark web” the notion that it deserves a biography may seem surprising. But the project ambitions have grown over time, from privacy as a service, to privacy as a structure, to privacy as a struggle. Ultimately, he concludes, Tor is a hack that has penetrated the core of Internet infrastructure, designing around control points. It is, in other words, much closer to the Internet the pioneers said they were building than the Internet of Facebook and Google.

*This originally said “founding in 2006; that is when the project created today’s formal non-profit organization.

Email to Ofgem

So, the US has claimed victory against the UK.

Regular readers may recall that in February the UK’s Home Office secretly asked Apple to put a backdoor in the Advanced Data Protection encryption it offers as a feature for iCloud users. In March, Apple challenged the order. The US objected to the requirement that the backdoor should apply to all users worldwide. How dare the Home Office demand the ability to spy on Americans?

On Tuesday, US director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced the UK is dropping its demand for the backdoor in Apple’s encryption “that would have enabled access to the protected encrypted data of American citizens”. The key here is “American citizens”. The announcement – which the Home Office is refusing to comment on – ignores everyone else and also the requirement for secrecy. It’s safe to say that few other countries would succeed in pressuring the UK in this way.

As Bll Goodwin reports at Computer Weekly, the US deal does nothing to change the situation for people in Britain or elsewhere. The Investigatory Powers Act (2016) is unchanged. As Parmy Olson writes at Bloomberg, the Home Office can go on issuing Technical Capability Notices to Apple and other companies demanding information on their users that the criminalization of disclosure will keep the companies silent. The Home Office can still order technology companies operating in the UK to weaken their security. And we will not know they’ve done it. Surprisingly, support for this point of view comes from the Federal Trade Commission, which has posted a letter to companies deploring foreign anti-encryption policy (ignoring how often undermining encryption has been US policy, too) and foreign censorship of Americans’ speech. This is far from over, even in the US.

Within the UK, the situation remains as dangerously uncertain as ever. With all countries interconnected, the UK’s policy risks the security of everyone everywhere. And, although US media may have forgotten, the US has long spied on its citizens by getting another country to do it.

Apple has remained silent, but so far has not withdrawn its legal challenge. Also continuing is the case filed by Privacy International, Liberty, and two individuals. In a recent update, PI says both legal cases will be heard over seven days in 2026 as much as possible in the open.

***

For non-UK folk: The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem) is the regulator for Britain’s energy market. Its job is to protect consumers.

To Ofgem:

Today’s Guardian (and many others) carries the news that Tesla EMEA has filed an application to supply British homes and businesses with energy.

Please do not approve this application.

I am a journalist who has covered the Internet and computer industries for 35 years. As we all know, Tesla is owned by Elon Musk. Quite apart from his controversial politics and actions within the US government, Elon Musk has shown himself to be an unstable personality who runs his companies recklessly. Many who have Tesla cars love them – but the cars have higher rates of quality control problems than those from other manufacturers, and Musk’s insistence on marketing the “Full Self Drive” feature has cost lives according to the US National Highway and Transportation Safety Agency, which launched yet another investigation into the company just yesterday. In many cases, when individuals have sought data from Tesla to understand why their relatives died in car fires or crashes the company has refused to help them. During the covid emergency, thousands of Tesla workers got covid because Musk insisted on reopening the Tesla factory. This is not a company people should trust with their homes.

With Starlink, Musk has exercised his considerable global power by turning off communications in Ukraine while it was fighting back Russian attacks. SpaceX launches continue to crash. According to the children’s commissioner’s latest report, far more children encounter pornography online on Musk’s X than on pornography sites, a problem that has gotten far worse since Musk took it over.

More generally, he is an enemy of workers’ rights. Misinformation on X helped fuel the Southport riots, and Musk himself has considered trying to oust Keir Starmer as prime minister.

Many are understandably awed by his technological ideas. But he uses these to garner government subsidies and undermine public infrastructure, which he then is able to wield as a weapon to suit his latest whims.

Musk is already far too powerful in the world. His actions in the White House have shown he is either unable to understand or entirely uninterested in the concerns and challenges that face people living on sums that to him seem negligible. He is even less interested in – and often actively opposes – social justice, fairness, and equity. No amount of separation between him and Tesla EMEA will be sufficient to counter his control of and influence over his company. Tesla’s board, just weeks ago, voted to award him $30 billion in shares to “energise and focus” him.

Please do not grant him a foothold in Britain’s public infrastructure. Whatever his company is planning, it does not have British interests at heart.

