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."
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.
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.
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.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
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.
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!
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.
The capital 'S' in Service means they are using their definition and not the dictionary.
Exactly.
It appears that the capital 'S' can also mean 'Sensationalism' in the case of this non-story.
sheesh...
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!
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.
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.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I agree with most of this. However, You forgot a C).
C) All browser EULA's have a similar clause, so no matter which browser you use, you have to live with the bad deal.
The browser's job isn't to filter content. That's the job of the user or someone they designate to do so on their behalf. That bit shouldn't be in the EULA of a browser. It should be in the TOS of the filtering service.
Interestingly enough, the C) is also one of the big problems I have with things like England and Australia's "internet censorship" methods.
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!
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).
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.
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?
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"
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 Hendrix all show up at your store on the same day to buy Rollaxes your are probably worthy of a closer look by the fraud brothers in arms.