Slashdot Log In
Chrome EULA Reserves the Right To Filter Your Web
Posted by
timothy
on Sat Apr 04, 2009 06:43 PM
from the here's-some-birdseed-for-you dept.
from the here's-some-birdseed-for-you dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Recently, I decided to try out Google Chrome. With my usual mistrust of Google, I decided to carefully read the EULA before installing the software. I paused when I stumbled upon this section: '7.3 Google reserves the right (but shall have no obligation) to pre-screen, review, flag, filter, modify, refuse or remove any or all Content from any Service. For some of the Services, Google may provide tools to filter out explicit sexual content. These tools include the SafeSearch preference settings (see google.com/help/customize.html#safe). In addition, there are commercially available services and software to limit access to material that you may find objectionable.'
Does this mean that Google reserves the right to filter my web browsing experience in Chrome (without my consent to boot)? Is this a carry-over from the EULAs of Google's other services (gmail, blogger etc), or is this something more significant? One would think that after the previous EULA affair with Chrome, Google would try to sound a little less draconian." Update: 04/05 21:14 GMT by T : Google's Gabriel Stricker alerted me to an informative followup: "We saw your Slashdot post and published the following clarification on the Google Chrome blog."
Related Stories
Submission: Chrome EULA reserves the right to filter your web by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Maybe just legalese? (Score:5, Informative)
It's probably just a safety measure for their anti-phishing features which block pages but it's a weird formulation anyway
Re:Maybe just legalese? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Maybe just legalese? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Maybe just legalese? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Maybe just legalese? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think so. People, even in China, may decide which browser use. They would not use the one that filter contents.
And if you want chrome without the EULA you can use Chromiun. It's just like Chrome without the Google logo. It is FOSS, you can dig in the source code looking for the content filter before using it.
Parent
Re:Maybe just legalese? (Score:4, Insightful)
Most likely. I'm pretty sure that their legal department took a look at that particular feature, and decided they were going to write a document that will make it impossible for anybody to sue Google over that feature.
This is pretty much standard legalese. Not that it makes it good or anything, but I would expect nothing less from a document drafted by an eager lawyer.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If:
a) Chrome was the only browser available
-or-
b) Chrome was actually blocking content
I would agree with you. It would be a big deal. However, no one is forcing you to do jack shit. If you are really that scared of the Chrome EULA, don't use Chrome.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
FWIW, I stopped buying Apple products over some EULA wording.
"Comparable to Apple" doesn't make it acceptable. Now Google isn't exactly trying to sell me something, but unless I hear a convincing explanation as to why it's harmless (not could be harmless, or should be harmless, or is intended to be harmless), then I'm not going to consider Chrome as an acceptable product.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Except that the GPL is explicitally not an EULA. An installer treating it as an EULA dosn't make it anymore an EULA than if that installer contained lorem ipsum, a newspaper report, a poem, a short story, a quote from a holy book, etc, etc. Though the creator of the installer could be accused of copyright infringement in certain cases, possibly including that of misrepresenting the GPL as an EULA...
You can't do anything in a EULA that is unconstitutional, it doesn't hold up
No, you paranoid git (Score:2, Informative)
Google is saying that they may provide you with filtering services which may affect other users on your system.
It's not about filtering your child and horse porn, pervert.
Re:No, you paranoid git (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not about filtering your child and horse porn, pervert.
So now someone's a pervert for wanting to get rid of the possibility of censorship at least at browser level? Thinkofthechildren at its finest.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
!ahugedeal (Score:5, Insightful)
This looks like FUD to me.
Re: (Score:2)
But is the source code Google releases actually the source code from which Google builds Chrome?
I'm not sure where, but I got the impression that there's some proprietary closed-source code involved in actual Chrome builds.
Re: (Score:2)
And I don't mean trademarks/artwork like in firefox/seamonkey/thunderbird.
Artwork and trademarks are trivial to replace.
Take off you thin foil hat (Score:5, Interesting)
This is refering to SafeSearch and Orkut and whatever,
Probably carryon from other licenses, you see. Too bad the layers are not called on it.
Re:Take off you thin foil hat (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Take off you thin foil hat (Score:5, Funny)
He has paranoid conspiracy theories... who needs evidence?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The NSA must be using the ever-changing dynamics of PageRank behind the scenes to brute force crack all my encrypted emails...
Google would never... (Score:5, Funny)
I for one welcome our new robot overlGoogle doesn't filter the Internet.
Google Services? (Score:2, Interesting)
It seems to me this is meant to cover only the use of Google's own services.
I Don't know why they'd include this in their browser's EULA, however.
probably just on by default (Score:5, Insightful)
In any case, I am as suspicious of google as anyone, but this seems like just normal CYA. As long as the filtering can be turned off, there is no issue. It is certainly not like when Google says the own the copyright to anything you create and put on their servers. That feature, while necessary to protect themselves for free service, cannot be turned off.
Usual Mistrust? (Score:3, Insightful)
With my usual mistrust of Google...
