Google Chrome EULA: All your **** belong to us!

[bobross419]

Quick question here.... keep in mind that I don't know a whole lot about 'spidering' and the legal aspects of all this.

I work at a helpdesk and our knowledge base is in a Wiki format accessed through web browsers. When management was setting up the wiki they decided against adding a google search field because it can then "spider" the information in our kb. Some of the information in the kb includes passwords to systems that have large amounts of personal info (SSN, DOB, Maiden Name, etc). With the wording of the EULA for chrome would it be possible (nevemind ethics arguments or anything) for Google to have access to the password information that we have on our Wiki page?

The wiki is hosted on our server and is only able to be accessed when connected to the local network (or through vpn).

Thanks for any light you guys can shed on this for me.

 

[randay]

I dont think they have enough computer power to sift through all the porn and nef posts. if they do, then more power to them!

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: bobross419
Quick question here.... keep in mind that I don't know a whole lot about 'spidering' and the legal aspects of all this.

I work at a helpdesk and our knowledge base is in a Wiki format accessed through web browsers. When management was setting up the wiki they decided against adding a google search field because it can then "spider" the information in our kb. Some of the information in the kb includes passwords to systems that have large amounts of personal info (SSN, DOB, Maiden Name, etc). With the wording of the EULA for chrome would it be possible (nevemind ethics arguments or anything) for Google to have access to the password information that we have on our Wiki page?

The wiki is hosted on our server and is only able to be accessed when connected to the local network (or through vpn).

Thanks for any light you guys can shed on this for me.

umm gonna go ahead and say absolutely not. They would be a great feat if they could manage to spider websites that aren't even on the internet.

 

[randay]

btw, did you all forget that google already owns the entire interwebs? ever tried googling yourself? you think they dont know whats going on already? lulz

 

[OCGuy]

Looks like some people have had a little too much Google Kool-aid.

 

[LS21]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
If the same people that questioned EULA questioned the actions of the government we'd really be on to something. :roll:

win

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Looks like some people have had a little too much Google Kool-aid.

That's the best you could come up with?

Looks like you won't be using any Google products anymore.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Looks like some people have had a little too much Google Kool-aid.

That's the best you could come up with?

Looks like you won't be using any Google products anymore.

That argument doesnt hold water. When you type a search term into Google, you expect them to log/track that. There is no expectation of privacy from Google in that case. If you use this new trojan horse (aka chrome) but type a search term in Yahoo!, or visit other websites, etc, they will get THAT information as well. That is unacceptable to many people, including myself.

I dont care who uses it, im just glad this was brought to people's attention so they can use the information accordingly.

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Article at Gizmodo

11. Content license from you
11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.

11.2 You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.

11.3 You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this license shall permit Google to take these actions.

11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above license.

Yeah there was all kinds of controversy when some other company had similar language (I think it was Flikr?). It's just a legal CYA clause, not some nefarious scheme to steal your content and eat your babies.

Riiight. They need to use my "content" royalty free to cover thier ass. They need to sell said "content" to other companies to cover thier ass. Why is it even reporting my content back to google? I want my content as private as possible thank you very much.

But hey, to each his own.

It's legal boilerplate language, and it really IS just included in EULAs so you can't sue them for doing something that is necessary for their product to function.

It's in the terms of service that apply to all of their websites:
http://google.com/accounts/TOS?hl=US
Now, I'd hope you can see why they'd need that in there for something like Picasa or Gmail or Google Docs. If you uploaded a picture and hadn't agreed to those terms, you could sue them for violating your copyright by displaying the picture that you implicitly asked them to display.

Now, I can't think of any reason off the top of my head why they'd need that language in Chrome, but I'm sure there could be a very legitimate, non-nefarious reason. Or they could have just left it in there because it's part of their generic TOS that they use for ALL of their products. Most of their products are services, so that clause is necessary. [edit: see below]

Here's another example of nearly identical language:
http://toomanynerds.com/2008/0...press-beware-eula.html
Adobe changed their language because of publicity, but you can be sure that they had no intentions of stealing your pictures - it was just a CYA clause so you couldn't sue them for providing the service that they offered you.

I'm sure you'll find the same clause with almost identical language at MANY other websites. If you don't, those websites probably didn't have a lawyer involved in writing their TOS.


Edit: I did think of a reason why that clause would be necessary with Chrome. It does Google searches, and Google logs those searches and uses them to generate statistics. Better go unistall Google Toolbar too, since it likely has the same clause in its EULA. And while you're at it, you need to stop doing web searches at Google.com.

Just out of interest, does microsoft include those terms in its EULA's?

