Slashdot Mirror
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."
It's probably just a safety measure for their anti-phishing features which block pages but it's a weird formulation anyway
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.
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.
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.
how long until
I for one welcome our new robot overlGoogle doesn't filter the Internet.
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.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
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.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
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.
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.
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.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
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.
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 should be able to change this, it's just a cookie based setting).
3. It seems to cover them having parental controls in the browser. People can turn such things on by accident and not know how to disable them (or legally try to claim that the method for disabling them is deliberately obfuscated).
Realistically I doubt they'd do anything stupid like active network filtering. That just isn't what people expect out of their browsers.
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.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
This sounds like something that would be necessary distribute a program in china or australia...
...you should probably be using Iron instead of just Chrome.
In any case, it's open source (under the name Chromium), 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.
I mean if you don't like the chrome EULA or the firefox EULA, take the code compile it yourself and STFU.
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
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.
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.
Otherwise, enjoy your Chrome experience! It is significantly and quantifiably better than the competition.
Anything can, could, and will happen.
If you're reading the EULA, seeing that google may filter pages you view, and then using Chrome anyway then that means you're consenting. Or you're just incredibly fucking dumb.
If you don't like it, use something else. There's not exactly a shortage of web browsers...
Maybe not
If you don't like an obscure part of the EULA of a free and optional piece of software, use one of the many alternatives (Firefox, Opera, Safari) - although I'm sure there's something for you to bitch about in their agreements as well (or let me guess, Opera and Safari aren't free-as-in-speech so they're out of the picture?)
Take off the damn tinfoil hat and stop cluttering the Slashdot index with this bullshit.
I use Firefox, but if I preferred Chrome, I wouldn't worry that it was automagically filtering content to be pro-Google or something.
WHO NEEDS SHIFT WHEN YOU HAVE CAPSLOCK/ DAMN1
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.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
"With my usual mistrust of Google..."
This guy is obviously super-cool!
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 you access through Chrome is "Content".
So, by clause 7.3, you actually do agree that Google may, in its discretion,
anything that you access through Chrome. Nothing in 7.3 is limited to safesearch or other optional filtering services - the clause would be entirely compatible with Google silently monitoring and filtering what you can and cannot see on-line using Chrome on an entirely arbitrary basis.
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?
Read Pynchon.
Chrome is not a servivce. I am betting that this is part of the Google EULA/TOS.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
No.
It's free. If you want something that you have complete control over, do it yourself.
While I may not agree with this type of agreement I do understand I am not obligated to use it, nor do I.
Until someone puts a gun to my head and demands I surf with Chrome, I'm ok with using FF.
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.
Microsoft troll. Go away.
You can't interpret that quoted part of the EULA unless you provide the definition of "Service" being used there, silly.
Are you adequate?
"Does this mean that Google reserves the right to filter my web browsing experience in Chrome (without my consent to boot)?"
No, they'll only do it with your consent. The 'consent' being given when you agree to the EULA upon installing the binary build they give you. Of course, you can just disagree and not accept it.
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.
I tried it out, found the interface hideously dumbed-down, and reverted back to IE and FF. I still think it's a solution in search of a problem.
the Google search engine.
you basically agree to the chrome license and the google service license.
Usually just translates as "I'm an asshole spammer-SEO upset that my shenanigans get nixed".
Some people seem happy to have their browser flag attack and phishing sites. The essence of that action is filtering.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
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.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Does this mean that Google reserves the right to filter my web browsing experience in Chrome (without my consent to boot)?
(Emphasis added)
IANAL. Does anyone remember if clicking "I Agree" actually constitutes a legally enforceable contract? I think I saw a /. story one day where it was something like where the EULA appeared or something that determined legal enforceability. Like, if it's after you pay for the product and you have to unseal it to read the Agreement (so the product can't be returned), then it can't be enforced or something.... Man, I wish I wasn't too lazy to look this one up....
Anyway, I'm pretty sure you have the opportunity to freely read and freely agree to Chrome's EULA before you do anything with Google (other than visit their domain in your web browser of choice). Seems like this would not be, by any means, filtering without the user's consent.
P.S.: Story is tagged "troll". I just wrote all this out. I hate how easily trolled I am.... >_
P.P.S.: Anyone else here think that Steve Ballmer (or anyone else with good reason to hate Google/Chrome) might be the "anonymous reader" who submits crap like this? Wouldn't surprise me.
Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
Put away the tin foil hats.
If you dont agree with the topic of a post, move on to the next one and STFU yourself.
This was a legit question on a topic (EULA) that was already abused before and where discussions like these forced changes.
Of course a pinhead like you cant just STFU.
Like a 2 year old, you have to have your say too, no matter if it brings nothing to the table.
What kind of incontinent baboons modded this trite as insightful?
...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.
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.
Read Pynchon.
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."
Does the anonymous reader work for AT&T, Microsoft or any other of the companies currently trying to run a smear campaign against Google?
I dont read
This sounds to me more like it's about protecting Google's special relationship with the censorious China market.
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 have said "any or all content through" or "any or all content delivered through" their products and services then you would have reason to complain. There is a huge difference between content from a source and content served through a source. It's the difference between ownership and distribution.
