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

!ahugedeal

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

probably just on by default

[fermion]

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.

Re:Take off you thin foil hat

[palegray.net]

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.

Services

[Alsee]

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.

-

Re:Usual Mistrust?

[peipas]

I'd say it's unnecessary editorializing outright.

Compile it your self

[RiotingPacifist]

I mean if you don't like the chrome EULA or the firefox EULA, take the code compile it yourself and STFU.

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

[TubeSteak]

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.

Re:Maybe just legalese?

[Korin43]

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?

[Antique Geekmeister]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.