Google pulls a Microsoft on user privacy

What is Google thinking? For those who didn't catch Ina Fried's perceptive review of Google Chrome's terms of service Tuesday, ReadWriteWeb piles on Wednesday. In the terms of service, Google claims "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 may not be as dire as it sounds. It could be simply a way for Google to retain the right to post content that users expressly authorize it to publicly reproduce. No harm, no foul.

But it also sounds suspiciously familiar to the privacy landgrab that Microsoft Passport made back in 2001, and even though the user retains her copyrights, it's a weak salve for the open door that Google grants itself. Yes, Google will likely say (as it did in 2007 about the privacy problems inherent in its Google Docs terms of service) that it has no nefarious designs on its users' content.

Of course it doesn't, well, beyond advertising against them and discovering other ways to monetize it without necessarily owning it. I'm not suggesting that this is evil. I'm just suggesting that there are, in fact, ways to take a less expansive stance in the legalese around public display of information.

The primary problem with Google's terms of service (other than the auto-update feature that Ina also points out) is that Google allows itself too much, and restricts itself too little. I suspect that Google will actually do none of the evil privacy-busting practices that many will accuse it of preparing. My concern is that this language is so broad that Google could, if it were so inclined, invade user privacy on a grand scale. The terms of service allow it. Only Google's best intentions prevent it.

The industry shot down Microsoft's Passport attempts. Let's hope the industry does the same for Google's own privacy landgrab.

[seo2seo]

What part of "Open Source" do you not understand? - - Clearly you don't understand Chrome, or you'd have found 62,000 much more interesting (and less paranoid) topics to discuss, both good and bad.

[rapier1]

I'm sure he understand Open Source but the EULA isn't discussing source code. Its specifically discussing content.
"a perpetual, irrevocable ... license to reproduce ... and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services." In other words - any content you create or transfer with the browser through any of its services now belong to Google to do with as they please. Thats not open source and it violates the idea of open source/creative commons because its supposed to be a choice made by the content creator, not one imposed on them by a 3rd party.

[john55440]

Big Brother Google is in the business of collecting personal information for advertising purposes. In terms of privacy, they are currently much worse than Microsoft.

[BenjaminWright]

If Google can assert its legal terms just by publishing them (on something less than its homepage), then maybe users can assert their own terms of property and privacy protection just by publishing them! What do you think? --Ben http://hack-igations.blogspot.com/2008/05/google-privacy-policy-terms-of-service.html

[CrashPad63]

Since when has MS collected information that you as an end user has not accepted? For that matter Apple and Linux does the same thing on troubleshooting, updates, and upgrades. Man Matt Asay you really have a very subjective slant with MS, maybe you should look into covering something other than Tech. Afterall MS is tech, and you really arent objective on them.
Other than that great journalism, really top notch, I mean it... what a hack

[odubtaig]

There's a link, follow it.

Short version for the profoundly lazy: MS tried to insert almost identical terms into it's Passport Terms of Service in 2001.

No cookie for you.

[CrashPad63]

odutaig, Read again, "Since when has MS collected information that you as an end user has not accepted?" Every Eula is either accepted for use or not. If you dont accept you dont use the app. For the simple minded folks out there. Man you are a condencending little twit.

[odubtaig]

I read your comment fine, it still has nothing to do with what Matt's written because it's claiming he's written something he quite clearly hasn't. If, in an article about Google's EULA referencing an old MS ToU agreement, you can point out where it has even been suggested that MS has collected information that the end user has not 'agreed' to (and we all know people are way too trusting to read those lengthy documents) by accepting the EULA/ToU you can call me a condescending twit (oh, and when you can tell the difference between Terms of Use and EULA, another sign that you haven't actually read the article).

It's an article about what people are expected to agree to, not whether Google/MS have done something they haven't agreed to. As I suggested earlier, if you'd actually read the article you would know this. Now, maybe I wasn't quite clear enough, but given that you're claiming Matt to have written things he hasn't, either you're too lazy to properly read the article, your ablity to seperate reality from fantasy is lacking or you're an idiot.

Oh, and speaking of condescending, "Every Eula is either accepted for use or not. If you dont accept you dont use the app." That you think people are simple minded for trusting MS/Google and not expecting these copyright shafting clauses in these agreements is exactly the condescending boneheaded attitude that is the reason people are sometimes surprised I work with computers, largely because I don't expect them to know much at all about my specialist domain just as a surgeon doesn't expect me to know a spleen from a heart valve and I don't treat them like idiot-children for struggling with MS Office.

[onlyauser]

Do not trust Google Chrome.

Chrome is spyware mascaraing as a browser.

[Dan Kegel]

Here's an official response from Rebecca Ward, Senior Product Counsel for Google Chrome:

"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. 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. This change will apply retroactively to all users who have downloaded Google Chrome."

[commentsbydan]

Google cannot be trusted with anything.

[seo2seo]

I reckon you guys should take off your tin foil hats ... and turn off your computers. - - If M$ and Google aren't out to get you, you can bet that Dreamweaver will snitch to Acrobat Reader. - - And this used to be an interesting blog! - - Did you guys never stop ask why on Earth all these companies could give a monkey's cuss about you? It's pure arrogance to think you are so, so important.

[The_Decider]

Um, you do realize that the very existence of Google depends solely on its ability to collect as much info about you as possible. Google cares a lot since it is their only profit avenue.

[GodWish]

Let there be some sanity, google is going crazy, My argument question is who gives Chrome any rights to publish the ads with respect to my content or browsing information . This is Hijacking of my privacy.. and thats a utter nonsense, this argument is enough for me not to use chrome. . I give you free browser and you give me your privacy .Features are good but somehow its too boring and obvious.. I have uninstalled and I am ashamed of google for deceiving people bec they know 99% don't read EULA they just trust the name.

[rshew]

I've said it once before. I'm uncomfortable with a browser that requires my acceptance of an agreement simply to install. I've never had to do this, as far as I recall, for any other browser, so, of course, I'm wondering what the "real deal" with this is.