Yeah, the OP is pretty flawed. I know this "news" was posted in MANY other places as well, but here's where copypasta news and blog entries have their flaws.
If you read section 9.4 closely, you'll see what I mean:
9.4 Other than the limited license set forth in Section 11, Google acknowledges and agrees that it obtains no right, title or interest from you (or your licensors) under these Terms in or to any Content that you submit, post, transmit or display on, or through, the Services, including any intellectual property rights which subsist in that Content
That "limited license" it refers to is what has exploded onto the internet as a violation of rights, privacy, etc. Again, if you actually read section 11, you'll see that the limited license is only for the promotion of Chrome, and this only holds to things that aren't already covered under other rights, such as copyright or intellectual property. Basically, this boils down to: Google can use anything that is online to promote itself, if one of it's users accesses that site. Which, in all honesty, it could do anyway.
This doesn't violate anything. And if you're still scared of it use Chromium, which has been stated by many others.
"Obnoxiously this alleged scholarly research is not available for free, so we'll just have to speculate wildly what it says based on the abstract."
And how is this different from what slashdot does for articles that [i]are[/i] available for free?
Which "FA" are you referencing? I spent a few minutes digging through the various links without finding your specific reference, though I'm fairly sure I had heard this before as well.
Mind providing us with a link to the sauce of your knowledge? Neither the joystiq article (what appears to be this post's primary source) nor the original press release say anything about this.
Some organizations already limit their users bandwidth, for example the college I attend limits all traffic (less operating system updates, but you have to get special permission for anything else) to 700 Mb total in and outbound daily. Granted, it's a small college, but it was put into place to both allow for the person who just thinks computers are for this new-fangled thing called e-mail to access when they need to at a reasonable speed and to discourage "illegal file-sharing programs". If we had similar restrictions worldwide, I think I'd get by. (Pretty simple, just spoof a MAC address of someone already registered using DHCP and you get their IP address, voila! More Bandwidth!)
There will always be ways to bypass the system, as long as there is a reason to in someone's mind and a strong enough will to.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, the OP is pretty flawed. I know this "news" was posted in MANY other places as well, but here's where copypasta news and blog entries have their flaws. If you read section 9.4 closely, you'll see what I mean: 9.4 Other than the limited license set forth in Section 11, Google acknowledges and agrees that it obtains no right, title or interest from you (or your licensors) under these Terms in or to any Content that you submit, post, transmit or display on, or through, the Services, including any intellectual property rights which subsist in that Content That "limited license" it refers to is what has exploded onto the internet as a violation of rights, privacy, etc. Again, if you actually read section 11, you'll see that the limited license is only for the promotion of Chrome, and this only holds to things that aren't already covered under other rights, such as copyright or intellectual property. Basically, this boils down to: Google can use anything that is online to promote itself, if one of it's users accesses that site. Which, in all honesty, it could do anyway. This doesn't violate anything. And if you're still scared of it use Chromium, which has been stated by many others.
"Obnoxiously this alleged scholarly research is not available for free, so we'll just have to speculate wildly what it says based on the abstract." And how is this different from what slashdot does for articles that [i]are[/i] available for free?
Which "FA" are you referencing? I spent a few minutes digging through the various links without finding your specific reference, though I'm fairly sure I had heard this before as well.
Mind providing us with a link to the sauce of your knowledge? Neither the joystiq article (what appears to be this post's primary source) nor the original press release say anything about this.
Some organizations already limit their users bandwidth, for example the college I attend limits all traffic (less operating system updates, but you have to get special permission for anything else) to 700 Mb total in and outbound daily. Granted, it's a small college, but it was put into place to both allow for the person who just thinks computers are for this new-fangled thing called e-mail to access when they need to at a reasonable speed and to discourage "illegal file-sharing programs". If we had similar restrictions worldwide, I think I'd get by. (Pretty simple, just spoof a MAC address of someone already registered using DHCP and you get their IP address, voila! More Bandwidth!) There will always be ways to bypass the system, as long as there is a reason to in someone's mind and a strong enough will to.