Ofgem is accepting public comments on Tesla’s application until close of business on Friday, August 22, 2025.

Illustration: Artist Dominic Wilcox’s Stained Glass Driverless Sleeper Car..

Wendy M. Grossman is an award-winning journalist. Her Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of earlier columns in this series. She is a contributing editor for the Plutopia News Network podcast. Follow on Mastodon or Bluesky.

Magic math balls

So many ironies, so little time. According to the Financial Times (and syndicated at Ars Technica), the US government, which itself has traditionally demanded law enforcement access to encrypted messages and data, is pushing the UK to drop its demand that Apple weaken its encryption. Normally, you want to say, Look here, countries are entitled to have their own laws whether the US likes it or not. But this is not a law we like!

This all began in February, when the Washington Post reported that the UK’s Home Office had issued Apple with a Technical Capability Notice. Issued under the Investigatory Powers Act (2016) and supposed to be kept secret, the TCN demanded that Apple undermine the end-to-end encryption used for iCloud’s Advanced Data Protection feature. Much protest ensued, followed by two legal cases in front of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, one brought by Apple, the other by Privacy International and Liberty. WhatsApp has joined Apple’s legal challenge.

Meanwhile, Apple withdrew ADP in the UK. Some people argued this didn’t really matter, as few used it, which I’d call a failure of user experience design rather than an indication that people didn’t care about it. More of us saw it as setting a dangerous precedent for both encryption and the use of secret notices undermining cybersecurity.

The secrecy of TCNs is clearly wrong and presents a moral hazard for governments that may prefer to keep vulnerabilities secret so they can take advantage for surveillance purposes. Hopefully, the Tribunal will eventually agree and force a change in the law. The Foundation for Information Policy Research (obDisclosure: I’m a FIPR board member) has published a statement explaining the issues.

According to the Financial Times, the US government is applying a sufficiently potent threat of tariffs to lead the UK government to mull how to back down. Even without that particular threat, it’s not clear how much the UK can resist. As Angus Hanton documented last year in the book Vassal State, the US has many well-established ways of exerting its influence here. And the vectors are growing; Keir Starmer’s Labour government seems intent on embedding US technology and companies into the heart of government infrastructure despite the obvious and increasing risks of doing so. When I read Hanton’s book earlier this year, I thought remaining in the EU might have provided some protection, but Caroline Donnelly warns at Computer Weekly that they, too, are becoming dangerously dependent on US technology, specifically Microsoft.

It’s tempting to blame everything on the present administration, but the reality is that the US has long used trade policy and treaties to push other countries into adopting laws regardless of their citizens’ preferences.

***

As if things couldn’t get any more surreal, this week the Trump administration *also* issued an executive order banning “woke AI” in the federal government. AI models are in future supposed to be “politically neutral”. So, as Kevin Roose writes at the New York Times, the culture wars are coming for AI.

The US president is accusing chatbots of “Marxist lunacy”, where the rest of the world calls them inaccurate, biased toward repeating and expanding historical prejudices, and inconsistent. We hear plenty about chatbots adopting Nazi tropes; I haven’t heard of one promoting workers’ and migrants’ rights.

If we know one thing about AI models it’s that they’re full of crap all the way down. The big problem is that people are deploying them anyway. At the Canary, Steve Topple reports that the UK’s Department of Work and Pensions admits in a newly-published report that its algorithm for assessing whether benefit claimants might commit fraud is ageist and and racist. A helpful executive order would set must-meet standards for *accuracy*. But we do not live in those times.

The Guardian reports that two more Trump EOs expedite building new data centers, promote exports of American AI models, expand the use of AI in the federal government, and intend to solidify US dominance in the field. Oh, and Trump would really like if it people would stop calling it “artificial” and find a new name. Seven years ago, aspirational intelligence” seemed like a good idea. But that was back when we heard a lot about incorporating ethics. So…”magic math ball”?

These days, development seems to proceed ethics-free. DWP’s report, for example, advocates retraining its flawed algorithm but says continuing to operate it is “reasonable and proportionate”. In 2021, for European Digital Rights Initiative, Agathe Balayn and Seda Gürses found, “Debiasing locates the problems and solutions in algorithmic inputs and outputs, shifting political problems into the domain of design, dominated by commercial actors.” In other words, no matter what you think is “neutral”, training data, model, and algorithms are only as “neutral” as their wider context allows them to be.

Meanwhile, nothing to curb the escalating waste. At 404 Media, Emanuel Maiberg finds that Spotify is publishing AI-generated songs from dead artists without anyone’s’ permission. On Monday, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow told viewers that there’s so much “AI slop ” about her that they’ve posted Is That Really Rachel? to catalog and debunk them.