 

[waggy]

why people think Google is some amazing company for the people. EVERYTHING they do is to make money. they make money with information.

this damn browser is just another way to get more information and nothing more. So of course they are going to have language that gives them the right to sale it

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: WelshBloke
Just out of interest, does microsoft include those terms in its EULA's?

Microsoft has similar language (from MSN.com):

However, with respect to content you post or provide you grant to those members of the public to whom you have granted access (for content posted on shared and private areas of the service) or to the public (for content posted on public areas of the service) free, unlimited, worldwide, nonexclusive and perpetual permission to:

* use, modify, copy, distribute and display the content in connection with the service and other Microsoft products and services;
* publish your name in connection with the content; and
* grant these rights to others.

If I read that correctly, you're actually granting the unrestricted license to the public and not just Microsoft in this case.

Yahoo's similar clause only applies to information posted in public areas, which doesn't really cover them too well if someone wanted to sue over something stupid.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Looks like some people have had a little too much Google Kool-aid.

That's the best you could come up with?

Looks like you won't be using any Google products anymore.

That argument doesnt hold water. When you type a search term into Google, you expect them to log/track that. There is no expectation of privacy from Google in that case. If you use this new trojan horse (aka chrome) but type a search term in Yahoo!, or visit other websites, etc, they will get THAT information as well. That is unacceptable to many people, including myself.

I dont care who uses it, im just glad this was brought to people's attention so they can use the information accordingly.

Expecting something doesn't give them the explicit right to do it. You are making assumptions about what information Chrome sends to Google, if any (assuming you uncheck the box that allows them to collect usage statistics). You don't know that it's sending your Yahoo searches back to Google. Why don't you use a packet sniffer and prove it instead of making baseless accusations?

Bringing the information to people's attention is great - doing it in an alarmist way that misrepresents what's happening is not great.

 

[mugs]

Amazon.com:

If you do post content or submit material, and unless we indicate otherwise, you grant Amazon a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, and display such content throughout the world in any media. You grant Amazon and sublicensees the right to use the name that you submit in connection with such content, if they choose.

Digg:

Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.

(That means you don't even own it anymore, which is worse than any of the others that I've posted)

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Looks like some people have had a little too much Google Kool-aid.

That's the best you could come up with?

Looks like you won't be using any Google products anymore.

That argument doesnt hold water. When you type a search term into Google, you expect them to log/track that. There is no expectation of privacy from Google in that case. If you use this new trojan horse (aka chrome) but type a search term in Yahoo!, or visit other websites, etc, they will get THAT information as well. That is unacceptable to many people, including myself.

I dont care who uses it, im just glad this was brought to people's attention so they can use the information accordingly.

Its OSS so please go find the trojan horse. Oh wait let me guess the OSS community is being paid by google to keep the trojan a secret. :roll:

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Looks like some people have had a little too much Google Kool-aid.

That's the best you could come up with?

Looks like you won't be using any Google products anymore.

That argument doesnt hold water. When you type a search term into Google, you expect them to log/track that. There is no expectation of privacy from Google in that case. If you use this new trojan horse (aka chrome) but type a search term in Yahoo!, or visit other websites, etc, they will get THAT information as well. That is unacceptable to many people, including myself.

I dont care who uses it, im just glad this was brought to people's attention so they can use the information accordingly.

Its OSS so please go find the trojan horse. Oh wait let me guess the OSS community is being paid by google to keep the trojan a secret. :roll:

Good point. :thumbsup:

Target.com:

However, any comments, feedback, notes, messages, ideas, suggestions or other communications (collectively, "Comments") sent to Target.com shall be and remain the exclusive property of Target.com. Your submission of any such Comments shall constitute an assignment to Target.com of all worldwide rights, titles and interests in all copyrights and other intellectual property rights in the Comments. Target.com will be entitled to use, reproduce, disclose, publish and distribute any material you submit for any purpose whatsoever, without restriction and without compensating you in any way.

Google's problem is that they have their hands in so many things, and they have a general purpose license agreement - so the language is more general.

 

[jonks]

Tech boards read EULA: heads assplode, users uninstall in a frenzy, google continues on, nothing changes

Rest of the world glances at EULA: says meh, installs browser, enjoys it's use and other google services, google continues on, nothing changes

Why not just skip to the end since we all get there anyway?

All corporations are out to make a profit, but I recall Google telling the government to go screw themselves when they issued a warrantless demand for search info, and even went to court over it. Meanwhile, every other search engine rolled over and gave up whatever was asked, then when they learned that google refused, they started backpedalling about how they never gave up any "useful" or "personally identifiable" information, which kinda misses the entire point.

