
Too Much Power For One Man - loupereira
http://www.drewdavismedia.com/details.php?pid=1
======
jp555
A fitting cartoon analogy for cartoon logic.

I am reminded of an Alan Moore quote:

“In the mid 1980's I was asked by an american legal institution known as the
Christic Legal Institute to compile a comic book that would detail the murky
history of the C.I.A., from the end of the second world war, to the present
day. Covering such things as the heroin smuggling during the Vietnam war, the
cocaine smuggling during the war in Central America, the Kennedy assasination
and other highlights.

What I learned during the frankly horrifying research that I had to slog
through in order to accomplish this, was that yes, there is a conspiracy, in
fact there are a great number of conspiracies that are all tripping each other
up. And all of those conspiracies are run by paranoid fantasists, and ham
fisted clowns. If you are on a list targeted by the C.I.A., you really have
nothing to worry about. If however you have a name similar to someone on a
list targeted by the C.I.A., then you are dead?

The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory, is that conspiracy
theorists believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth
of the world is that it is actually chaotic. The truth is that it is not The
Iluminati, or The Jewish Banking Conspiracy, or the Gray Alien Theory. The
truth is far more frightening.

Nobody is in control.

The world is rudderless...”

~~~
pron
The concerns expressed in the post have nothing to do with conspiracy, and
everything to do with power. Democracies are usually built in such a way as to
prevent concentration of power -- not to fight a real or imagined conspiracy.
Concentration of power in itself is bad enough even without malevolent intent
behind it.

~~~
melloclello
The commenter is arguing the opposite - without concentration of power, you
get chaos, which is _a bad thing_

~~~
pron
Which is why democracies have checks and balances, and it is our
responsibility to make sure that the power held by private institutions does
not grow unchecked. The US made that mistake once, and it took a heroic
struggle to wrestle that power away [1].

[1]: [http://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/Research/Digital-
Libr...](http://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/Research/Digital-
Library/Record.aspx?libID=o278539)

------
Multics
I like Google, and what Page has achieved. If they act in ways I don't agree
with, I can stop using their service(s). It's not like Google take my
resources by force, and then use them to do unspeakable evil.

Page and cohorts have demonstrably shown a knack for developing tech which the
world finds useful. And for that I'm grateful.

Yet! I don't need to express my gratitude to him. Instead, he's rewarded with
'disagreeable' money & power.

What does he do with the acquired wherewithal? New projects. And in
counterintuitive directions, which others only find insightful after the fact!

Page's et al. investment in Calico -- their pro-longevity/healthspan biotech
company -- is one such example. They're investing in one of the world's most
significant problems. Maybe the most! Dismissed by others, but seen as doable
by someone who has been prescient time and again!

This 'power-hungry' character may just save or extend your life one day!
Contra to what others would have done with the same power/money.

------
jqm
..."But by the end, Lex Luther spent his final years fighting off increasing
government regulation and a growing mass of lawsuits while trying to keep his
company from succumbing to bureaucratic rot and his employees innovative. The
good employees kept jumping ship while the mediocre ones were proving
impossible to dislodge. He eventually died in a bizarre yacht accident
involving a prostitute, several chickens and some ketamine, having failed to
maintain his dominance of the world. He was replaced by a guy with an MBA from
Stanford who had very straight teeth and that said all the right things at the
right time and who slowly ran the company into the ground by selling off
divisions one after the other in order to meet annual bonus growth profit
targets."

------
hosay123
Article forgot to mention Lex's many biometrics acquisitions (e.g. Neven
Vision) prior to sending his fleet of cameras down every road in the civilized
world, dabbling in mass genetics (23andme), "accidental" mass capture of open
wifi traffic, spyware he convinced 63% of all web sites to deploy (Analytics),
or the sensor-packed mobile devices he has root on in a few million peoples'
pockets.

It would only require something like 0.25 9/11's to turn Lex into the worlds
largest and most terrifying defence contractor. Of course this sounds
ridiculous, but it's probably just a few short pieces of emergency legislation
from reality

