On the 50th anniversary of the birth of the internet, technologists balance optimism and warnings
The Pew Research Center surveyed 530 technologists, researchers, activists and business and policy leaders about how people might be affected by changes in the internet over the next 50 years.
A teletype similar to one used to communicate with the Sigma 7 computer which was connected to UCLA's Interface Message Processor at 3420 Boelter Hall, the original location of the first ARPANET node at UCLA.Fred Prouser / Reuters file
Oct. 29, 2019, 8:50 AM CDT By Jason Abbruzzese Fifty years to the day since the first message was sent between two networked computers, technologists remain optimistic about the future of the internet — though not without some serious reservations.
On the evening of Oct. 29, 1969, a student at the University of California, Los Angeles, sent the first message over the ARPANET — the forerunner of the internet — with just two letters: “Lo.”
The system then crashed. The student, Charley Kline, had tried to type “Login.” It worked on the second try.
Over the next few decades, a series of developments in hardware and software ...https://www.webfx.com/blog/web-design/the-history-of-the-internet-in-a-nutshell/ "The History of the Internet in a Nutshell" ... would help bring the internet out of the fringes of the computing world and into the homes and pockets of billions of people. But the optimism and excitement of the days of AOL and Prodigy have given way to growing concern that the internet has become centralized by a few major companies, compromised by governments and monetized by the collecting and sharing of private data.
To mark the 50th anniversary of that first message, the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan think tank, surveyed 530 technologists, researchers, activists and business and policy leaders about how people might be affected by changes in the internet over the next 50 years, finding broad optimism but also pointed warnings about privacy, artificial intelligence and even brain implants "Experts Optimistic About the Next 50 Years of Digital Life". https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/10/28/experts-optimistic-about-the-next-50-years-of-digital-life/
They found that 72 percent of respondents think that people’s lives will be changed for the better, with 25 percent saying it would change for the worse.
Many experts that spoke with Pew struck a balance between the upsides and downsides of an increasingly connected world. Most agreed that there would be little to slow the spread of the internet.
“I predict that the internet will evolve into a pervasive global nervous system,” Leonard Kleinrock, Internet Hall of Fame member and professor of computer science at UCLA, told Pew. “The internet will be everywhere, available on a continuous basis, and will be invisible in the sense that it will disappear into the infrastructure, just as electricity is, in many ways, invisible.”
Steve Crocker, Internet Hall of Fame member and CEO of Shinkuro, an internet research and development company, also predicted that the internet would become more common and less visible.
“I think the internet will start to be built into devices and systems, more or less below the surface,” Crocker said. “People will stop referring to the internet and take it for granted, much as the developed world takes electric power for granted.”
Pew’s survey found optimism around better health, greater personalization and more leisure time. The most common worries centered on increased inequality, use of the internet by elites to manipulate the public, increased isolation and limited privacy.
Some notable technologists Pew spoke with touched on the need for some general agreements on regulations and rules on the internet, not entirely unlike the initial agreements that helped create the technical rules underpinning the infrastructure of the internet.
Vint Cerf, vice president and chief internet evangelist at Google, said that stopping bad actors will require coordination.
“I still see the computing and communication environment as positive and constructive, but it does create avenues for remotely initiated harmful behaviors,” he told Pew. “International agreements and mechanisms for traceability of actors in the network will be needed to respond to harmful behavior. A law of the net will likely have to be enacted to cope with these challenges.”
Elizabeth Feinler, the original manager of the ARPANET Network Information Center, said that technologists have to help lead the way in figuring out how to establish common rules for the internet.
“We cannot expect our elected lawmakers to understand all of this as they try to come up with reasonable laws affecting the internet,” Feinler said. “We need a multilateral body (or bodies) of internet/computer experts, elected among themselves, to serve as an independent authority to provide technical guidance and expertise to the government.”
“Within 50 years we will have the technology for embedding internet transceivers into human brains,” Lawrence Roberts, designer and manager of ARPANET, told Pew. “This could greatly speed up information transfer and allow great advances. However, the flood of advertising would need to be controlled and security would need to have improved greatly for anyone to take the risk.”
Wendy Hall, professor of computer science at the University of Southampton, U.K., and executive director of the Web Science Institute, warned about what this kind of technology could mean for humanity.
“I believe that by 2069 the brain-machine interface will be fully developed, and if we think the applications of AI might be terrifying for the future of humanity, then brain-computer interfaces are the stuff of nightmares if the legal and ethical frameworks under which they are used are not carefully considered from the outset,” she said.
Vestager’s Google strategy faces its first big court test
"Google sued by the ACCC over alleged misuse of personal data"
Tech giant is challenging a fine of €2.42B for promoting its shopping service over rivals.
By Simon Van Dorpe
2/3/20, 6:30 AM CET
Updated 2/12/20, 4:45 PM CET
IMAGE caption - European Commission Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager is facing a major test in the courts over Google | Heikki Saukkomaa/AFP via Getty Images
Europe's antitrust campaign against Google faces its first big public test in the EU courts.
From February 12-14, lawyers from both camps and 10 intervening parties — nine in support of the Commission and one on the side of Google — will cross swords over the legality of Vestager's decision at the EU General Court in Luxembourg.
If the case goes Vestager's way, it will strengthen her hand to take a tougher approach not only toward Google's other specialized search services, including flights or restaurants, but also on similar ventures by other tech giants, such as Facebook's Marketplace or Apple Music.
