Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Internet Your Rights Online

Chrome EULA Reserves the Right To Filter Your Web 171

Posted by timothy 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Chrome EULA Reserves the Right To Filter Your Web More

Chrome EULA Reserves the Right To Filter Your Web

Comments Filter:

  • Maybe just legalese? (Score:5, Informative)

    by mariushm ( 1022195 ) on Saturday April 04, 2009 @07:46PM (#27461209)

    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)

      by Korin43 ( 881732 ) on Saturday April 04, 2009 @09:03PM (#27461729) Homepage
      Exactly, they're probably just covering their ass for things like safe-search, phishing filter, and other options like blocking non-secure items on a secure webpage.

      • Re:Maybe just legalese? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by spydabyte ( 1032538 ) on Sunday April 05, 2009 @01:14AM (#27462963)
        You mean I have to use their product the way they designed it? No! I want free internets from every software and service right now! And I want to complain when they're service doesn't work because I use it wrong!

      • Re:Maybe just legalese? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Antique Geekmeister ( 740220 ) on Sunday April 05, 2009 @02:30AM (#27463309)
        No, I assume it's for content filtering, pure and simple, as Google has cooperated with China in the past on this matter (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Business/story?id=1540568).

        • Re:Maybe just legalese? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05, 2009 @05:29AM (#27464013)

          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)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          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)

          by almondo ( 145555 )

          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)

        by CSMatt ( 1175471 )

        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)

      by NeutronCowboy ( 896098 ) on Saturday April 04, 2009 @09:26PM (#27461849)

      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)

      by Smauler ( 915644 )

      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)

        by hclewk ( 1248568 )

        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.

  • 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)

      by Jurily ( 900488 ) <jurily&gmail,com> on Saturday April 04, 2009 @09:37PM (#27461937)

      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)

        by TiberSeptm ( 889423 )
        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

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Smauler ( 915644 )

      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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 04, 2009 @07:46PM (#27461223)
    They have a cover-all EULA so they can implement features without fear of legal repercusion. If they don't offer a method to cut out the filtering, then just write a patch on the source.

    This looks like FUD to me.

  • Take off you thin foil hat (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JamesP ( 688957 ) on Saturday April 04, 2009 @07:47PM (#27461229)

    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.

    • It's undoubtedly a measure for filtering overtly malicious content. While this is something to watch carefully, I don't see people doing a whole lot of complaining over Google filtering search results and routinely removing sites from their index.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AHuxley ( 892839 )
        Google does not remove sites from their index, they just flag them not to show up. Google searches everything, they just hide the results with a "robots" like note.
        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.
        • In any event, the end result is the same to visitors who conduct searches on Google. I've also seen no indication that they sell any of their privately held Internet databases. Do you have any supporting evidence?

          • Re:Take off you thin foil hat (Score:5, Funny)

            by Miseph ( 979059 ) on Saturday April 04, 2009 @09:59PM (#27462069) Journal

            He has paranoid conspiracy theories... who needs evidence?

  • Google would never... (Score:5, Funny)

    by jonaskoelker ( 922170 ) <`jonaskoelker' `at' `yahoo.com'> on Saturday April 04, 2009 @07:47PM (#27461231)

    I for one welcome our new robot overlGoogle doesn't filter the Internet.

  • Google Services? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Adrian Lopez ( 2615 )

    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)

    by fermion ( 181285 ) on Saturday April 04, 2009 @07:58PM (#27461305) Homepage Journal
    This is probably for some future feature or premium service that is on by default, just like safesearch. Or it could be some malware protection mechanism in which users are not allowed to go to suspected malware sites without warning that cannot be turned off. Or it could be a suggested site feature where chrome lists places one might want to go based on a vendor paid model.

    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)

    by lymond01 ( 314120 ) on Saturday April 04, 2009 @08:01PM (#27461329)

    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)

      by peipas ( 809350 ) on Saturday April 04, 2009 @08:18PM (#27461473)

      I'd say it's unnecessary editorializing outright.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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)

      by Rix ( 54095 ) on Saturday April 04, 2009 @09:31PM (#27461899)

      Usually just translates as "I'm an asshole spammer-SEO upset that my shenanigans get nixed".

    • The potential for evil in the Google has only been questioned for a year or so

      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)

      by syousef ( 465911 )

      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.

    • "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)

      by wangmaster ( 760932 ) on Sunday April 05, 2009 @10:52AM (#27465431)

      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.

  • Relax! It's just google's standard boilerplate... (Score:5, Informative)

    by maxfresh ( 1435479 ) on Saturday April 04, 2009 @08:02PM (#27461337)
    It is obvious from section 1 of the same TOS that this is google's standard boilerplate TOS, or as they call it, their "Universal Terms" that covers all of their services, including search, mail, adsense, adwords, blogger, etc... In addition, each product may also have separate, more specific terms that always supersede the universal terms. I quote:

    1. Your relationship with Google
    1.1 Your use of Google's products, software, services and web sites (referred to collectively as the "Services" in this document and excluding any services provided to you by Google under a separate written agreement) is subject to the terms of a legal agreement between you and Google. "Google" means Google Inc., whose principal place of business is at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States. This document explains how the agreement is made up, and sets out some of the terms of that agreement.

    1.2 Unless otherwise agreed in writing with Google, your agreement with Google will always include, at a minimum, the terms and conditions set out in this document. These are referred to below as the "Universal Terms". Open source software licenses for Google Chrome source code constitute separate written agreements. To the limited extent that the open source software licenses expressly supersede these Universal Terms, the open source licenses govern your agreement with Google for the use of Google Chrome or specific included components of Google Chrome.

