Ron Schenone

Google’s Chrome Browser Comes Under Attack For EULA

Posted by on Apr 10, 2009 | 9 Comments

Over at Slashdot they have created a stir about the EULA that Google provides for their Chrome browser. One sentence:

’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.’ 

So what does this really mean for Chrome users? It all comes down to interpretation. Over at Google they state on their blog site that their Safe Browser feature hopefully protects users from rogue sites. The Google blog says that:

Google provides features such as Safe Browsing that warn you if you are about to go to a suspected phishing site, and we verify the URL you are planning to go to with a database of known phishing sites. Other relevant factors include the need for Google to comply with the law relating to your web-browsing experience, such as regulations against hate speech, child pornography and so on.

So I believe that the ‘filtering’ that Chrome provides is a benefit and not an attempt to filter out content that does not fall within the parameters of Safe Browsing. If anything, the filtering of objectionable sites is a good thing. IMHO.

But what do you think?

Comments welcome.

Google Chrome blog.

Slashdot source.

  • http://wp3.lockergnome.com/dabrace1984/ Doug

    I think that Google is just telling us that they have features in their software that have the ability to block content and that you can proceed if you desire. I think that they should keep it in the EULA but add something about the user having the ability to continue browsing a site after the content is initially blocked.

  • http://wp3.lockergnome.com/nexus/blade/ Ron Schenone

    Hi Doug,
    Good point.

  • http://colinhuckstep.com Colin

    That is an obvious cut and paste from the general Google.com terms of service. Safe Search is a feature of Google search that filters objectionable material. Click on the preferences link next to the search box on Google.com you have the option to change your Safe Search setting to Strict, Moderate, or Off. Moderate is the default.

  • http://www.bnrbranding.com Brent Friar

    I think it was written in broad legalese to cover any future blocking or filtering they might do. Keep in mind that Google is an international company. They filter certain content out of their properties at the request of the Chinese government already. They are just saying that they can and might filter out content.

    They didn’t add anything about being able to continue because that would lock them in to always allowing the visitor to continue to the destination. In some cases, you may not be able to continue even if you want to. EULAs are always written with the software provider having broad and far reaching power over their product, such is the nature of EULAs. It doesn’t matter much because EULAs have a hard time standing up in court.

    I don’t think this is anything to get worked up over unless they actually start doing it in the US.

  • http://interestsblog.blogspot.com L. Mohan Arun

    They havenot made it clear that user can browse while turning the so-called safe option off. It is like interfering with the free thinking of the Internet.

  • CCorsair

    If you are an adult you should be able to search and view what ever you like but you never know what a young person can find with trying. 2 year ago I got call to clean system that had been hit with virus during search on Yahoo search. the search was Easter recitals for young children but what cam up was a very very hard core porn site some had picture of kids and if you tried to close it or if you re-open it it would start to down load a bug into the computer but it was very bad and took week if not year for yahoo to shut down the link. It was real page that had been high jacked and was traced back to very nasty people in Russia or there about.

    It was shock to the kids and to the adults of the house and it took me a few hours to clean the system of what downloaded as well(the download started just after the page came up) Not the same search in google didn’t bring that page up at all just in yahoo and that was with safety search on and off in google So if some type smart filter is there to protect people from going to bad site good but we should have some control over it but not that want to get bug from looking some thing up for my kids..

    CC

  • http://wp3.lockergnome.com/nexus/blade/ Ron Schenone

    Thanks for the comments everyone and for sharing your experiences and thoughts with all of us.

  • http://www.income2max.com Bob Lewis

    I think I’ll just stick with Firefox.

    I have that site blocking capability with AVG 8.0.x and I disabled it within the first day of using it. a) it slowed everything down and b) it was blocking all sorts of stuff that definitely wasn’t dubious – my only real control? – turn it off – so I did.

    BTW re:

    “Other relevant factors include the need for Google to comply with the law relating to your web-browsing experience, such as regulations against hate speech, child pornography and so on”.

    Err… what LAW? US Law? I, along with 65 plus billion others do not live in the US and therefore are not subject to US law so where does that come from? Why is Google implementing a “standard” browser that complies with only US law/s?

    Why is it Google’s responsibility all of a sudden to protect people from the web or what’s on it? Worse, to ONLY do that according to what prevails as “right” in the US? What utter nonsense and arrogance. Remember: the Internet may have been invented by Americans – but it was opened up to the masses (i.e. via the Web) by a Brit – Sir Tim Berners- Lee!

    Now whilst I agree absolutely that no-one should have access to child pornography and that hate related sites (wherever) should fall under relevant laws. I do not believe it should be the role of a browser to do that blocking – or any other kind. The problem needs resolving at source. The more that Band-Aids like this are applied the worse the underlying problem will become, the further underground and devious these sickos will get.

    If we are going to clean up the web, then let’s clean it up at the source and not force-fit patches onto all the little bits we don’t like and pretend they’ve been solved.

    Let’s hope that Goggle’s words are just that and put there as a sop to those in governments around the world who have neither the willingness nor the mental agility to do anything other than fob the problem onto others. We need to be kicking the legislators globally to attack the real root problems of the web and not to try and patch over the cracks and pretend it’s “job done”.

    Best regards, Bob Lewis
    Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/boblewis

  • Jeff

    the idea of a advertisement based company blocking content at will by their EULA reeks. This opens the doors to website stripping so they can plug their own ads, or even make certain other search engines not as user friendly.

    I know that its probably not the mission, but the statement is still there. When you give someone power, they will abuse it.