As Ed Zitron writes, the opportunity costs are enormous.

In the UK, the US, and many other places, data centers are threatening the water supply.

But sure, let’s make more of that.

Illustrations: Magic 8 ball toy (via frankieleon at Wikimedia).

Wendy M. Grossman is an award-winning journalist. Her website has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of earlier columns in this series. She is a contributing editor for the Plutopia News Network podcast. Follow on Mastodon or Bluesky.

Sovereign

On May 19, a group of technologists, researchers, economists, and scientists published an open letter calling on British prime minister Keir Starmer to prioritize the development of “sovereign advanced AI capabilities through British startups and industry”. I am one of the many signatories. Britain’s best shot at the kind of private AI research lab under discussion was Deepmind, sold to Google in 2014; the country has nothing now that’s domestically owned. ”

Those with long memories know that Leo was the first computer used for a business application – running Lyons tea rooms. In the 1980s, Britain led personal computing.

But the bigger point is less about AI in specific and more about information technology generally. At a panel at Computers, Privacy, and Data Protection in 2022, the former MEP Jan Philipp Albrecht, who was the special rapporteur for the General Data Protection Regulation, outlined his work building up cloud providers and local hardware as the Minister for Energy, Agriculture, the Environment, Nature and Digitalization of Schleswig-Holstein. As he explained, the public sector loses a great deal when it takes the seemingly easier path of buying proprietary software and services. Among the lost opportunities: building capacity and sovereignty. While his organization used services from all over the world, it set its own standards, one of which was that everything must be open source,

As the events of recent years are making clear, proprietary software fails if you can’t trust the country it’s made in, since you can’t wholly audit what it does. Even more important, once a company is bedded in, it can be very hard to excise it if you want to change supplier. That “customer lock-in” is, of course, a long-running business strategy, and it doesn’t only apply to IT. If we’re going to spend large sums of money on IT, there’s some logic to investing it in building up local capacity; one of the original goals in setting up the Government Digital Service was shifting to smaller, local suppliers instead of automatically turning to the largest and most expensive international ones.

The letter calls relying on US technology companies and services a “national security risk. Elsewhere, I have argued that we must find ways to build trusted systems out of untrusted components, but the problem here is more complex because of the sensitivity of government data. Both the US and China have the right to command access to data stored by their companies, and the US in particular does not grant foreigners even the few privacy rights it grants its citizens.

It’s also long past time for countries to stop thinking in terms of “winning the AI race”. AI is an umbrella term that has no single meaning. Instead, it would be better to think in terms of there being many applications of AI, and trying to build things that matter.

***

As predicted here two years ago, AI models are starting to collapse, Stephen J. Vaughan writes at The Register.

The basic idea is that as the web becomes polluted with synthetically-generated data, the quality of the data used to train the large language models degrades, so the models themselves become less useful. Even without that, the AI-with-everything approach many search engines are taking is poisoning their usefulness. Model collapse just makes it worse.

We would point out to everyone frantically adding “AI” to their services that the historical precedents are not on their side. In the late 1990s, every site felt it had to be a portal, so they all had search, and weather, and news headlines, and all sorts of crap that made it hard to find the search results. The result? Google disrupted all that with a clean, white page with no clutter (those were the days). Users all switched. Yahoo is the most obvious survivor from that period, and I think it’s because it does have some things – notably financial data – that it does extremely well.

It would be more satisfying to be smug about this, but the big issue is that companies are going on spraying toxic pollution over the services we all need to be able to use. How bad does it have to get before they stop?

***

At Privacy Law Scholars this week, in a discussion of modern corporate oligarchs and their fantasies of global domination, an attendee asked if any of us had read the terms of service for Starlink. She wanted to draw out attention to the following passage, under “Governing Law”:

For Services provided to, on, or in orbit around the planet Earth or the Moon, this Agreement and any disputes between us arising out of or related to this Agreement, including disputes regarding arbitrability (“Disputes”) will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas in the United States. For Services provided on Mars, or in transit to Mars via Starship or other spacecraft, the parties recognize Mars as a free planet and that no Earth-based government has authority or sovereignty over Martian activities. Accordingly, Disputes will be settled through self-governing principles, established in good faith, at the time of Martian settlement.

Reminder: Starlink has contracts worth billions of dollars to provide Internet infrastructure in more than 100 countries.

So who’s signing this?

