Also putting the url domain in the title is redundant.
Not to mention the article's hysterical tone.
Anyway, IMO this whole thing is in fact very much to do with the EU, but not in the way the author thinks. The EU is actually far more concerned with privacy than with monopolies when it comes to the internet right now. As monopoly-like as google may be online, its not in the same ballpark as where MS was/is with windows and office. On the other hand, the EU is in the middle of lots of large-scale actions around privacy. Remember the cookie directives? That isn't the last of it.
Decisions like this will come back to haunt them at that time. It's like the microsoft bundling of IE, it must have seemed like a very good idea at the time.
Giving those that oppose you iron-clad arguments for the implementation of Chinese walls does not seem like a good idea to me.
On the other hand, I assumed it was all the privacy and security vulnerabilities that go along with not using SSL, and they were doing it to protect the consumer. It's already been an option for a while, allowing those who truly care to test it out. This just changes it to be the default.
I don't think the author is right about Google's reasons, and I don't think it's a particularly logical leap, either.
Google is a company that buys and sell's ad's. This funds their free services like docs, mail and search.
Without their ad's Google wouldn't exist and using their search data to help with adwords is simply Google adding value to their main revenue stream.
Google using SSL helps protect you from third parties. By using Google for search you are effectively saying you trust them. If this bother's you use Bing...
And, quite agree.