Home page logo
/

interesting-people logo Interesting People mailing list archives

DO READ Quickie Privacy Analysis of Google's New "Chrome" Web Browser
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 05:05:52 -0400

Maybe because we have been conditioned to believe that corporations are not to be trusted and will behave OLNY when they are watched and their issues aired djf


Begin forwarded message:

From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com>
Date: September 3, 2008 6:05:48 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Cc: lauren () vortex com
Subject: Re: [IP] Re: DO READ Quickie Privacy Analysis of Google's New "Chrome" Web Browser


Dave,

I am increasingly impressed and depressed by some people's
willingness to believe the worst even when the accusations are
obviously illogical.

My assumption all along -- and I was in the process of digging into
this -- was that much of the key Google Chrome EULA wording in
question was not what was intended.  It spoke of "Services" for
example, in a manner that didn't seem to fit with a standalone Web
browsing application (though "Services" can include a wide variety of
applications support).

But more to the point, how could anyone seriously believe that Google
would actually try to assert such broad rights to non-Google content
that you simply displayed via their Web browser?  This would be
unenforceable and the kiss of death for the browser.  Even Google
makes mistakes from time to time, but they're not stupid or suicidal.

Then again, looking at the political scene right now, I guess a lot
of people will believe just about anything, no matter how nonsensical
or illogical.  The more things change, the more they stay the same.

--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren () vortex com or lauren () pfir org
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
  - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, NNSquad
  - Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com

- -



Begin forwarded message:

From: "Peter Moody" <peter.moody () gmail com>
Date: September 3, 2008 5:19:32 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] Re: DO READ Quickie Privacy Analysis of Google's New
"Chrome" Web Browser

It should be noted that the inclusion of this in the EULA was an
error. As has been noted by others, it's in the process of being
fixed.

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-license-agreement/
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080903-google-on-chrome-eula-controversy-our-bad-well-change-it.html

indeed, when I look at section 11 of the eula right now, it says:

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.

full-disclosure: I still work for google, but not on chrome or the
legal team or any team that had anything to do with this eula.

On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 1:59 PM, David Farber <dave () farber net> wrote:


Begin forwarded message:

From: Adam Fields <ip20398470293845 () aquick org>
Date: September 3, 2008 4:17:29 PM EDT
To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Cc: ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Re: [IP] Re:   Quickie Privacy Analysis of Google's New
"Chrome"
Web Browser

For IP, if you wish:

On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 11:32:37AM -0400, David Farber wrote:
[...]

What about the EULA: <http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html>? (Some
parts appended below.)

[...]

By the way - I don't think anyone else has mentioned that the EULA not
only applies to content you _submit_ with it, but also to content you
_view_ with it.

'In short, when you view a web page with Chrome, you affirm to Google
that you have the right to grant Google an irrevocable license to use
it to "display, distribute and promote the Services", including making
such content available to others. If you don't have that legal
authority over every web page you've visited, you've just fraudulently
granted that license to Google and may yourself be liable to the
actual copyright owner. (If you do, of course, you've just granted
them that license for real.) I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect that
Google has either committed mass inducement to fraud or the entire
EULA (which lacks a severability clause) is impossible to obey and
therefore void.'

http://www.aquick.org/blog/2008/09/03/the-google-chrome-terms-of-service-are-hilarious/

--
                             - Adam

** Expert Technical Project and Business Management
**** System Performance Analysis and Architecture
****** [ http://www.adamfields.com ]

[ http://www.morningside-analytics.com ] .. Latest Venture
[ http://www.confabb.com ] ................ Founder
[ http://www.aquick.org/blog ] ............ Blog
[ http://www.adamfields.com/resume.html ].. Experience
[ http://www.flickr.com/photos/fields ] ... Photos
[ http://www.aquicki.com/wiki ].............Wiki




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com





-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
AlienVault