Is Chrome Google's Trojan Horse?

My concerns about Google gaining too much power are long-standing and well-documented, as will be made clear in my first planned feature-length documentary -- OK, a 30-second podcast -- to be called, "My Longstanding Concerns About Google (Gaining Too Much Power)".

Until its premiere, you can marvel at my prescience here and here. But I must say that, on the Google Fear-o-meter, I am a rank amateur compared to tech writer Michael Malone. Writing for ABC News' web site, Malone explores the potential reasons behind Google's soft rollout of its new Chrome browser:

Why would a company that knows it has a solid and newsworthy product on its hands intentionally dampen media coverage of it?

The answer, I think, was that it was a long-term strategic decision to make Chrome look almost like an afterthought. And I think that decision was made at the highest levels of Google, perhaps by CEO Eric Schmidt.

Why? Because Google's ambitions are bigger than most of us have ever imagined, and the company is now rich enough, and powerful enough, to execute them -- even if it means the short-term sacrifice of a major new revenue source.

One more thing: If Google pulls off this strategy, it will be the most valuable company on the planet. It will also be the scariest … and we should start worrying about that right now.

This would be where, if this were on TV, ABC News would cut to a commercial. Instead, Malone embarks on a history of "Silicon Valley philosophical streams," the main point of which is that techno-geek culture "has absolutist (some would even say totalitarian) tendencies, in that it also believes that the empiricism of science and technology supersedes messy human institutions." I think you know where this is leading...

[N]owhere is the power to apply technology for its own sake more available than at Google. And despite the company's motto, and childlike logo and home page, this is the real driving force behind the company. And the long-term goal of this applied technology? Google has already said it: to manage all of the world's information.

Five years ago, this seemed harmless enough, even welcome. The Web is a huge, messy place -- so what's wrong with having some help navigating through it? But as Google has grown larger, and after it has taken over the big, general stuff (the Web) and begun focusing on the smaller, more specialized stuff (libraries, personal records, search patterns) that we begin to understand what "all" means ... and what Google is willing to do to get it.

One more message from our sponsor, and then back to Malone explaining what this has to do with Google's new browser:

Only a few people have noticed that, until recently, in the Terms of Service for signing up for Chrome, Google demands "perpetual, irrevocable, world-wide, royalty free and non-exclusive" license to any materials users create with the browser. (Google on Thursday announced that it was rescinding the clause.)

Granted, Google dropped the clause, but what if there hadn't been so much pushback? Even floating this kind of outrageous power grab indicates a certain arrogance that should raise real concerns. I'm glad Malone (and others) are raising them.