Illustrations: The Martian (Ray Walston) in the 1963-1966 TV series My Favorite Martian.

Wendy M. Grossman is the 2013 winner of the Enigma Award. Her Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of earlier columns in this series. She is a contributing editor for the Plutopia News Network podcast. Follow on Mastodon or Bluesky.

Dangerous corner

This year’s Computers. Privacy, and Data Protection conference arrived at a crossroads moment. The European Commission, wanting to compete to “win the AI race”, is pursuing an agenda of simplification. Based on a recent report by former European Central Bank president Mario Draghi, it’s looking to streamline or roll back some of the regulation the EU is famous for.

Cue discussion of “The Brussels Effect”, derived from The California Effect, which sees compliance with regulation voluntarily shift towards the strictest regime. As Mireille Hildebrandt explained in her opening keynote, this phenomenon requires certain conditions. In the case of data protection legislation, that means three things: that companies will comply with the most stringent rules to ensure they are universally compliant, and that they want and need to compete in the EU. If you want your rules to dominate, it seems like a strategy. Except: China’s in-progress data protection regime may well be the strongest when it’s complete, but in that very different culture it will include no protection against the government. So maybe not a winning game?

Hildebrandt went on to prove with near-mathematical precision that an artificial general intelligence can never be compatible with the General Data Protection Regulation – AGI is “based on an incoherent conceptualization” and can’t be tested.

“Systems built with the goal of performing any task under any circumstances are fundamentally unsafe,” she said. “They cannot be designed for safety using fundamental engineering principles.”

AGI failing to meet existing legal restrictions seems minor in one way, since AGI doesn’t exist now, and probably never will. But as Hildebrandt noted, huge money is being poured into it nonetheless, and the spreading impact of that is unavoidable even if it fails.

The money also makes politicians take the idea seriously, which is the likely source of the EU’s talk of “simplification” instead of fundamental rights. Many fear that forthcoming simplification packages will reopen GDPR with a view to weakening the core principles of data minimization and purpose limitation. As one conference attendee asked, “Simplification for whom?”

In a panel on conflicting trends in AI governance, Shazeda Ahmed agreed: “There is no scientific basis around the idea of sentient AI, but it’s really influential in policy conversations. It takes advantage of fear and privileges technical knowledge.”

AI is having another impact technology companies may not have notidced yet: it is aligning the interests of the environmental movement and the privacy field.

Sustainability and privacy have often been played off against each other. Years ago, for example, there were fears that councils might inspect household garbage for elements that could have been recycled. Smart meters may or may not reduce electricity usage, but definitely pose privacy risks. Similarly, many proponents of smart cities stress the sustainability benefits but overlook the privacy impact of the ubiquitous sensors.

The threat generative AI poses to sustainability is well-documented by now. The threat the world’s burgeoning data centers pose to the transition to renewables is less often clearly stated and it’s worse than we might think. Claude Turmes, for example, highlighted the need to impose standards for data centers. Where an individual is financially incentivized to charge their electric vehicle at night and help even out the load on the grid, the owners of data centers don’t care. They just want the power they need – even if that means firing up coal plants to get it. Absent standards, he said, “There will be a whole generation of data centers that…use fossil gas and destroy the climate agenda.” Small nuclear power reactors, which many are suggesting, won’t be available for years. Worse,, he said, the data centers refuse to provide information to help public utilities plan despite their huge cosumption.

Even more alarming was the panel on the conversion of the food commons into data spaces. So far, most of what I had heard about agricultural data revolved around precision agriculture and its impact on farm workers, as explored in work (PDF) by Karen Levy, Solon Barocas, and Alexandra Mateescu. That was plenty disturbing, covering the loss of autonomy as sensors collect massive amounts of fine-grained information, everything from soil moisture to the distribution of seeds and fertilizer.

Much more alarming to see Monja Sauvagerd connect up in detail the large companies that are consolidating our food supply into a handful of platforms. Chinese government-owned Sinochem owns Syngenta; John Deere expanded by buying the machine learning company Blue River; and in 2016 Bayer bought Monsanto.

“They’re blurring the lines between seeds, agrichemicals, bio technology, and digital agriculture,” Sauvagerd said. So: a handful of firms in charge of our food supply are building power based on existing concentration. And, selling them cloud and computing infrastructure services, the array of big technology platforms that are already dangerously monopolistic. In this case, “privacy”, which has always seemed abstract, becomes a factor in deciding the future of our most profoundly physical system. What rights should farmers have to the data their farms generate?

