Chrome EULA Reserves the Right To Filter Your Web 171
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."
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)
Re:Maybe just legalese? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't I download this softwares [trustfm.net] off Ziddu? D:
Red box. D:
Re:Maybe just legalese? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I would suggest trying SRWare Iron, a build of Chrome with all the nasty stuff removed: http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron.php [srware.net]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you also refuse to utilize Firefox? If you are truly making this assumption then you really should refuse to use Firefox because those web forgery notifications probably meet your definition of censorship. I tend to visit the censored pages to make sure that I supply them with some worthless drivel. I wouldn't want the spam scamming nimrods to be left without any humor, plus the bogus information helps the ecommerce victims draw a crosshair bead on the perpetrators. If Elvis, John Wayne, and Jimmy He
Re: (Score:2)
The Mozilla EULA [mozilla.com] doesn't say anything similar to the clause in the Chrome terms, yet they somehow managed to avoid a lawsuit. Moreover, both EULAs can be avoided completely by compiling from the freely-licensed source code.
The Chrome clause seems to be more related to a service than to a product. Probably more legal recycling by Google.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
They decided to change the meaning of the legal boilerplate, without, however, changing the words used in the document.
Wha? I'm obviously not a lawyer but that sounds pretty strange.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't look like an anti-phishing measure to me. It's a clause so they don't get sued when someone uses their internet browser for something illegal.
In addition, there are commercially available services and software to limit access to material that you may find objectionable.
Well thanks to Google et al we now know that we don't have to look at shit we don't want to, apparentely. Thank the Lord for multinational corporations telling us what to do.
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:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is Firefox GPL?
That always irritates me when a GPL program does that. I don't understand why anybody who understands the GPL would think that made any sense.
Maybe whoever packages the installer dosn't actually understand this at all. Thus instead of either putting "There is no EULA" in the box or disabling the "accept EULA" section of the installer they instead put something which is utterly meaningless in that context. Thing is tha
Re: (Score:2)
Virtually all of the Firefox code base is MPL/GPL/LGPL Tri-licensed. There are a few libraries that are not, but generally those are libraries with a standard permissive license, like the 2 clause bsd, the expat, etc. I think all of the MPL-only code has been replaced long ago.
As for needing to enter a EULA, a few installation engines may require this. Most do not, but default to having such a page. The packagers of software though may feel that they should have such a page, even if it is optional. A few of
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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:2)
Now Google isn't exactly trying to sell me something
No, Google is just selling you.
Google is selling me too, and I'm not even getting sore. Read that any way you like, the point is, I don't care.
I'll care if I find out that they're using my email for nefarious purposes or something. But then, nobody is emailing me secrets. Even if they were they could just encrypt them with my public key and I could decode them on the client end with FireGPG.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't bother me that Google is selling to advertisers that I search using them, so they might as well include ads relevant to the search. That's a totally separate matter. It would bother me if the ads were intrusive, but they aren't.
This doesn't mean that I'll agree to an EULA that allows them to control what I can see on the web when I'm *not* at their site. And that's what the Chrome EULA looks like.
Re: (Score:2)
This doesn't mean that I'll agree to an EULA that allows them to control what I can see on the web when I'm *not* at their site. And that's what the Chrome EULA looks like.
Sure, I agree. Then again, as far as I can tell, Chrome is unnecessary. I mean, I have gears for Firefox, although I do wish Google would offer an x86_64 build so that I don't have to go to a third party for gears builds.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
No, Google is providing a browser which 99% of the population just click yes to if they have downloaded it, which reserves the right to restrict access to certain websites by default. It is corporate censorship.
I personally just want a fucking browser, and that is it. Filtering is added _after_ the browser.
!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.
When they claim product features are trademarks (Score:2)
Artwork and trademarks are trivial to replace.
Until you get into cases like The Tetris Company claiming trademark rights over the use of tetrominoes in a video game [tetrisconcept.com], even one not called "Tetris" (Tetris v. BioSocia).
Coreboot? (Score:2)
I could have not a single piece of non-self-compiled software on my system
Even BIOS? Or are you a happy Coreboot user?
Re: (Score:2)
You are right. I did not count it, because I did not count the hardware. (Which I should have counted.)
On the other hand, modding me troll is just trollish for "I disagree and am too stupid to accept dissonance" all in itself.
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)
Re: (Score:2)
To google that not skip, just not to display the results.
I would expect them to sell a 'map' of the real internet to interested parties.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Take off you thin foil hat (Score:5, Funny)
He has paranoid conspiracy theories... who needs evidence?
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it it completely unsubstatiated FUD propagated by an ANONYMOUS READER(!?) and misrepresented by an idiotic title. Maybe the silent majority of /. users - who I assume are WAY smarter than the vocal minority (doh - is that me?) who actually post, let alone the actual /. editors who decide it's post-worthy - voted the story down with the new feature on the alternative front page. Or is that too much to expect?
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't knocking your post... (assuming you were the anon OP, and not the anon submitter, in which case I would be knocking you) - just ranting about the crappy quality of the article (and title) itself :)
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.
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".
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe by you. Feel free to look at my comment history, some of us have been doing it for years. I've even mentioned in some of my earlier posts that Microsoft used to be beloved by geeks before it was recognized by evil, and how avant garde I was being in establishing my hate for (or probably more accurately fear of) Google early on.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Hey the mistrust may be new to some, but for those of us who view claims about a commercial company being founded on lofty principles like "do no evil" while it's founders get ridiculously rich with healthy scepticism, this is nothing new at all.