I'm using Chrome. Why is it that every single comment here is praising Google --#$* because Google is God. Oh, it makes perfect sense now. (not written by Cadie)
just like the movie http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ zeitgeist...scary.
happy trials
Sounds more like coverage for things like their SafeSearch feature (defaults on, you can turn it off easily), or their blocking of direct links to known malware sites (if you click on a link in their search results that'd take you to a site known to serve up malware, you'll go instead to a warning screen from which you can continue on to the actual site if you choose, or abort if you don't want to take the risk).
Possibly.
Yes.
Not likely, but I guess you never know. Don't forget that they can change the terms of the agreement whenever they like, without your prior approval or consent.
All disclaimers, license agreements, and contracts sound draconian. They're written in legalese to be clear, precise, serious, and intimidating. They're designed to give the authoring party as much power as possible while limiting their liability to nothing.
The solution, however, is pretty simple: If you have any doubts at all about the terms of an agreement, don't agree to it. Or ask Google the change it. Submitting a Slashdot article about it is just a lot of pointless whining.
the background most likely is that in the moment when they do an malware classification of a webpage by their own sevices, which chrome takes as active in the default setting (or hardwired), then they are doing exactly that: blocking services. Still some idiots would complain that they could not watch website xyz (porn, key generators). Imagine people suing google for missing the 10Mio$ business opportunity somebody offered them.
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.
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?
Read Pynchon.
...posting something negative about Google here using Chrome and see if its redacted.
Have gnu, will travel.
Does this mean that Google reserves the right to filter my web browsing experience in Chrome (without my consent to boot)?
Well, agreeing to the eula means you consent, no?
Eulas are not worth the ink they're printed with.
---
'Arret' means stop. Thank you. ~Whoosh~
isn't Chrome open source? just get a build from someone else if you don't like their EULA.
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
I know it's cool to hate on google lately, how that they're a global multi billion dollar company and all, but seriously...
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
C'mon folks... Go to the Google Web Site and click on the PREFERENCES link. Safe Search is the default to protect you and Them from getting sued from someone who let their kid get on the computer unsupervised and type in a misspelled word and low and behold - pr0n appeared. Yeah, this is a big deal... so big that I'm going to go get my coffee and forget this ever happened.
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." General James Mattis
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?
Google is an advertising agency. They reserve the right to show you anything, anytime. They also reserve the right to capture anything you look at, gmail, gmaps, google-analytics, etc., build an index in realtime, and build a composite "you-like-this" table to help with their advertising.
Get over it, or stop using google.
on an Electra Glide with dual tail pipes doin' 105 in the broad daylight. (with respects to Trace Adkins)
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, even one not called "Tetris" (Tetris v. BioSocia).
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 important.
I don't see this as anything more than Google reiterating a right to filter content (however they have defined it) as the underpinning of the filtering services offered to their customers now and in the future. That's necessary to provide protection from litigious weenies who would sue them for offering the optional filters.
It's also worth remembering that Google doesn't have an obligation to crawl and index every server on the planet. If your site isn't visited by their bot, tough. That's filtering, too.
Also, Google asserts no obligation to filter anything, presumably to provide a basis for rejecting such demands.
Bottom line: We all have a right to see everything on the net, completely unfiltered. But, neither Google nor any other entity are obligated to provide that view.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
I could have not a single piece of non-self-compiled software on my system
Even BIOS? Or are you a happy Coreboot user?
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.
Think Deeply.
shove it up. that totally wrote off chrome for me.
Read radical news here
take the code compile it yourself
From the Windows build instructions: "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 just to unbrand Chrome once the 90-day trial runs out. One could buy a Mac Mini and use the Mac build instructions for less than that.
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.
Edith Keeler Must Die
I found it suspicious from the start that they want you to agree to an EULA for what they claim is an open source browser. I know there's supposed to be an open source version called Chromium, but I can't find a download link to the installer and building it myself will probably take hours fixing linking errors and crap like that.
"These Terms of Service apply to the executable code version of Google Chrome. Source code for Google Chrome is available free of charge under open source software license agreements at"
davecb5620@gmail.com
And now to replace the word "Service"
...
Except that you're totally incorrect. Let's now replace the word Content (and replace "Services" again in that definition):
It should be clear that we have to replace the word "the"! Like this:
7.3 Google reserves Google's products, software, services and web sites 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 Service, Google may provide tools to filter out explicit sexual content. These tools include Google's products, software, services and web sites 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 lawyer have terrible grammar, I don't know what will.
"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?
How dare you be so modest!! You conceited bastard!!
Google's Gabriel Stricker said it's OK. No seriously.
He said "We are trying to be consistent across all of our products and services, hence the uniformity"
See! It's all right.
and regarding all that filtering, parsing, monitoring and so on; don't be silly. It's only in case they need to stop you viewing stuff.
So that's good then. No need to worry. Google Chrome will make you a better person.
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.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Just realize that the reason for Google's section 7.3 is to take charge, legally of course, when any one of you, since it's very real, look up that little thing we all know we shouldn't look up. For those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about... just notice "explicit sexual content." That's right, it is the big Child Porn. So get off Google's back they are trying to avoid legality issues of anyone trying to accuse them of allowing people to see that in the WWW. You bleepin' skeptical and analytical bleeps.