In her speech, Hildebrandt called the goals of TESCREAL – transhumanism, extropianism, singularitarianism, cosmism, rationalist ideology, effective altruism, and long-termism – “paradise engineering”. She proposed three questions for assessing new technologies: What will it solve? What won’t it solve? What new problems will it create? We could add a fourth: while they’re engineering paradise, how do we live?

Illustrations: Brussels’ old railway hub, next to its former communications hub, the Maison de la Poste, now a conference center.

Review: Vassal State

Vassal State: How America Runs Britain
by Angus Hanton
Swift Press
978-1-80075390-7

Tax organizations estimate that a bit under 200,000 expatriate Americans live in the UK. It’s only a tiny percentage of the overall population of 70 million, but of course we’re not evenly distributed. In my bit of southwest London, the (recently abruptly shuttered due to rising costs) butcher has advertised “Thanksgiving turkeys” for more than 30 years.

In Vassal State, however, Angus Hanton shows that US interests permeate and control the UK in ways far more significant than a handful of expatriates. This is not, he stresses, an equal partnership, despite the perennial photos of the British prime minister being welcomed to the White House by the sitting president, as shown satirically in 1986’s Yes, Prime Minister. Hunton cites the 2020 decision to follow the US and ban Huawei as an example, writing that the US pressure at the time “demonstrated the language of partnership coupled with the actions of control”. Obama staffers, he is told, used to joke about the “special relationship”.

Why invade when you can buy and control? Hanton lists a variety of vectors for US influence. Many of Britain’s best technology startups wind up sold to US companies, permanently alienating their profits – see, for example, DeepMind, sold to Google in 2014, and Worldpay, sold to Vantiv in 2019, which then took its name. US buyers also target long-established companies, such as 176-year-old Boots, which since 2014 has been part of Walgreens and is now being bought up by the Sycamore Partners private equity fund. To Americans, this may not seem like much, but Boots is a national icon and an important part of delivering NHS services such as vaccinations. No one here voted for Sycamore Partners to benefit from that, nor did they vote for Kraft to buy Cadbury’s in 2010 and abandon its Bournville headquarters since 1824.

In addition, US companies are burrowed into British infrastructure. Government ministers communicate with each other over WhatsApp. Government infrastructure is supplied by companies like Oracle and IBM, and, lately, Palantir, which are hard to dig out once embedded. A seventh of the workforce are precariously paid by the US-dominated gig economy. The vast majority of cashless transactions pay a slice to Visa or Mastercard. And American companies use the roads, local services, and other infrastructure while paying less in tax than their UK competition. More controversially for digital rights activists, Hanton complains about the burden that US-based streamers like Netflix, Apple, and Amazon place on the telecommunications networks. Among the things he leaves out: the technology platforms in education.

Hanton’s book comes at a critical moment. Previous administrations have perhaps been more polite about demanding US-friendly policies, but now Britain, on its own outside the EU, is facing Donald Trump’s more blatant demands. Among them: that suppliers to the US government comply with its anti-DEI policies. In countries where diversity, equity, and inclusion are fundamental rights, the US is therefore demanding that its law should take precedence.

In a timeline fork in which Britain remained in the EU, it would be in a much better position to push back. In *this* timeline, Hanton’s proposed remedies – reform the tax structure, change policies, build technological independence – are much harder to implement.

Three times a monopolist

It’s multiply official: Google is a monopoly.

The latest such ruling is a decision handed down on April 17 by Judge Leonie Brinkema in United States of America v. Google LLC, a 2023 case that focuses on Google’s control over both the software publishers use to manage online ads and the exchanges where those same ads are bought and sold. In August 2024, Judge Amit P. Mehta also ruled Google was a monopoly; that United States of America v. Google LLC, filed in 2020, focused on Google’s payments to mobile phone companies, wireless carriers, and browser companies to promote its search engine. Before *that*, in 2023 a jury found in Epic Games v. Google that Google violated antitrust laws with respect to the Play Store and Judge James Donato ordered it to allow alternative app stores on Android devices by November 1, 2024. Appeals are proceeding.

Google has more trouble to look forward to. At The Overspill, veteran journalist Charles Arthur is a member of a class representative bringing a UK case against Google. The AdTechClaim case seeks £13.6 billion in damages, claiming that Google’s adtech system has diverted revenues that otherwise would have accrued to UK-based website and app publishers. Reuters reported last week on the filing of a second UK challenge, a £5 billion suit representing thousands of businesses who claim Google manipulated the search ecosystem to block out rivals and force advertisers to rely on its platform. Finally, the Competition and Markets Authority is conducting its own investigation into the company’s search and advertising practices.

