In the middle of Sept., the House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee sent a letter to Google inquiring about their new internet protocol. Currently, the cause for concern is how it threatens antitrust laws, but no formal action has been taken yet as Google is still under investigation.

The protocol aims to improve online security by making it more challenging for companies to access consumer data. This would occur by encrypting the domain name system (DNS) so that the consumer has control over who shares their internet-surfing history.

DNS is important because it is a decentralized naming system for resources connected to the Internet, and it is able to tie information with the domain names given to people active on the website. In other words, it can track individual user activity on a website. The new DNS will be deployed on a small-scale relatively soon. In doing this, Google hopes that by encrypting internet traffic it will deter hackers and sleazy data mining companies.

While this measure may come off as well-intended, it is a slick way for Google to potentially monopolize search browsers, limit competition and leave consumer privacy concerns unsatisfied.

According to StatCounter, 63.7 percent of the worldwide browser market uses Google Chrome. Safari is the next contender with 16.34 percent, and Firefox follows up with 4.45 percent. In this oligopolistic setting, it’s feasible that Google will strive for a pure monopoly. Google has an immense database of consumer information that is of great value to marketers, so it is a necessary asset in today’s world of data-driven marketing. If Google limits what data is and isn’t available for companies, it will hinder an organization’s marketing capabilities.

Since the closest competitor to Google is Safari, Google has plenty of leeway in establishing the norms for browsers. If companies want access to the best information available, Google is obviously the better option just by the mere bulk of data in their hands.

Data equals power. In retaining this power, Google can mitigate competition on their terms. Companies may not be able to observe user behavior as they have before. Therefore, businesses will lose a crucial outlet in understanding consumer behavior unless they adhere to Google’s regulations.

Understandably, Google is trying to address consumer concern over data rights— a major issue that has to be dealt with—but this won’t fix it. People want their data to be protected and under their control. This is an unrealistic approach, though, because marketers need access to consumer data in order for them to cater to the increasing expectations the market places on companies.

If Google truly wants to make a change, then it should ban companies who abuse consumer’s data from using their browser. For example, when platforms such as Facebook enable data to be used for political purposes, the repercussions should be felt on the federal level, but also on the online realm.

We already know Google is the God of content, so let’s see some of this power go towards defeating the unethical businesses.