The potential for evil in the Google has only been questioned for a year or so, far too soon for you to utilize the term "usual" which assumes a long-term pattern.
One might say, "With my growing mistrust of Google..." Yes. That would be fine. Carry on.
Re:Usual Mistrust? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say it's unnecessary editorializing outright.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree.
That phrase makes it sound like the OP is just trying to be hip by jumping on the Google-hate/Do Evil/etc. bandwagon that's become so big recently.
Total overreactive non-story.
(with a sensationalist headline to boot!)
Mistrust of Google (Score:5, Funny)
Usually just translates as "I'm an asshole spammer-SEO upset that my shenanigans get nixed".
Parent
Re:Usual Mistrust? (Score:4, Insightful)
googlewatch.com has existed for nearly 6 years now. The potential for evil in Google has been questioned for at least the last half decade. I recall concerns over google's "do no evil" surviving their IPO and that about 5 years ago.
Half a decade in technology is near a couple of lifetimes in other industries.
Some may disagree with the need to scrutinize Google to the extend that others do, but personally, I'm glad people do things like this, even if it occasionally raises a false alarm. Any organization with access to the type of data Google has needs watchdogs.
Parent
Relax! It's just google's standard boilerplate... (Score:5, Informative)
I don't see anything hidden, or nefarious, or even anything very difficult to understand. It's simply that they use these TOS as their baseline agreement, and modify it as necessary to suit the specifics of the particular service offered. I really don't think it's anything to get excited about.
Re:Relax! It's just google's standard boilerplate. (Score:5, Insightful)
And now to replace the word "Service"
7.3 Google reserves the right (but shall have no obligation) to pre-screen, review, flag, filter, modify, refuse or remove any or all Content from any of Google's products, software, services and web sites. For some of Google's products, software, services and web sites, Google may provide tools to filter out explicit sexual content. These tools include the SafeSearch preference settings (see google.com/help/customize.html#safe). In addition, there are commercially available services and software to limit access to material that you may find objectionable.
If that doesn't make it clear that Google only plans to filter Google services, I don't know what will.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
If that doesn't make it clear that Google only plans to filter Google services, I don't know what will.
So, you're saying that Google Chrome is a Google Service, and as a Google Service, it may be filtered. Thanks. You've cleared up a great mystery.
Re:Relax! It's just google's standard boilerplate. (Score:5, Informative)
And now to replace the word "Service"
7.3 Google reserves the right (but shall have no obligation) to pre-screen, review, flag, filter, modify, refuse or remove any or all Content from any of Google's products, software, services and web sites. For some of Google's products, software, services and web sites, Google may provide tools to filter out explicit sexual content. These tools include the SafeSearch preference settings (see google.com/help/customize.html#safe). In addition, there are commercially available services and software to limit access to material that you may find objectionable.
If that doesn't make it clear that Google only plans to filter Google services, I don't know what will.
Except that you're totally incorrect. Let's now replace the word Content (and replace "Services" again in that definition):
7.3 Google reserves the right ... to pre-screen, review, flag, filter, modify, refuse or remove any or all information (such as data files, written text, computer software, music, audio files or other sounds, photographs, videos or other images) which you may have access to as part of, or through your use of any of Google's products, software, services and web sites from any of Google's products, software, services and web sites.
The part in italics is critical. They are explicitly saying that it is not limited to Google's own content - it is anything you access using Google's "Services" which may be filtered. So long as you use Chrome to access it, they have the full range of rights they list (pre-screen, review, flag, filter, modify, refuse, remove).
Chrome is a 'product' and 'software', and therefore a 'Service'. The whole of the WWW is something you 'have access to as part of, or through your use of' Chrome. Google reserves the right to filter, monitor etc etc your use OF THE WWW WHEN YOU USE CHROME.
I have tried to set this out in more detail here [intelligentdesign.com.au].
Why, oh why, are people so hell bent on trusting massive corporations to just "do the right thing" and have their customers' best interests at heart when the evidence to the contrary is put in front of their faces over and over and over again?
Parent
Right To See Doesn't Imply Google's Obligation (Score:3, Insightful)
It's easy , isn't it, to attribute negative intent to language when you claim the right to alter the language.
If someone wants to know the intent of Google's language, then ask Google, and watch what they do.
To me, the language establishes a claim to the right, but not any obligation, to filter "Content." The OP doesn't tell us how Google defines "Content,", which is likely found elsewhere in the EULA. The distinction between search results and content created by Google or others who use them as a host is
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just because it's boilerplate doesn't mean it's ineffective.
So "Services" includes Chrome itself (software/products) not just Google search etc. "Content" is:
Therefore, anything y
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Some people seem happy to have their browser flag attack and phishing sites. The essence of that action is filtering.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree that it is just standard boilerplate but it's still inappropriate. Considering what Google must have spent writing Chrome it's hard to see why they wouldn't spend just a bit more to have an appropriate EULA written.