It is hard to believe that all of this will go away leaving Google intact, despite the company’s resistance to each one. We know from past experience that fines change nothing; only structural remedies will

The US findings against Google seem to have taken some commentators by surprise, perhaps assuming that the Trump administration would have a dampening effect. Trump, however, seems more exercised about the EU’s and UK’s mounting regulatory actions. Just this week the European Commission fined Apple €500 million and Meta €200 million, the first under the Digital Markets Act, and ordered them to open up user choice within 60 days. The White House has called some of these recent fines a new form of economic blackmail.

I’ve observed before that antitrust cases are often well behind the times, partly because these cases take so long to litigate. It wasn’t until 2024 that Google lost its 2017 appeal to the European Court of Justice in the Foundem search case and was ordered to pay a €2.4 billion fine. That case was first brought in 2009.

In 2014, I imagined that Google’s recently-concluded purchase of Nest smart thermostats might form the basis of an antitrust suit in 2024. Obviously, that didn’t happen; I wish instead the UK government had blocked Google’s acquisition of DeepMind. Partly, because perhaps the pre-monopolization of AI could have been avoided. And partly because I’ve been reading Angus Hanton’s recent book, Vassal State, and keeping it would have hugely benefited Britain.

Unfortunately, forcing Google to divest DeepMind is not on anyone’s post-trial list of possible remedies. In October, the Department of Justice filed papers listing a series of possibilities for the search engine case. The most-discussed of these was ordering Google to divest Chrome. In a sensible world, however, one must hope remedies will be found that address the differing problems these cases were brought to address.

At Big, Matt Stoller suggests that the latest judgment increases the likelihood that Google will be broken up, the first such order since AT&T in 1984. The DoJ, now under Trump’s control, could withdraw, but, Stoller points out, the list of plaintiffs includes several state attorneys general, and the DoJ can’t dictate what they do.

Trying to figure out what remedies would make real change is a difficult game, as the folks at the the April 20 This Week In Tech podcast say. This is unlike the issue around Google’s and Apple’s app stores that the European Commission fines cover, where it’s comparatively straightforward to link opening up their systems to alternatives and changing their revenue structure to ensuring that app makers and publishers get a fairer percentage.

Breaking up the company to separate Chrome, search, adtech, and Android would disable the company’s ability to use those segments as levers. In such a situation Google and/or its parent, Alphabet, could not, as now, use them in combination to maintain its ongoing data collection and build a durable advantage in training sophisticated models to underpin automated services. But would forcing the company to divest those segments create competition in any of them? Each would likely remain dominant in its field.

Yet something must be done. Even though Microsoft was not in the end broken up in 2001 when the incoming Bush administration settled the case, the experience of being investigated and found guilty of monopolistic behavior changed the company. None of today’s technology companies are likely to follow suit unless they’re forced; these companies are too big, too powerful, too rich, and too arrogant. If Google is not forced to change its structure or its business model, all of them will be emboldened to behave in even worse ways. As unimaginable as that seems.

Illustrations: “The kind of anti-trust legislation we need”, by J. S. Pughe (via Wikimedia.

A short history of We Robot 2012-

On the eve of We Robot 2025, here are links to my summaries of previous years. 2014 is missing; I didn’t make it that year for family reasons. There was no conference in 2024 in order to move the event back to its original April schedule (covid caused its move to September in 2020). These are my personal impressions; nothing I say here should be taken as representing the conference, its founders, its speakers, or their institutions.

We Robot was co-founded by Michael Froomkin, Ryan Calo, and Ian Kerr to bring together lawyers and engineers to think early about the coming conflicts in robots, law, and policy.

2024 No conference.

2023 The end of cool. After struggling to design a drone delivery service that had any benefits over today’s cycling couriers, we find ourselves less impressed by robot that can do somersaults but not do anything useful.

2022 Insert a human. “Robots” are now “sociotechnical systems”.

Workshop day Coding ethics. The conference struggles to design an ethical robot.

2021 Plausible diversions. How will robots rehape human space?

Workshop day Is the juice worth the squeeze?. We think about how to regulate delivery robots, which will likely have no user-serviceable parts. Title from Woody Hartzog.

2020 (virtual) The zero on the phone. AI exploitation becomes much more visible.

2019 Math, monsters, and metaphors. The trolley problem is dissected; the true danger is less robots than the “pile of math that does some stuff”.

Workshop day The Algernon problem. New participants remind that robots/AI are carrying out the commands of distant owners.

