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.
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.
...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.
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!
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.
Sounds like they're saying your SafeSearch preferences may be used to filter content from the browser at some point. I wouldn't mind that at all, if I'm at work and click a link that redirects me to a porn site, I'd like my browser to block it.
The language in the EULA is pretty wide-open, so I'm trusting that Google will use this feature for my benefit and allow me to change my preferences. If they don't, I'll stick with Firefox. That's the beauty of competition in the marketplace.
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.
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.
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.
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"