~~~
mden
Isn't it nice how you can make most things sound evil if you just use the
right wording. What you wrote reminds me of cases where law enforcement takes
terms like "subversion" used by an engineer and extrapolates evil plots out of
them.

~~~
hosay123
Which wording do you speak of? About the only loading used here is "Lex",
which was borrowed from the article. The remainder is a fairly plain depiction
of reality

~~~
tlwr
"spyware"?

~~~
hosay123
Wikipedia:

> Spyware is software that aids in gathering information about a person or
> organization without their knowledge and that may send such information to
> another entity without the consumer's consent, or that asserts control over
> a computer without the consumer's knowledge.

Save me the boring arguments about how regular people who can barely work a
toaster can still somehow magically elect to avoid Analytics using browser
plugins and editing their hosts file

------
domiono
It's not a question if someone with too much power will abuse that power. It
always happens, always. It's not a question of if it will happen or not, it's
a question of when and under what circumstances.

That's why we have the division of power in governments, that's why we have
countries, because too much power concentrated by too few individuals will
always get abused. If not by the individuals themselves, someone else or
another organization, the NSA comes to mind, will find a way to abuse that
power at some point in time when the conditions are right.

~~~
azakai
Yes. The problem is that while we have division of power in governments, there
is little stopping private enterprise from accumulating worrying amounts of
power. There is antitrust law, which in theory should be the solution, but in
practice is hardly applied in modern times.

------
makmanalp
Wild conspiracy theory aside, I just realized that in a few years after the
nest userbase grows more, they could tweak the temperature setting algorithm
to secretly and gradually lower the user's "acceptable" temperature over time
to acclimate users to lower temperatures, cutting energy usage in the world by
a significant amount. Conspiracy for good? :)

~~~
aragot
Good mind! Come to France ;) We're not keen on AC, our office temperatures are
rather 23-27 in summer, we sometimes stink and we know it's good for ecology.
BTW, I'm not sure Nest has any potential in France. Maybe in international
hotels only?

------
nmrm
Eh. This article emphasizes the wrong things. Larry Page isn't some super
villain building robot armies to take over the world. Any significant harm
he/Google might do to the world will likely be via the unintended consequences
of actions motivated primarily by profit. We already see this -- the slow
erosion of privacy expectations, etc.

As for all of the internet of things/robotics acquisitions and R&D... well,
I'm not in the board room during these discussions, but I highly doubt that
building robotic armies is on anyone's mind. More likely, Page et al. see this
as a next major growth area and would like to stay ahead of the curve. Esp.
the Boston Dynamics acquisition is probably less about military applications
than general experience with complicated robots.

~~~
unclebucknasty
> _This article emphasizes the wrong things. Larry Page isn 't some super
> villain building robot armies to take over the world._

The article doesn't say that. The author just lays out the facts, then
concludes by stating that he is _not_ saying that Page will abuse his power,
but simply that he _could_.

> _I highly doubt that building robotic armies is on anyone 's mind._

On what basis do you doubt this? Because it's unpleasant to imagine? Hard to
believe?

Regardless, the point of the article (and indeed, the very title) is that we
have placed a lot of power into one man's hands. Perhaps we should consider
the potential consequences (intended or not), and whether simply "doubting"
that this power will be abused is sufficient.

~~~
nmrm
> The author just lays out the facts, then concludes by stating that he is not
> saying that Page will abuse his power, but simply that he could.

Right, and I think emphasizing nutty conspiracy theories distracts from the
more important systemic and gradual, but perhaps less exciting, impact that
Google _actually_ has (e.g. on privacy.)

You don't need to resort to conspiracy in order to isolate real ways in which
Google has having large -- arguably negative -- impacts on our everyday lives.

> On what basis do you doubt this?

Mostly motive. Google doesn't particularly stand to benefit from building a
private army. But also, I used all my tin foil heating up potatoes.

~~~
unclebucknasty
> _Right, and I think emphasizing nutty conspiracy theories_

I missed the conspiracy theory in the article. Can you point it out? Again, it
appeared to be a series of facts illustrating the power of Google/Page and a
rational question: Do these facts represent the concentration of too much
power in one man's hands?

