The foundation of a more secure web apparently requires you to trust Google with the entire internet, using their properties as leverage to force it to be so.
Especially since Google is US based.
Back in the real world, we have multiple CAs who have accountability for lots of overlapping domains. You can wish for some other non-existent situation, everyone else has to make the best of the situation as it stands.
Domains can compete with each other, particularly given the big opening up of TLDs. We could have actual competition between CAs at the end-user-facing level because it'd be visible to the user who the CA was (the CA and the registry ought to be merged - at the moment they're two parallel sets of infrastructure for doing the same thing), and if particular domains/CAs had poor-quality identity checking users might actually start to notice. As opposed to today, where the only one who knows which CA a domain might be using is the domain owner, and so the incentive largely is for the CA to do as little checking as possible.
> Back in the real world, we have multiple CAs who have accountability for lots of overlapping domains. You can wish for some other non-existent situation, everyone else has to make the best of the situation as it stands.
There's a migration path. Enable DNSSEC/DANE with all CAs authorized for all domains initially, then allow countries / TLD owners to start restricting who can sign certificates for their domains. If Hong Kong moved to requiring only Hong Kong Post Office to sign their domains, we could see how well or badly that model works - if it reduces phishing / spying then other countries will follow the same, if it stifles innovative internet businesses then they'll move away from that. But 150+ entities all having the power to own every site on the internet can't possibly be the right model.
Simply mean used by the majority of the users?
So any sufficiently good product is monopoly, assuming that they are goodness is beyond the threshold to be favored by the majority of customers.
What do you want to say about Google's monopoly? Are Google going to hurt others and throttle effective competition? Was there any competition in CA market at all?
To answer your later questions:
Too many essential services under one umbrella.
Not quite.
It's competition stifling.
Yes.
Yes.
Google saw the dismal situation of Internet CA, and forces internet to move to a better situation. Forcing people behave better is a good thing, IMHO. If you think other way around, there will not be a common ground for discussion between you and me.
It's disgusting but pretty much corporate life 101.
It's after the fact, to be sure, but it matters for reputation.
They will already log their public certificates to CT and this will continue given their push for CT.