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."

8 of 171 comments (clear)

  1. !ahugedeal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  2. Relax! It's just google's standard boilerplate... by maxfresh · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.

  3. Re:Take off you thin foil hat by palegray.net · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Tinfoil Hat Purchasing Advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  5. Services by Alsee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  6. Re:Usual Mistrust? by peipas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd say it's unnecessary editorializing outright.

  7. Re:Relax! It's just google's standard boilerplate. by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  8. Mistrust of Google by Rix · · Score: 5, Funny

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