> _distracts from the more important systemic and gradual, but perhaps less
> exciting, impact that Google actually has (e.g. on privacy.)_

Why can't it be _both-and_ vs. _either-or_? Sure, the privacy issue is clear-
and-present. But, keep in mind that when Google first started, we were just
happy to have such a powerful search-engine. Perhaps it would have been a
"nutty conspiracy theory" then to worry about your privacy. After all, why
would Google abuse their access to your data when _" Google doesn't
particularly stand to benefit from"_... abusing its customers' trust?

What seems most counter-intuitive, however, is that you don't trust them with
your data, but you trust them with, say, launching satellites and wielding
combat-robot technology. I'm not being facetious when I say that it's honestly
kind of hard to find the line with you.

> _Mostly motive._

Pretty amazing that you think you know Page's motives. Actually, scratch that:
we can all surmise. What's amazing is that you're so _certain_.

Regardless, even with the "purest" motives, it's worth considering whether so
much power can lead to unintended consequences.

>* Google doesn't particularly stand to benefit from building a private army.*

Nor does it from abusing your privacy. Or does it?

> _But also, I used all my tin foil heating up potatoes._

Apparently, not. The article never stated that Page was building a private
army. You did.

~~~
nmrm
I wish you would read what I'm writing instead of what you want me to (not) be
writing.

>The article never stated that Page was building a private army. You did.

Oh come on. It's the entire damn point of the article. Without this running
narrative, the article's just a list of Google's most successful products and
its recent acquisitions. Despite your claim, the article isn't simply a list.
And the editorializing is the only reason this article is on the front page of
HN. Period.

I realize it's just a rhetorical device, but the article reads still like a
conspiracy theory. The only thing this article does is, at best, lump critics
of Google's privacy behavior in with conspiracy nuts.

And there's no reason to appeal to fantastical "what-if's" when there are
real, demonstrable problems.

> Why can't it be both-and vs. either-or?

It can be (see below), and I think the notion that I somehow implied Google's
new expansions cannot be problematic is mostly a fabrication of your
indigence.

It's just that I think the narrative of the article is completely ridiculous
and trivializes actual avenues for abuse.

What is Google doing to do with military technology? It has 3 options:

1\. Use it to create technology which augments its other ventures.

2\. Sell to US Govt or our allies.

3\. Create a private army or sell to our enemies.

2 and 3 don't worry me for the same reason I don't worry about Boeing taking
over the world; military tech is closely monitored and regulated. I don't have
to know Page's motives to know that he knows that if he were try try 3, he'd
probably end up in prison or dead.

I don't have to be omniscient to assume he probably wouldn't take that kind of
risk. And hell, I don't even need to know anything about him to know that if
he did, the US military would be able to easily unilaterally shut him down.

Scenario 1 worries me (despite what you've read into my previous comments),
but it's really just an additional element of the _privacy_ problem. And the
author was too busy telling a cute story to focus on non-insane potential
avenues of abuse.

TL;DR: Rhetoric matters, and the rhetoric of this article is unhelpful at
best, and possibly harmful.

------
orcdork
That's quite a bit of headpatting.

Because you know, B.O. - a young man has risen from humble begginings to rule
over one of the most powerful countries in the world. K.J.U. - a pudgy asian
young man that enjoyed pointing at things and cake now holds the keys to the
awesome power of NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

And let's not mention that wiley rascal, V.P., an unassuming ex secret agent
in a semi frozen country, that has risen to the rank of president, controlling
as many 2 MILLION TROOPS.

Anyway, did you guys know amazon has tinfoil now. Also drones. And they now
what we buy. And an army of people at their command, driving around every
corner of the earth for no reason! Sure, they say that they "deliver" stuff,
but you know what else is delivered? MILITARY PAYLOADS! Damn that handsome
J.B.!

------
themartorana
With truly evil billionaires out there - the Koch brothers come to mind - and
family run organizations that take horrible advantage of employees - like
Walmart and the Waltons - why is it so many people want to make a case against
Google and its founders?

Yes, it makes sense to keep a check on powers. But I'm way more worried about
all of our three-letter agencies and the private billionaire donations behind
the power structure in Washington than the company that may in fact give me
self-driving cars, give Internet access to remote parts of the world, and so
on.

This article feels like it's doing nothing but trying to build an evil genius
narrative where none exists. When you summon images of Lex Luther in the first
sentence, you've lost me.