2018 Deception. The conference tries to tease out what makes robots different and revisits Madeleine Clare Elish’s moral crumple zones after the first pedestrian death by self-driving car.

Workshop day Late, noisy, and wrong. Engineers Bill Smart and Cindy Grimm explain why sensors never capture what you think they’re capturing and how AI systems use their data.

2017 Have robot, will legislate. Discussion of risks this year focused on the intermediate sitaution, when automation and human norms clash.

2016 Humans all the way down. Madeline Clare Elish introduces “moral crumple zones”.

Workshop day: The lab and the world. Bill Smart uses conference attendees in formation to show why building a robot is difficult.

2015 Multiplicity. A robot pet dog begs its owner for an upgraded service subscription.

2014 Missed conference

2013 Cautiously apocalyptic. Diversity of approaches to regulation will be needed to handle the diversity of robots.

2012 A really fancy hammer with a gun. Unsentimental engineer Bill Smart provided the title.

Review: Careless People

Careless People: A Cautionary Tale of Power, Greed, and Lost Idealism
By Sarah-Wynn-Williams
Macmillan
ISBN: 978-1035065929

In his 2021 book Social Warming, Charles Arthur concludes his study of social media with the observation that the many harms he documented happened because no one cared to stop them. “Nobody meant for this to happen,” he writes to open his final chapter.

In her new book, Careless People, about her time at Facebook, former New Zealand diplomat Sarah Wynn-Williams shows the truth of Arthur’s take. A sad tale of girl-meets-company, girl-loses-company, girl-tells-her-story, it starts with Wynn-Williams stalking Facebook to identify the right person to pitch hiring her to build its international diplomatic relationships. I kept hoping increasing dissent and disillusion would lead her to quit. Instead, she stays until she’s fired after HR dismisses her complaint of sexual harassment.

In 2011, when Wynn-Williams landed her dream job, Facebook’s wild expansion was at an early stage. CEO Mark Zuckerberg is awkward, sweaty, and uncomfortable around world leaders, who are dismissive. By her departure in 2017, presidents of major countries want selfies with him and he’s much more comfortable – but no longer cares. Meanwhile, then-Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg, wealthy from her time at Google, becomes a celebrity via her book, Lean In, written with the former TV comedy writer Nell Scovell. Sandberg’s public feminism clashes with her employee’s experience. When Wynn-Williams’s first child is a year old, a fellow female employee congratulates her on keeping the child so well-hidden she didn’t know it existed.

The book provides hysterically surreal examples of American corporatism. She is in the delivery room, feet in stirrups, ordered to push, when a text arrives: can she draft talking points for Davos? (She tries!) For an Asian trip, Zuckerberg wants her to arrange a riot or peace rally so he can appear to be “gently mobbed”. When the company fears “Mark” or “Sheryl” might be arrested if they travel to Korea, managers try to identify a “body” who can be sent in as a canary. Wynn-Williams’s husband has to stop her from going. Elsewhere, she uses her diplomatic training to land Zuckerberg a “longer-than-normal handshake” with Xi Jinping.

So when you get to her failure to get her bosses to beef up the two-person content moderation team for Myanmar’s 60 million people, rewrite the section so Burmese characters render correctly, and post country-specific policies, it’s obvious what her bosses will decide. The same is true of internal meetings discussing the tools later revealed to let advertisers target depressed teens. Wynn-Williams hopes for a safe way forward, but warns that company executives’ “lethal carelessness” hasn’t changed.

Cultural clash permeates this book. As a New Zealander, she’s acutely conscious of the attitudes she encounters, and especially of the wealth and class disparity that divide the early employees from later hires. As pregnancies bring serious medical problems and a second child, the very American problem of affording health insurance makes offending her bosses ever riskier.

The most important chapters, whose in-the-room tales fill in gaps in books by Frances Haugen, Sheera Frankel and Cecilia Kang, and Steven Levy, are those in which Wynn-Williams recounts the company’s decision to embrace politics and build its business in China. If, her bosses reason, politicians become dependent on Facebook for electoral success, they will balk at regulating it. Donald Trump’s 2016 election, which Zuckerberg initially denied had been significantly aided by Facebook, awakened these political aspirations. Meanwhile, Zuckerberg leads the company to build a censorship machine to please China. Wynn-Williams abhors all this – and refuses to work on China. Nonetheless, she holds onto the hope that she can change the company from inside.

