Google's Sundar Pichai was grilled on privacy, data collection, and China during congressional hearing
Google's CEO testified before the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday where lawmakers grilled him on a wide range of issues, including potential political bias on its platforms, its plans for a censored search app in China and its privacy practices.
This is the first time Pichai has appeared before Congress since Google declined to send him or Alphabet CEO Larry Page to a hearing on foreign election meddling earlier this year. That slight sparked anger among senators who portrayed Google as trying to skirt scrutiny.
[...] Tuesday's hearing was titled "Transparency & Accountability: Examining Google and its Data Collection, Use, and Filtering Practices" and many representatives posed questions on whether or not Google's search results were biased against conservative points of view.
[...] Another topic that came up multiple times was Google's plan to launch a censored search engine in China. The Intercept first reported details of the project over the summer, which would block search results for queries that the Chinese government deemed sensitive, like "human rights" and "student protest" and link users' searches to their personal phone numbers. [...] "Right now, we have no plans to launch search in China," Pichai answered, adding that access to information is "an important human right."
Also at Bloomberg and The Hill.
See also: Sundar Pichai had to explain to Congress why Googling 'idiot' turns up pictures of Trump
Google CEO admits company must better address the spread of conspiracy theories on YouTube
Alex Jones, Roger Stone crash Google CEO hearing
Monopoly man watches disapprovingly as Congress yells at Google's CEO
Previously: Google Plans to Launch Censored Search Engine in China, Leaked Documents Reveal
Uproar at Google after News of Censored China Search App Breaks
"Senior Google Scientist" Resigns over Chinese Search Engine Censorship Project
Google Suppresses Internal Memo About China Censorship; Eric Schmidt Predicts Internet Split
Leaked Transcript Contradicts Google's Denials About Censored Chinese Search Engine
Senators Demand Answers About Google+ Breach; Project Dragonfly Undermines Google's Neutrality
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 12 2018, @03:16PM (9 children)
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday December 12 2018, @03:24PM (2 children)
Stop being silly. You can't see the new laws until they are passed. Can we just vote on it now?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @03:53PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @10:58PM
M'eh, cant say seeing the laws before would help anything when the governments interpretation of the law is secret.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @03:35PM (3 children)
United States >>> UK >> Canada > Australia >>> NZ
New Zealand has already passed various anti-encryption laws, and Australia is in the process of doing so. The UK and Canada and the US have had discussions about doing so for a long time, and it's currently being trialed in Oceania, with the ultimate goal being the U.S.
This is how it will go down: The Big Corps will play dumb, saying "We know something is wrong, but we don't know what to do. We need help from you wise legislators". The bureaucrats will reply: "Ah. Privacy and Security are the most important and sacred mandates. Therefore, we do indeed demand the strongest encryption feasible (which will only be easily implemented in hardware by the big, established corporations); this includes the latest, state of the art multi-key schemes, which will thereby allow certain law-enforcement agencies lawful access to this encryption without compromising the privacy of the law-abiding citizenry."
There's your "regulation". Easy for Big Corps (but hard for upstart competition). Easy for Government surveillance. Hard for criminals to exploit; hard for the masses to escape.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @06:17PM (1 child)
sounds good to me. bring on the war against privacy and encryption and i will become a wealthy dealer and will defend it more violently than pablo escobar.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday December 12 2018, @07:17PM
Ditto, but virtual violence. Anything physical would be device destruction, but not in a way that an IT person could get hurt. All the tech people of the world could unite and fucking burn down the whole goddamn system [youtube.com].
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday December 12 2018, @08:01PM
I would be interested in knowing what anti-encryption laws New Zealand has passed.
I did find this [newshub.co.nz] which has the minister saying he won't be passing anything like the Aussie laws.
Our border people have the powers to tell people to unlock their devices when coming into the country, but at some point someone will tell them to go eat a bag of dicks and the courts will have to rule on that.
I can see it being thrown out, as too broad.
That said, the general point you make may well not be wrong.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday December 12 2018, @03:43PM (1 child)
No, the tech companies are saying very much the opposite of "regulation is needed"? Where the fuck did you get that?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 12 2018, @10:12PM