~~~
wwwwwwwwww
>With truly evil billionaires out there - the Koch brothers come to mind

what the fuck do you think gives you the right to claim someone is evil? I
literally cannot imagine how much of a goddamn bubble you must live in to
think you have any right to call someone evil because their political opinions
differ from yours.

~~~
k__
Isn't evil as undefined as good?

~~~
pjscott
Although people have different definitions of 'good' and 'evil', in practice
most people roughly agree about most of it. Humans have very similar minds.
It's easy to lose sight of this, since discussion mostly focuses on the parts
where we disagree, but that's some pretty serious selection bias.

~~~
k__
I think the opposite is the case.

There is a big bunch of people who thing gays are bad or blacks or jews or
people who don't believe in their god.

The war on drugs also made many people "evil" in the eye of those who don't
did drugs, but most of them just were a bunch of spaced-out-hippies.

------
scalene
What about the Presidency of the United States? Anyone that gets elected to
this position has quite a bit more power than Larry Page.

~~~
jqm
I don't think modern presidents actually have as much power as people commonly
assume. The massive bureaucracies under them take awhile to learn to
navigate... and by that time your 4-8 years is up.

Not to mention checks and balances.

~~~
dm2
The POTUS is unquestionably the most powerful person on the planet.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powers_of_the_President_of_the_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powers_of_the_President_of_the_United_States)

The ability to engage in wars of almost any scale by itself is enough to
command the respect of anyone. They're suppose to have congressional approval
but they regularly bypass that.

The President of the US also is tasked with appointing over 6000 of the top
federal officials and federal judges. The POTUS can change the CIA director
(which is arguably the 2nd most powerful organization in the world, only
seconded by the US Navy), and the NSA, FBI, NASA, and many others.

Foreign and domestic policy is greatly influenced by the President, they can
very easily change the direction of humanity, (Iraq and Afghanistan wars,
millions killed, so much money spent, unknown what the world would be like
today if they hadn't happened).

If the president really wanted to, he could declassify almost anything and
even give the order to launch a nuclear missile (might require Emergency
Powers, which he has the right to use).

Forbes says Putin is more powerful, it's debatable I suppose.
[http://www.forbes.com/powerful-people/list/](http://www.forbes.com/powerful-
people/list/)

------
jonnathanson
I'm not sure I buy into the Larry Page-as-Lex-Luthor analogy, even if it's
meant to be more evocative than literally descriptive. (Page has achieved,
circumstantially, what Luthor single-mindedly strove to do.) People seem to
want to attribute sinister motives to Page, and while I don't know the man,
all available evidence suggests he's more ambitious business tycoon than Big
Brother-in-training.

I do, however, think there's something very interesting in this piece. Namely,
what does it _mean_ for someone to hold such potential power over the lives of
so many? In the grand sweep of history, the amount of theoretical control over
the world afforded to someone in Larry Page's position has accumulated in the
blink of an eye, and it's staggering.

Technology is changing more quickly than our ability to understand its
ethical, socioeconomic, and even existential implications. That doesn't mean
we have to adopt the Luddite program, to be frightened of technology, and to
slow its progress. We should welcome the rapid progress, and encourage
technology. At the same time, perhaps we need to get a lot more serious about
developing a coherent philosophy of technology, and a forward-looking
technology policy. For instance: it's still a bit crackpotish to suggest we
should be working on a Three Laws of Robotics in 2014, but that notion will
become less outlandish in the next few years. And maybe, as Asimov subtly
suggested, _we 're_ the robots who need the guidelines.

We live in very interesting times. More accurately, we're living the prologue
to some very interesting times.

------
oldmanjay
I don't really agree with the premise, which is that drewdavismedia is
intelligent enough to decide for other people what they are allowed to have.

------
spindritf
_I’m not saying that Page is going to abuse his power. I am saying that he
could._

And do what? Be specific. Read my e-mails?

The constant fear of corporations has been puzzling me ever since I saw
RoboCop. Back then at least it was tied to the fear of rising Japan who
contributed to the world war not too long before.

The tech companies on the other hand have to be some of the most meek and
least abusive organizations in existence. They pale in comparison even to a
provincial police office who will dispatch storm troopers and search your
house for plants based on the flimsiest of evidence.[1]

Yet in some people's mind they are this imminent threat, though not really
specified. How does that happen?

[1]
[http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/law_enfor...](http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/law_enforcement_and_police/news.php?q=1395942059)

~~~
nmrm
1\. Society has lots of problems. Probably mass incarceration is a much larger
problem than over-armed local police departments. That doesn't mean we
shouldn't address the problem of over-armed local police departments. It also
doesn't mean the problems are unrelated.