Re: (Score:2)
"The potential for evil in the Google has only been questioned for a year or so"
I remember the potential for evil being questioned with the initial release of gmail 5 years ago.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Been using it for some time now. It's enough that the buggers have my mail without knowing that I like goat pr0n^w^wpepperoni pizza too.
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.
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: (Score:2)
While it may seem like arguing semantics, that's what discussing contract law boils down to. If they were to h
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?
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:2)
Well, if we're going to replace words to prove your point lets just cut to the chase.
7.3 Google reserves the right to fuck you in the paranoid ass over any time it wants to, with or without lube at its discretion. Put your tinfoil hat on and be afraid, be very very afraid. Its trendy!
Seriously, if you have to change the wording to make your argument then you don't have much of an argument for either side.
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:2)
I agree with the article. This is a clause which should raise a red flag. By using Chrome, you are agreeing to Google having the right to filter or modify the content you are accessing. "Flag" would tend to suggest they have the right to record the content you are accessing and report it to others.
I'm not saying they are doing these things now, but why would you agree to them ever having these rights?
They are doing it now, and it is a useful service. Apple recently started using Google's malware filtering system in Safari. Google is merely accurately describing how the service functions. Google scans content it deems "suspicious", flags it if it contains malware, warns other users.
If that's what they are doing, there is absolutely no reason why the EULA cannot be more specific and limit it to that.
At the moment they have unrestricted rights to filter and "flag" anything they want.
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know, Firefox could really use a goatse filter.
What, AdBlock Plus isn't enough anymore?
Just put the domain into it's blocklist.
np: Autechre - Augmatic Disport (Untilted)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I've seen this exact popup! I didn't believe
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.
-
Re: (Score:2)
Google defaults to "Moderate", which is in between "No filtering" and "Strict" filtering.
My bad. You're right.
The "moderate" option filter images only. The "strict" option filters images and also filters pages for text as well.
-
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.
Compiling it yourself costs $637.49 (Score:2)
take the code compile it yourself
From the Windows build instructions [chromium.org]: "Prerequisite software: [...] Microsoft Visual Studio 2005 Pro (8.0) or later. Visual Studio Express won't work. Visual Studio 2005/2008 Pro Trial will work." But I don't see who would want to spend $637.49 [amazon.com] just to unbrand Chrome once the 90-day trial [microsoft.com] runs out. One could buy a Mac Mini and use the Mac build instructions [google.com] for less than that.
Re: (Score:2)
Compiling the code yourself will bypass (1), but it won't change (2).
Even if you turn off features in the source code?
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
Re: (Score:2)
Google seems to have a lot of moral/intelligent employees. Many read slashdot, and said they'd quit if Google abused usage of all the data it collects.
Google was the only company that didn't hand over their search data upon request.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/19/1332207 [slashdot.org]
http://management.silicon.com/government/0,39024677,39155785,00.htm [silicon.com]
Does this imply... (Score:2)
...that Google is somehow proxying web content that's being acceessed by Chrome? Wow. Despite the Google fanboys' usual admonition to STFU if you don't like the terms, this should be an enormous red flag for anyone contemplating the use of Chrome.
Anonymous Reader indeed? (Score:2)
Does the anonymous reader work for AT&T, Microsoft or any other of the companies currently trying to run a smear campaign against Google?
More like cover for their known-malware-site stuff (Score:2)
Sounds more like coverage for things like their SafeSearch feature (defaults on, you can turn it off easily), or their blocking of direct links to known malware sites (if you click on a link in their search results that'd take you to a site known to serve up malware, you'll go instead to a warning screen from which you can continue on to the actual site if you choose, or abort if you don't want to take the risk).
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.
Malware. (Score:2)
Well, you could always try ... (Score:2)
what EULA? (Score:2)
sigh (Score:2)
I know it's cool to hate on google lately, how that they're a global multi billion dollar company and all, but seriously...
Why does Slashdot accept articles like this? (Score:2, Insightful)
What a troll!
Of COURSE they reserve the right otherwise they couldn't off anti-virus and anti-phishing features. Plus, it is open source so you can certainly build your own binary and remove any features you want... I guess you want your credit card stolen?
Why does Slashdot even accept posts like this?
Good to have other options (Score:2)
Shove it (Score:2)
shove it up. that totally wrote off chrome for me.
Answer to articles's query (Score:2)
Does this mean that Google reserves the right to filter my web browsing experience in Chrome (without my consent to boot)?
No. It means if you activate Safe Search on your Google.com account, and use the Google Search engine in Chrome, then Chrome will filter your web content as requested by you.
Dumbest article ever.
Google Chrome terms of service .. (Score:2)
Depends on a word (Score:2)
"remove any or all Content from any Service"
What is the definition they use for "Service" because that is what they will be filtering from. I have a hard time thinking that your internet connection and the content from all web sites consititutes a Service.
Why? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to say "no" on your categories. I cannot be explicit enough about this. The definitions of "depraved" and "illegal" and "dangerous" vary so widely that permission to filter without explicit consent or the ability to voluntarily disable the filter is completely out of line for almost all users. Children's and prisoners rights are so limited that it seems reasonable to filter them involuntarily. But the enforced censorship that Google has performed in China against human rights websites, and particular
Re: (Score:2)
I think a censored google is better than no google at all.
I'm sure Google would pull out of china in a heartbeat if they were asked to be chinese spies.