 

[Nik]

Oh man, I better uninstall Google Chrome right away! Heaven forbid it send my mother an email with a list of porn sites I visit :roll:

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: jonks
Tech boards read EULA: heads assplode, users uninstall in a frenzy, google continues on, nothing changes

Rest of the world glances at EULA: says meh, installs browser, enjoys it's use and other google services, google continues on, nothing changes

Why not just skip to the end since we all get there anyway?

All corporations are out to make a profit, but I recall Google telling the government to go screw themselves when they issued a warrantless demand for search info, and even went to court over it. Meanwhile, every other search engine rolled over and gave up whatever was asked, then when they learned that google refused, they started backpedalling about how they never gave up any "useful" or "personally identifiable" information, which kinda misses the entire point.

This is why I have so much respect for Google. Nice to know there are still some corporations out there who are willing to stand up for our first amendment rights and won't be bullied by the government (as was the case with Microsoft, Yahoo, AT&T, etc.).

 

[waggy]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10031703-56.html

Google said on Wednesday that it plans to alter contract terms that gave the search provider broad rights to use anything entered into its new Chrome browser.

"In order to keep things simple for our users, we try to use the same set of legal terms (our Universal Terms of Service) for many of our products," Google said in a statement provided to CNET News. "Sometimes, as in the case of Google Chrome, this means that the legal terms for a specific product may include terms that don't apply well to the use of that product. We are working quickly to remove language from Section 11 of the current Google Chrome terms of service."

As first noted by CNET News on Tuesday, Chrome's End User License agreement appeared to give Google a perpetual right to use anything one entered into the browser. Section 11 stated that although users retain copyright to their works, "by submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services."

Google said the change, once it is made, will apply retroactively to anyone who has downloaded the browser.

All this is separate from the issue of what information Google plans to store on its servers. Provided that users leave on the auto-suggest feature in Chrome and have Google as their default search provider, Google has the right to store any information typed into Chrome's Ominibox, which serves as both search bar and address bar. The software maker told CNET News it plans to store about 2 percent of all such data, along with the IP address of the computer that entered the information.




seems they are going to change it anyway.not that it matters. they are nothing more then a data minning operation. just done up in usefull ways

 

[pstylesss]

If I remember right there was a controversy like this with Gmail. Basically they want permission to use their Googlebot to scan what you are writing to display advertisements relavent to whatever the hell you are doing at the time. Either way, seems sketchy to me and I won't be using Chrome until I figure out what exactly they are giving themselves persmission to do or they issue a statement.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

how come its OK to rant about a Google conspiracy but god forbid you mention the government lying to you

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: waggy
"In order to keep things simple for our users, we try to use the same set of legal terms (our Universal Terms of Service) for many of our products," Google said in a statement provided to CNET News. "Sometimes, as in the case of Google Chrome, this means that the legal terms for a specific product may include terms that don't apply well to the use of that product. We are working quickly to remove language from Section 11 of the current Google Chrome terms of service."

That sounds remarkably similar to this:

Originally posted by: mugs
Or they could have just left it in there because it's part of their generic TOS that they use for ALL of their products. Most of their products are services, so that clause is necessary.

Remarkable!

I think Ocguy31 owes me an apology for the Kool-aid comment.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: waggy
"In order to keep things simple for our users, we try to use the same set of legal terms (our Universal Terms of Service) for many of our products," Google said in a statement provided to CNET News. "Sometimes, as in the case of Google Chrome, this means that the legal terms for a specific product may include terms that don't apply well to the use of that product. We are working quickly to remove language from Section 11 of the current Google Chrome terms of service."

That sounds remarkably similar to this:

Originally posted by: mugs
Or they could have just left it in there because it's part of their generic TOS that they use for ALL of their products. Most of their products are services, so that clause is necessary.

Remarkable!

I think Ocguy31 owes me an apology for the Kool-aid comment.

Do you see the irony in telling someone to apologize for a kool-aid comment, using a statement from THE COMPANY WE WERE DISCUSSING as your backup?

Anyway, kudos to them for changing it.......they only did it because of the big e-stink this morning. I dont think it was a "clerical error"

 

[frostedflakes]

So you're trying to claim that it isn't a generic EULA? I glanced over it before installing Chrome yesterday and it seemed pretty obvious the EULA was just a generic version they use for their other services. And since that is the case, I'm sure if there was anything nefarious about the clause we would have heard about it long before this. Google has probably been using the same EULA for years, and there hasn't been any controversy surrounding it, so yeah... it's probably not a big deal.

 

[DAGTA]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
how come its OK to rant about a Google conspiracy but god forbid you mention the government lying to you

Because Google is a business and the gov't is run only by the purest of hearts like a business model that all the world would like to follow.