Similarly, militarization of police and decreased personal privacy
expectations are probably not completely unrelated. And we don't have to focus
on one to the exclusion of the other.

2\. Actually, yes, Google is reading your emails. Even if you don't use gmail,
they probably know who you are and who you talk with and what you talk about.

Eroding privacy is a real social problem. I'm not sure why you are so quick to
trivialize.

3\. Tech corporations may have great PR, but they are certainly aware of the
fact that they externalize costs in the forms of e-waste dumping and horrible
labor conditions. Just because you don't have to see this stuff doesn't mean
it does not exist.

------
g123g
I am pretty sure there is a much larger vision behind all these seemingly
disjoint acquistions and ventures. One day when the final piece is put
together, we mere mortals will realize what is happening behind the scenes
right now. But it might be too late by then.

------
zhte415
I don't disagree with the general point that power easily corrupts, but found
it odd this was the only post on the website (bar an About page - the Contact
page links to the About page, which contains what I read as blurb as best).

So, like usual, I did a WHOIS.

This domain was registered yesterday: July 12th.

    
    
       Domain Name: DREWDAVISMEDIA.COM
       Registrar: LIQUIDNET LTD.
       Whois Server: whois.liquidnetlimited.com
       Referral URL: http://www.liquidnetlimited.com
       Name Server: DNS1.FREEHOSTIA.COM
       Name Server: DNS2.FREEHOSTIA.COM
       Status: clientTransferProhibited
       Updated Date: 12-jul-2014
       Creation Date: 12-jul-2014
       Expiration Date: 12-jul-2015
    

Seems like FUD to me.

------
zoba
Don't forget that he's also trying to "beat death".
[http://time.com/574/google-vs-death/](http://time.com/574/google-vs-death/)

This could expand his control beyond the world, and as far as the universe! Or
perhaps even, The Multiverse!!

------
izolate
I've always got the impression that Sergey Brin is the true visionary of the
two.

------
DominikR
The whole world dominance theory is an exaggeration. The biggest markets in
the world (by population) are completely closed to Google.

They have their own versions of Facebook, Youtube, Google and everything else
we use here in the west, and that's not going to change anytime soon since the
governments have protectionist policies in these sectors.

And even in parts of the west, namely the EU, policies are implemented which
are trying to push Google out of the market, or at least weaken it severely,
to allow their local industries to grow.

Whatever you might fear that Google will become some day, it wont happen,
since they wont even get a fair chance in most markets to get dominant. And
even if they do, they will be pushed out by the government, if it can afford
it.

~~~
azakai
True, but that doesn't change things for people living in North America. Also,
even in Europe Google is doing extremely well (look at market share in search,
for example), despite legislators being somewhat adversary.

------
paul_f
Last I checked, GOOG is a public company that answers to a board of directors
and shareholders. Not a private company with a megalomaniac potentate heading
it up.

~~~
blibble
Larry and Sergey control 55% of the voting rights:

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2014/04/02/google-
sto...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2014/04/02/google-stock-split-
in-larry-and-sergey-we-trust/)

if the rest of the shareholders don't agree with them they can... do
absolutely nothing about it

~~~
Scoundreller
I actually don't worry too much about them.

It's if/when these massive tech companies go bankrupt and monopolistic control
crudely goes to the highest bidder (likely some leveraged buyout organization)
that I worry about.

~~~
michaelfeathers
This.

We've already seen a number of cases where technology that was originally
royalty-free or open source becomes encumbered after sale of a company.

Theoretically, companies that want to "do good" could put IP and data in a
separate trust, but that's kind of like throwing away money you might need
when times are tough.