Apparently having learned little from Internet history, Meta has turned this book into a bestseller by trying to suppress it. Wynn-Williams managed one interview, with Business Insider, before an arbitrator’s injunction stopped her from promoting the book or making any “disparaging, critical or otherwise detrimental comments” related to Meta. This fits the man Wynn-Williams depicts who hates to lose so much that his employees let him win at board games.

Lost futures

In early December, the Biden administration’s Department of Justice filed its desired remedies, having won its case that Google is a monopoly. Many foresaw a repeat of 2001, when the incoming Bush administration dropped the Clinton DoJ’s plan to break up Microsoft.

Maybe not this time. In its first filing, Trump’s DoJ still wants Google to divest itself of the Chrome browser and intends to bar it from releasing other browsers. The DoJ also wants to impose some restrictions on Android and Google’s AI investments.

At The Register, Thomas Claburn reports that Mozilla is objecting to the DoJ’s desire to bar Google from paying other companies to promote its search engine by default. Those payments, Mozilla president Mark Surman admits to Claburn, keep small independent browsers afloat.

Despite Mozilla’s market shrinkage and current user complaints, it and its fellow minority browsers remain important in keeping the web open and out of full corporate control. It’s definitely counter-productive if the court, in trying to rein in Google’s monopoly, takes away what viability these small players have left. They are us.

***

On the other hand, it’s certainly not healthy for those small independents to depend for their survival on the good will of companies like Google. The Trump administration’s defunding of – among so many things – scientific research is showing just how dangerous it can be.

Within the US itself, the government has announced cuts to indirect funding, which researchers tell me are crippling to universities; $800 million cut in grants to Johns Hopkins, $400 at Columbia University, and so many more.

But it doesn’t stop in the US or with the cuts to USAID, which have disrupted many types of projects around the world, some of them scientific or medical research. The Trump administration is using its threats to scientific funding across the world to control speech and impose its, um, values. This morning, numerous news sources report that Australian university researchers have been sent questionnaires they must fill out to justify their US-funded grants. Among the questions: their links to China and their compliance with Trump’s gender agenda.

To be fair, using grants and foreign aid to control speech is not a new thing for US administrations. For example, Republican presidents going back to Reagan have denied funding to international groups that advocated abortion rights or provided abortions, limiting what clinicians could say to pregnant patients. (I don’t know if there are Democratic comparables.)

Science is always political to some extent: think the for stating that the earth was not the center of the universe. Or take intelligence: in his 1981 book The Mismeasure of Man, Stephen Jay Gould documented a century or more of research by white, male scientists finding that white, male scientists were the smartest things on the planet. Or say it inBig Tobacco and Big Oil, which spent decades covering up research showing that their products were poisoning us and our planet.

The Trump administration’s effort is, however, a vastly expanded attempt that appears to want to squash anything that disagrees with policy, and it shows the dangers of allowing any one nation to amass too much “soft power”. The consequences can come quickly and stay long. It reminds me of what happened in the UK in the immediate post-EU referendum period, when Britain-based researchers found themselves being dropped from cross-EU projects because they were “too risky”, and many left for jobs in other countries where they could do their work in peace.

The writer Prashant Vaze sometimes imagines a future in which India has become the world’s leading scientific and technical superpower. This imagined future seems more credible by the day.

***

It’s strange to read that the 35-year-old domestic robots pioneer, iRobot, may be dead in a year. It seemed like a sure thing; early robotics researchers say that people were begging for robot vacuum cleaners even in the 1960s, perhaps inspired by Rosie, The Jetsons‘ robot maid.

Many people may have forgotten (or not known) the excitement that attended the first Roombas in 2002. Owners gave them names, took them on vacation, and posted videos. It looked like the start of a huge wave.

I bought a Roomba in 2003, reviewing it so enthusiastically that an email complained that I should have said I had been given it by a PR person. For a few happy months it wandered around cleaning.

Then one day it stopped moving and I discovered that long hair paralyzed it. I gave it away and went back to living with moths.

The Roomba now has many competitors, some highly sophisticated, run by apps, and able to map rooms, identify untouched areas, scrub stains, and clean in corners. Even so, domestic robots have not proliferated as imagined 20 – or 12 – years ago. I visit people’s houses, and while I sometimes encounter Alexas or Google Assistants, robot vacuums seem rare.

So much else of smart homes as imagined by companies like Microsoft and IBM remain dormant. It does seem like – perhaps a reflection on my social circle – the “smart home” is just a series of remote-control apps and outsourced services. Meh.

Illustrations: Rosie, the Jetsons‘ XB-500 robot maid, circa 1962.