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?

[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.

!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.

Take off you thin foil hat

[JamesP]

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.

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.

Re:Take off you thin foil hat

[Miseph]

He has paranoid conspiracy theories... who needs evidence?

Google would never...

[jonaskoelker]

I for one welcome our new robot overlGoogle doesn't filter the Internet.

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.

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.

Not a bad thing maybe

[eclectro]

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.

Re:Not a bad thing maybe

[Bill Currie]

Yes. I remember when it first started here. I learned very fast to watch the url in the status bar (then somebody did a mouseover attack, but /. quickly learned to filter that out). 11 years and it still gives me the creeps.

Tinfoil Hat Purchasing Advice

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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.

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.

[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.

Mistrust of Google

[Rix]

Usually just translates as "I'm an asshole spammer-SEO upset that my shenanigans get nixed".

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?