Google backtracks on Chrome license terms
Updated 2 p.m., with change in license terms.
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.
Update: As of 2 p.m. PT, it looks like the terms have changed. Section 11 now reads simply: "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."
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 
But it is troublesome that they plan to store even 2 percent of browsing data, especially when it is tied to the ip address and therefore can be traced back to an individual user. Hasn't Google said in the past that it does not store data that can be traced that way?
Chrome is spyware mascaraing as a browser.
I'd recommend sitting back and letting this play out a bit more to find out what the intent is.
If a user is that worried about sensitive information they would already have anonymous http proxies setup, faraday cages, trench coats and sunglasses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
That's what I forgot, to don my trench coat! Oh no, now "they" will find me! To the panic room!
:-D LOL
"You certify that you own all intellectual property rights in Your Content. You hereby grant us, our affiliates, and our partners a worldwide, irrevocable, royalty-free, nonexclusive, sublicensable license to use, reproduce, create derivative works of, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, transfer, transmit, distribute, and publish Your Content and subsequent versions of Your Content for the purposes of (i) displaying Your Content on our sites, (ii) distributing Your Content, either electronically or via other media, to users seeking to download or otherwise acquire it, and/or (iii) storing Your Content in a remote database accessible by end users, for a charge. This license shall apply to the distribution and the storage of Your Content in any form, medium, or technology now known or later developed."
If I read this right, it is worse than the similar, controversial language that was originally in the Chrome user agreement: the CNET version not only gives CNET the right to use your content, it gives them the right to charge others to see it, with no reimbursement to you.
As for the Chrome agreement, removal of the rights-of-use language does not, I think, go far enough. It doesn't deny them those rights, it just no longer explicitly grants them. What is needed is language to the effect that your content is your content, and, like their content, cannot be used in for their own purposes without your explicit consent, and, should you so decide, payment of a fee. (Until agreements like this came along, companies had to pay for the content of their marketing campaigns. Now many they can include their users' creations in their advertising without reimbursing them.)
It is my personal policy not to agree to contracts with this kind of clause--which many online services include. Having said this, I will now cancel my membershp in CNET. (I would have said nice things about their products and services, but then they could "use, reproduce, create derivative works of, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, transfer, transmit, distribute, and publish" my comments as advertising without reimbursing me.)
With Google Chrome the situation is different. Chrome is the tool for surfing the net and accessing websites. Thus, Google retains the right to take any information you access or enter into your browser and use it for Google's purposes. That means your bank account can be legally made searchable on Google.com, if you did online banking with Chrome.
Why are people so closely scrutinizing Google's EULA's all of a sudden? Everyone's got 'em. If you're not a lawyer, it's easy for anyone to misunderstand them. So, unless you're a lawyer reading it, and you see something in Google's that is in nobody else's, then why arbitrarily target Google? Are they just the flavor of the century or what?
Granted, I am a little suspicious of the omnibar's issues.
I'll use Chrome for testing new sites, as I do with other 5 browsers on my machine. But no other Google products will ever end up on my hard drive.
The alternative is to compile the source code yourself or download someone else's Chrome.exe from a trusted source.
--rj
- by mieulz September 9, 2008 3:41 PM PDT
- I do not see the problem Microsoft's IE and Firefox Mozilla all track users and pages opened. Also Linux and other open source OS. At least with Chrome if you are paranoid about that you can go stealth mode and eliminate all info collected. An option not available on others I might add.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(15 Comments)For me Chrome is proving ultra fast and very reliable. This is what they call a Beta. Well when polishing is done will make it the only Browser I use.
Tips and tricks for importing cookies you do not want to use import to get settings from Mozilla..I have found Java 6 works best with Chrome. There will be small delays as browser finds right application when opening new sites and first installed.. Microsoft of course is fighting use and a warning box will appear when on their pages, Just hit page addyressagain it will open then. It is one new feature that Chrome has which is great..