Chrome EULA Reserves the Right To Filter Your Web

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."

Take off you thin foil hat

[JamesP]

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.

Google Services?

[Adrian Lopez]

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.

Re:Not a bad thing maybe

[belmolis]

You know, Firefox could really use a goatse filter.

Do they have different regional versions?

[Anonymous Coward]

This sounds like something that would be necessary distribute a program in china or australia...

If you're THAT paranoid about Google...

[The MAZZTer]

...you should probably be using Iron [srware.net] instead of just Chrome.

Re:You don't *have* to use it.

[carlzum]

Sounds like they're saying your SafeSearch preferences may be used to filter content from the browser at some point. I wouldn't mind that at all, if I'm at work and click a link that redirects me to a porn site, I'd like my browser to block it.

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:Relax! It's just google's standard boilerplate.

[John Hasler]

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.

Its Within Reason

[Anonymous Coward]

It's within reason for google to filter certain aspects of the web; its dangerous to give them blanket-permission to do so, though. Their EULA should be more explicit, a la:

"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

* content: Google reserves the right to pre-screen, review, flag, filter, modify, refuse or remove content that is:
1. illegal (nuclear secrets, etc)
2. depraved (violent pornography, etc)
3. dangerous (originates from a known malware address, etc)

** service: service owned by google: specifically,
1. Google Search
2. Google Browser
3. Google Mail
4. Google Office"

And incidently, inevitably the most dangerous part of an EULA (as anyone who buys a cellphone or internet plan can relate) is the clause "[company x] reserves the right to change this agreement at any time and for any reason, without notifying [you], and without [your] knowledge or consent."
    That clause right there basically says "Once you agree to this, it becomes meaningless, because we can make it say anything we want it to, and you can't stop us."

Re:No, you paranoid git

[TiberSeptm]

Yes, humorless reactionaries are the cause of much grief. They and people who react poorly to humor. BadAnalogyGuy's got it right though. It's that and to cover their features that, for your own security, may filter what you see. Anti-phishing and anti-scamming tools do effectively limit and/or alter what you might normally see on the web. They're just trying to protect themselves from buffoonery. The intent is even clearer when you see how they lead into the possibility of third party software doing the same or more.

Re:Maybe just legalese?

[HiThere]

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:Maybe just legalese?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that, but... "Does this mean that Google reserves the right to filter my web browsing experience in Chrome (without my consent to boot)?"

No... It's in the EULA â" it's *with* your consent.