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."

Comments

Maybe just legalese?

[mariushm]

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?

[mpe]

Either way, it's just a EULA.

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 in court to say "Oh, but we have this clause in the EULA that gets rid of right X, which they signed."

Actually it's anything against the "Law of the Land", which is rather broader than "unconstitutional". Most of the time such an "agreement" will contain clauses to the effect of even if some parts are unenforcable or just plain bogus the rest still stands. There might even be such documents where such "by parts" clauses are actually the valid parts :)

No, you paranoid git

[BadAnalogyGuy]

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.

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

[maxfresh]

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.

Couple Points

[Lanir]

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.

Summaries are filtered and modified.

[hhr]

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.

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

[caitsith01]

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 you access through Chrome is "Content".

So, by clause 7.3, you actually do agree that Google may, in its discretion,

pre-screen, review, flag, filter, modify, refuse or remove

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?

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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

[maxume]

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

Re:Compile it your self

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you can just download Iron, which leaves all of Chrome's "evil bits" out. ;)

http://www.srware.net/software_srware_iron_download.php

Re:I haven't read the EULAs of other browsers,

[cong06]

Well, it's quite a bit easier to back google then microsoft when google's software:

• is reasonably priced
• is clean
• is easy to use
• has a good interface
• is fast
• doesn't crash constantly

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 you.

In summary: Have you even used Google Chrome? It's amazing!

here we go again (again)

[Eil]

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.

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

[caitsith01]

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?