Google criticizes Europe's plan to adopt free software - Sopuli
sopuli.xyz
cross-posted from: https://piefed.zip/c/technology/p/1086069/google-criticizes-europe-s-plan-to-adopt-free-software [https://piefed.zip/c/technology/p/1086069/google-criticizes-europe-s-plan-to-adopt-free-software] > Google has criticized the European Union’s intentions to achieve digital sovereignty through open-source software. The company warned that Brussels’ policies aimed at reducing dependence on American tech companies could harm competitiveness. According to Google, the idea of replacing current tools with open-source programs would not contribute to economic growth. > > Kent Walker, Google’s president of global affairs and chief legal officer, warned of a competitive paradox that Europe is facing. According to the Financial Times, he said that creating regulatory barriers would be harmful in a context of rapid technological advancement. His remarks came just days after the European Commission concluded a public consultation assessing the transition to open-source software. > > Google’s chief legal officer clarified that he is not opposed to digital sovereignty, but recommended making use of the “best technologies in the world.” Walker suggested that American companies could collaborate with European firms to implement measures ensuring data protection. Local management or servers located in Europe to store information are among the options. > > The EU is preparing a technological sovereignty package aimed at eliminating dependence on third-party software, such as Google’s. After reviewing proposals, it concluded that reliance on external suppliers for critical infrastructure entails economic risks and creates vulnerabilities. The strategy focuses not only on regulation but also on adopting open-source software to achieve digital sovereignty. > > According to Google, this change would represent a problem for users. Walker argues that the market moves faster than legislation and warns that regulatory friction will only leave European consumers and businesses behind in what he calls “the most competitive technological transition we have ever seen.” As it did with the DMA and other laws, Google is playing on fear. Kent Walker suggested that this initiative would stifle innovation and deny people access to the “best digital tools.” > > The promotion of open-source software aims to break dependence on foreign suppliers, especially during a period of instability caused by the Trump administration. The European Union has highlighted the risks of continuing under this system and proposes that public institutions should have full control over their own technology. > > According to a study on the impact of open-source software, the European Commission found that it contributes between €65 billion and €95 billion annually to the European Union’s GDP. The executive body estimates that a 10% increase in contributions to open-source software would generate an additional €100 billion in growth for the bloc’s economy.

GDPR Art.5 and other parts try to guarantee data subjects transparency on how their data is processed. The overlooked problem is when a data subject installs a closed-source app, they have no idea how their personal data is being processed inside that black box. And since the processing is performed by the data subject themself, they have no legal mechanism to become informed on how the data is processed.

FOSS solves this. FOSS is a crutch for a GDPR hole. Google’s advocacy is an assault on data protection. Yet they have the audacity to claim closed-source s/w gives a data protection benefit.

(update) Closed-source licenses → extra perverse

The last license agreement I read for a closed-source phone app prohibited studying the app or reverse-engineering it. So not only are data subjects technologically blocked from transparency on how their data is processed, they are also contractually blocked from even trying.

  • freedomPusherOPM
    11·
    14 days ago

    That probably includes anyone with a retirement account. It must require quite some effort to pick funds that exclude Alphabet Inc.

      • freedomPusherOPM
        11·
        14 days ago

        A “fund” is not an individual stock. A fund is a huge collection of stocks managed by someone else. I have had retirement accounts where I just get tick boxes like: aggressive, conservative, and moderate. If you look at the docs for a mutual fund, typically only their 10 biggest holdings are disclosed. They don’t bother to list the other 500+ holdings.

        I would love to specify corporations who I want to blacklist and require funds to be filtered on that, but I have never seen an investment tool that has such a thing. If you find one, please let me know.

        This person has the right idea:

        https://sopuli.xyz/post/41286109

        Of course to get that level of purity means ditching all mutual funds and other managed funds and just picking unmanaged/specific investments. Which he suggests could be a full-time job.

        • 🍉 Albert 🍉@lemmy.world
          1·
          14 days ago

          let’s be clear here.

          the USA has been threatening a war against Europe.

          Getting rid of USA based services is a matter of national safety. not just a discussion of stock values or economy.

          And EU using EU based resources just makes sense.