Not a bad thing maybe (Score:5, Funny)
I suggest that the google programmers bring up a small dialogue when they filter which may help;
We here at google have decided to filter some images that you were about to view. We do this in recognition that some things cannot be "unseen". This is one of those times. This is not about hot porn which does not usually sting the brain with lasting effect. These images will gross you out so bad that no amount of unicorns dancing under rainbows will help. Trust us. Sending these images along will violate our mission statement of not doing evil. Regards, google.
Re:Not a bad thing maybe (Score:4, Interesting)
You know, Firefox could really use a goatse filter.
Parent
Re:Not a bad thing maybe (Score:5, Funny)
Yes. I remember when it first started here. I learned very fast to watch the url in the status bar (then somebody did a mouseover attack, but /. quickly learned to filter that out). 11 years and it still gives me the creeps.
Parent
Tinfoil Hat Purchasing Advice (Score:5, Funny)
I am in the market for a Tin Foil Hat but so far have been unsuccessful in purchasing a really good one.
I did some research on where to buy the best models and took the bus to the store to buy. The salesman was very helpful and I was starting to feel good that all that research had paid off and I would soon be safe.
But then it hit me. The salesman was being TOO HELPFUL! I immediately saw right through the deception. He was one of THEM!
I immediately ran from the store doing my best to cover my face with a series of dive rolls towards the door and managed to make it out of the store safely. But I was now in clear sight of THEM with no where to hide.
After desperately running down the street I managed to find refuge in a woman's bathroom for a few moments before the screams of female THEMs alerted the THEM enforcers with blue uniforms and gold badges. They dragged me away to a nearby THEM detention center with others. Not a single other detainee was wearing a Tin Foil Hat - the poor sods.
I vowed to never let this happen again. I am glad people like timothy are out there look out for us and protecting us from THEM.
Thank you timothy!
PS. I am writing this post out with my own feces. So please excuse the penmanship.
Couple Points (Score:2, Informative)
It sounds like they could filter it if they wanted to. There are a couple key points to consider here. I don't know how important any of them are from a legal point of view but I can see how they would apply.
1. They're not responsible if things look different in Chrome than they do in other browsers. Whatever causes it, you agree not to have a cow. (think acid3 test, etc)
2. If you're using their software to do google searches then it's ok if you get a safe search and not an unfiltered one (although you shou
Services (Score:5, Insightful)
My first impression is that this article may be an over reaction. The quoted terms are abut "services", and I don't think they really involve the browser itself. For example it mentions Google Search and the Safe Search option. I'm a bit disappointed that Safe Search defaults to max filtering mode, but it is very easy to turn it completely off. So far it seems that Google has been doing a pretty good job of things.
If/when Google pulls any nasty stunt I will be in the front lines bitching at them, be thus far I think the article might be an over sensitive reading.
-
If you're THAT paranoid about Google... (Score:4, Interesting)
...you should probably be using Iron [srware.net] instead of just Chrome.
Chrome is its own competition (Score:3, Insightful)
In any case, it's open source (under the name Chromium [google.com]), so if you don't like Google's EULA, or any other part of their plans for Chrome, you will be able to download and run one of the third-party, de-Googlised builds of Chromium, or even build your own. It seems unlikely that Google would impose particularly unpalatable terms on Chrome, given that it comes with its own competition built in.
Compile it your self (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean if you don't like the chrome EULA or the firefox EULA, take the code compile it yourself and STFU.
Summaries are filtered and modified. (Score:5, Informative)
The capital 'S' in Service means they are using their definition and not the dictionary.
At the beginning of the EULA you see that Service menas "Google's products, software, services and web sites"
So basically they are telling you that the data you get directly from Google may not be the raw unfiltered reality. And that makes sense. Google for anything if you want to see a filtered and modified view, although in this case it's a summary.
This sounds more like up front honesty than evil.
I haven't read the EULAs of other browsers, (Score:3, Insightful)
In any case, if you are concerned about your privacy or don't like advertisements, install privoxy [privoxy.org].
Otherwise, enjoy your Chrome experience! It is significantly [davidnaylor.org] and quantifiably [pcmag.com] better than the competition.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And this is amplified by Google's stance on Open Source (in comparison to Microsoft), which as you can imagine is a reasonably persuasive stance in this crowd.
The only good argument I've heard against google is people being worried about all their data being off site: ie, it's available to someone else, and possibly unavailable to yo
here we go again (again) (Score:3, Informative)
Possibly.
Yes.
Not likely, but I guess you never know. Don't forget that they can change the terms of the agreement whenever they like, without your prior approval or consent.
All disclaimers, license agreements, and contracts sound draconian. They're written in legalese to be clear, precise, serious, and intimidating. They're designed to give the authoring party as much power as possible while limiting their liability to nothing.
The solution, however, is pretty simple: If you have any doubts at all about the terms of an agreement, don't agree to it. Or ask Google the change it. Submitting a Slashdot article about it is just a lot of pointless whining.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The language in the EULA is pretty wide-open, so I'm trusting that Google will use this feature for my benefit and allow me to change my preferences. If they don't, I'll stick with Firefox. That's the beauty of competition in the marketplace.