Comments on: Google backtracks on Chrome license terms

Company says it is working to remove language that suggested it has a perpetual right to information entered in the browser.

[Pete Bardo]

It was obvious that the agreement was a boiler plate for all Google products and that much of it did not apply to Chrome. The misunderstanding was a form of mass-hysteria created by writers who think their job is to find something wrong with everything and anything that happens.

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?

[onlyauser]

Do not trust Google Chrome.

Chrome is spyware mascaraing as a browser.

[sanosuke123]

Ufff.... another firefox guy.

[Vegaman_Dan]

It's good that they are not going to use content displayed in the web browser. That helps a bit. The fact that they do intend to document and keep what you enter in search bar by default along with your IP address is a bit more troublesome. How often do you find the focus of your typing window has shifted because of another application or you inadvertantly hitting a keyboard combo/tab?

I'd recommend sitting back and letting this play out a bit more to find out what the intent is.

[mylicon]

Mountain out of a molehill? I don't see how Google storing OmniBox search information is any different from Google storing search queries entered at google.com. As for IP information being stored I don't consider it a method of personally identifying users. It can't distinguish between dynamic or static IPs, nor the individual computer (of many?) behind a single public IP address. If a user is that worried about sensitive information they would already have anonymous http proxies setup, faraday cages, trench coats and sunglasses.

[Dalkorian]

by mylicon September 3, 2008 1:22 PM PDT
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

[dakarite]

In order to post this comment, I had to register with CNET, and agree to the following:

"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.)

[pjhenry1216]

Umm... the Google EULA does explicitly say that you retain all rights to your content and they even say that they do not in fact have any right to the content whatsoever.

[The User]

The difference is simple: CNET doesn't want you to sue them, claiming the ownership of something you have posted here. CNET doesn't extend its reach beyond that.

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.

[BIGELLOW]

They already state "You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services." Why do they need to explicitly state what they cannot do? Should they also say they also cannot commit fraud legally, and cannot kidnap your grandmother without her consent? By stating that you retain any other rights you would normally hold in the content you submit... they cover it all. So, essentially, no... they don't have the right to take your stuff and use your stuff... the right to have your own stuff and keep others away from it is already your right that they needn't repeat, or else they might not be complete enough and would have to put the entire U.S. Code into the browser's EULA.

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?

[pjhenry1216]

When this controversial thing was originally posted, I pointed out that it was most likely referring to only their services and not the web browser. Even Ars Technica recognized that the EULA seemed boilerplate. Granted its nice that they changed it, but it was making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Granted, I am a little suspicious of the omnibar's issues.

[The User]

Google "do no evil" turns more and more "get as much info as you can for the purpose of making money out of it".

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.

[RogerJennings]

There are many more fixes that I'd require before agreeing to Googles ToS. See http://oakleafblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/chromes-evil-terms-of-service.html for a list.

The alternative is to compile the source code yourself or download someone else's Chrome.exe from a trusted source.

--rj

[AppleSuxLeo]

MSFT should sue Google as it`s Chrome logo is a rip-off of Windows Media Player`s logo.

[mieulz]

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.
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..