I remember people saying "but Sun would never.." before Sun was acquired.
Oracle has been a decent caretaker, but I doubt that (for instance) that
anyone ever imagined that there would ever be a need to fork Hudson.

The takeaway for all of us is - Don't trust assurances of companies about
their assets unless they have taken steps to protect them independently.

~~~
Scoundreller
Indeed Detroit is going through this with their museum's assets, which could
be liquidated to pay creditors. Suddenly I understood (part of) why owners of
art lend things to museums instead of giving them.

As a further comment to my post, I guess it's safe to say I trust Brin and
Page more than I trust control split apart a million ways to a million middle-
class people like myself. If someone made the argument that Google could do
something evil and I'd only have to work 30 hours per week for the rest of my
life instead of 40, I'd be tempted. Brin and Page have no such incentive.

------
rasengan0
I like a good story that appeals to emotions but unfortunately emergent self
organization appears to dispel conspiracy:
[http://www.ted.com/talks/james_b_glattfelder_who_controls_th...](http://www.ted.com/talks/james_b_glattfelder_who_controls_the_world)

Unfortunately, because I think modulation is easier with less moving parts.

------
cybdestroyer
What was the point of this awfully written collection of words? Also, could
someone contact the author and let him know of the existence of Microsoft
Word? His contact link is broken and he has way too many typos to be in the
front page of Hacker News.

------
restless
"Of course this is not a fictional story. The company in question is not
Lexcorp, it is Google." Another mission for Captain Obvious

------
kabouseng
This, and some of the comments sounds like something out of Ayn Rand's "Atlas
Shrugged". Damn those that make profit and dont share it with those with less
ability...

~~~
nmrm
What the hell are you talking about?

The article is about power, not money. Also, there's no suggested course of
action. In fact, a legitimate course of action could be "stop using Google's
services so that if shit hits the fan, they don't have your data".

How could enlightened self-interest of consumers ever possibly be construed as
an assault on liberty (or whatever-the-hell)?

It's really best never to think of those you disagree with in terms of flat
caricatures.

~~~
kabouseng
Have you read Atlas shrugged?

~~~
nmrm
To reiterate, how could enlightened ( _individual_ ) self-interest of
consumers ever possibly be construed as an assault on liberty (or whatever-
the-hell)?

edit: Pretty sure not eating McDonald's every day is not an affront to
capitalism. To assume that critics of McDonald's food are automatically
calling for regulation/whatever, instead of just trying to educate people to
help them act in their self-interest, is a caricature. Similarly, suggesting
any critic of Google is automatically some sort of proto-communist is a
ridiculous caricature.

~~~
kabouseng
>>To reiterate, how could enlightened (individual) self-interest of consumers
ever possibly be construed as an assault on liberty (or whatever-the-hell)?

Read the book and you'll know...

~~~
nmrm
To the extent that you think objectivism is inconsistent with choosing not to
use a product or convincing others not to use a product, I think you've missed
the point. In particular, not using Google because you think your privacy is
more valuable than the value generated by google's products is pretty
exemplary of rational selfishness and individual freedom.

To the extent that you're correct, you're just discrediting Rand as a true
private sector authoritarian.

edit: I've read the book.

------
peteretep
Let's say Larry Page knew who I was, and didn't like me. Does he really
actually have the ability to go in and read my email? I would guess not...

------
ilaksh
I assume that this comment will just be buried so that others can't even read
it, since it will go against most people's belief systems.

I saw several people in here say something about "conspiracy theories" as if
to refute a "conspiracy theory" that was stated in the thread. But I didn't
see any such thing said. Maybe I missed it.

I will go ahead and start on the "conspiracy theories" by linking to the
following story from Al Jazeera:

Exclusive: Emails reveal close Google relationship with NSA

[http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/5/6/nsa-chief-
goo...](http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/5/6/nsa-chief-google.html)

Why would anyone think that everyone (the world) would just let Larry Page and
Google do whatever they want? At a certain point, either people with power
attached themselves to this enterprise, or they just decided to give up their
power and let Page and Google take it.

I think its a fantasy to believe that there aren't governments involved or
that they really just have everyone's best interests in mind.