--- " A win for Vestager could also pave the way for damages cases as Google's crushed rivals will seek compensation. ---
It could also give her more power to revive competition in comparison shopping, although that will mainly depend on a parallel procedure in which she assesses the "remedies" Google implemented in response to her decision.
“If I knew then what I know now, I would have been bolder,” Vestager said .. https://app.politico.eu/news/112653 .. in December when asked how she would deal with the company if she were given a time machine.
A win for Vestager could also pave the way for damages cases as Google's crushed rivals will seek compensation.
Conversely, the EU has a big problem if the judges in Luxembourg, who serve as the only check to the unrivaled powers of the EU's antitrust czar, decide that she had been too bold. A victory for Google would be a major setback in Vestager's Brussels reign, potentially driving her to make more use of her new powers to initiate legislation, rather than focus on antitrust cases.
The Google case could make or break Vestager's reign in Brussels | Tobias Schwarz/AFP via Getty Images
In 2008, Google started including a strip of pictures of products with prices on top of its general search results, with links redirecting users to its Google Shopping site (previously named "Froogle" and "Google Product Search"), which until then had failed to meet expectations.
As a result of the 2008 changes, Google's own comparison shopping service was not only prominently featured at the top of the search results, but the modified algorithm also had the effect of demoting rivals. According to the EU, this occurred when Google was dominant in general search and therefore had a special responsibility not to undermine competition in neighboring services.
At that stage, the markets believed in the potential of Google's rivals in comparison shopping. In 2004, Yahoo acquired Kelkoo for €475 million, in 2005 eBay bought Shopping.com for $634 million and Microsoft paid $486 million for Ciao in 2008.
"“This case is not only of great significance to the sites that were harmed by Google’s conduct, but also to the consumers who were left without the benefits of their innovation” — Thomas Vinje, lawyer
But in 2020, these companies are practically worthless and Google makes billions with its service.
“This case is not only of great significance to the sites that were harmed by Google’s conduct, but also to the consumers who were left without the benefits of their innovation,” said Thomas Vinje, a lawyer who will be acting for Foundem, a rival site run by the British couple Shivaun and Adam Raff .. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/fine-google-competition-eu-shivaun-adam-raff , who were the first in 2010 to file a formal antitrust complaint against Google.
The case could be a catalyst for Google's rivals to claim damages in front of civil courts across Europe. If the courts in Luxembourg confirm the Commission decision, that will serve as unquestionable proof of Google's wrongdoing. It is then up to the parties to prove any damages they suffered as a consequence.
The defense
Google will tell the judges it had the right to optimize the user experience of its shopping service and that the drop in rankings of the other sites was an unintended consequence of the change of its algorithm, people familiar with its defense said.
In its pleas and arguments published .. http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=196224&doclang=EN .. ahead of the hearing, the company said the Commission “misstated the facts,” and insisted that “Google launched grouped product results to improve quality, not to drive traffic to a Google comparison shopping service.”
Google’s lawyers are likely to attack the Commission on its evidence gathering, rather than letting the case revolve around the big principle.
In Google's view, the Commission's proof was cherry-picked around a subset of shopping sites whose traffic went down, disregarding sites for which that didn’t happen.
Google is going toe to toe with the European Commission | Aris Oikonomou/AFP via Getty Images
Google may attempt to requalify the case, saying the Commission viewed Google Search as an “essential facility” — a bottleneck for which users have no other option. Under competition law, such companies, for example ports, have a duty to provide others access to their infrastructure at a reasonable price.
Google in its arguments said the Commission “demands that Google supply aggregators with access to its product improvements, without meeting the requisite legal conditions.”
An executive from a rival comparison-shopping company feared for the outcome if the debate did shift to whether Brussels was regarding Google as an essential facility.
“If Google can convince the court that this is [an essential facility] case, then we believe the Commission will lose,” the executive said.
The impact
The Shopping case is a cornerstone case that could trigger a wider cascade of competition and court proceedings in Brussels and abroad.
It will offer a sign of how judges view Vestager's strategy to curtail how internet platforms conquer a range of industries moving online.
A nod from the judges at the hearing could embolden her in that approach.
“The hearing may give an indication of what matters to the court, which could really motivate the Commission to take on these other cases,” said Thomas Höppner, a lawyer who will represent three complainants (including comparison shopping site Visual Meta, a subsidiary of POLITICO Europe's co-owner Axel Springer).
The remedies
Arguably more important than the fine was Vestager’s 2017 order on Google to give rival shopping services equal treatment — without many further specifications.
Google devised an auction mechanism in which rivals could bid to appear in its prominently featured shopping boxes. But many sites remain unhappy.
“The remedy is not fit for purpose and doesn’t solve Google’s abuse. It’s pretty much rubbish compared to where we were — and should have been — if not for the abuse,” Kelkoo CEO Richard Stables said.
After over two years of monitoring Google’s proposed remedy, Vestager seems to be increasingly sympathetic to the complainants. “We still do not see much traffic for rival competitors when it comes to shopping comparison,” she told .. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGvj12gd3UU .. the Lisbon Web Summit in November.
Will Vestager be emboldened — or have her wings clipped? | Miguel A. Lopes/EPA
Even if Vestager’s original decision is confirmed in Luxembourg, the effectiveness of her policies — how her decisions can really bring back competition — are more related to the outcome of the remedies process.
Several rival lawyers said that any signs of court support could embolden Vestager to issue a non-compliance fine that could again run in the billions — or to fire new cases at Google in services such as local search or jobs.
If the court procedures or the remedy process fail to produce the results she hoped for, Vestager could under her new powers initiate legislation to ban platforms from favoring their own services.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
