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."
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.
You are probably correct.
However let me tell you a story. One of my neighbor.
He bought a nice 2 story house on about 1/4 acre of land. Behind it was a nice small forest. Probably 200-300 small trees. Very nice and green and scenic.
Then one day buldozers show up knocking over all of the trees. Clearing the land for another neighborhood.
At this point my neighbor freeks out. He had paid EXTRA for a forest to be behind his house. I ask him what did his contract state? Indeed there was a line that there would be trees behind his house. I then asked does he own that land? He does not.
The moral? Even though the agreement stated there would be trees on the land (there is a small row now) it did not say what would happen to the land he does not own. It couldnt the developer did not own it. So beware of people selling you things even though you are getting something nice out of it.
Me I laughed at him for paying extra for something he can not control. The moral here?
Exactly. It's comparable to Apple's ability to deactivate any iPhone application by sending a "kill signal"..... used as a safety measure to block an application/site that's determined to be a threat.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Just a question. Seriously.