    1.3 Your agreement with Google will also include the terms of any Legal Notices applicable to the Services, in addition to the Universal Terms. All of these are referred to below as the "Additional Terms". Where Additional Terms apply to a Service, these will be accessible for you to read either within, or through your use of, that Service.

    1.4 The Universal Terms, together with the Additional Terms, form a legally binding agreement between you and Google in relation to your use of the Services. It is important that you take the time to read them carefully. Collectively, this legal agreement is referred to below as the "Terms".

    1.5 If there is any contradiction between what the Additional Terms say and what the Universal Terms say, then the Additional Terms shall take precedence in relation to that Service.

    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)

      by TubeSteak ( 669689 ) on Saturday April 04, 2009 @08:32PM (#27461559) Journal

      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.

      • 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.

        • You've missed the point. They are only saying they will filter content from their services and products. While chrome itself is a google product/service, the content it displays is not necessarily "from any of Google's products, services or websites." That is to say- simply displaying the content does not make it theirs and therefore they are not claiming the right to filter it automatically.

          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)

        by caitsith01 ( 606117 ) on Saturday April 04, 2009 @11:34PM (#27462525) Journal

        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?

        • 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

        • 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)

      by caitsith01 ( 606117 )

      Just because it's boilerplate doesn't mean it's ineffective.

      Googleâ(TM)s products, software, services and web sites (referred to collectively as the âoeServicesâ

      So "Services" includes Chrome itself (software/products) not just Google search etc. "Content" is:

      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, the Services

      Therefore, anything y

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by maxume ( 22995 )

        Some people seem happy to have their browser flag attack and phishing sites. The essence of that action is filtering.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by John Hasler ( 414242 )

      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)

    by eclectro ( 227083 ) on Saturday April 04, 2009 @08:08PM (#27461389)

    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)

      by belmolis ( 702863 ) <billposerNO@SPAMalum.mit.edu> on Saturday April 04, 2009 @08:15PM (#27461447) Homepage

      You know, Firefox could really use a goatse filter.

      • Re:Not a bad thing maybe (Score:5, Funny)

        by Bill Currie ( 487 ) on Saturday April 04, 2009 @08:35PM (#27461575) Homepage

        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)

          by u38cg ( 607297 )
          And I learnt not to click on /. links at school; it didn't help that the teacher logged me off so I couldn't even explain to someone I had innocently followed a link to this cool new show called South Park...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Briareos ( 21163 ) *

        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)

      by syousef ( 465911 )

      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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 04, 2009 @08:11PM (#27461409)

    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)

    by Lanir ( 97918 )

    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)

    by Alsee ( 515537 ) on Saturday April 04, 2009 @08:15PM (#27461441) Homepage

    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)

    by The MAZZTer ( 911996 ) <(megazzt) (at) (gmail.com)> on Saturday April 04, 2009 @08:17PM (#27461467) Homepage

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

  • Chrome is its own competition (Score:3, Insightful)

    by acb ( 2797 ) on Saturday April 04, 2009 @08:22PM (#27461493) Homepage

    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)

    by RiotingPacifist ( 1228016 ) on Saturday April 04, 2009 @08:22PM (#27461495)

    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)

    by hhr ( 909621 ) on Saturday April 04, 2009 @08:24PM (#27461501)

    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)

    by hypoxide ( 993092 ) on Saturday April 04, 2009 @08:25PM (#27461513)
    but I feel pretty confident Microsoft Internet Explorer's is worse. I recall reading the EULAs of Windows Media Player 10 and 11 were particularly harrowing experiences.

    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.

  • ...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.

  • Does the anonymous reader work for AT&T, Microsoft or any other of the companies currently trying to run a smear campaign against Google?

  • 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)

    by Eil ( 82413 ) on Saturday April 04, 2009 @11:10PM (#27462425) Homepage Journal

    Does this mean that Google reserves the right to filter my web browsing experience in Chrome (without my consent to boot)?

    Possibly.

    Is this a carry-over from the EULAs of Google's other services (gmail, blogger etc),

    Yes.

    or is this something more significant?

    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.

    One would think that after the previous EULA affair with Chrome, Google would try to sound a little less draconian."

    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.

  • the background most likely is that in the moment when they do an malware classification of a webpage by their own sevices, which chrome takes as active in the default setting (or hardwired), then they are doing exactly that: blocking services. Still some idiots would complain that they could not watch website xyz (porn, key generators). Imagine people suing google for missing the 10Mio$ business opportunity somebody offered them.
  • ...posting something negative about Google here using Chrome and see if its redacted.
  • isn't Chrome open source? just get a build from someone else if you don't like their EULA.

  • sigh (Score:2)

    by smash ( 1351 )
    legal arse-covering for their anti-phishing and anti-malware services...

    I know it's cool to hate on google lately, how that they're a global multi billion dollar company and all, but seriously...

  • 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?

  • Its good to have other options, my last PC had Chrome, Firefox, and Safari for windows on it. And I used all 3 of them for different things.

  • shove it up. that totally wrote off chrome for me.

  • 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.

  • "These Terms of Service apply to the executable code version [google.com] of Google Chrome. Source code for Google Chrome is available free of charge under open source software license agreements at"

  • "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.

  • The source is BSD. Why isn't that enough?

Slashdot Top Deals

I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato

Close