Re: DO READ Quickie Privacy Analysis of Google's New "Chrome" Web Browser

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Adam Fields <ip20398470293845 () aquick org>
Date: September 3, 2008 10:05:04 PM EDT
To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Cc: ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Re: [IP] Re:    DO READ Quickie Privacy Analysis of Google's  
New "Chrome" Web Browser

For IP, if you wish:

On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 05:38:34PM -0400, David Farber wrote:
[...]
> 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.

Whatever "fixed" means in this context.

The privacy policies of Google have long been a mess. It's a continual
problem to decipher what, if any, provisions apply to any given
service, and some of the most critical and complicated ones (from a
legal standpoint) don't have any separate privacy policy at all - as
we've discussed on this list before, Google Analytics is a standout
example.

> 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.
[...]

That's a bit more like it, but the question remains - why don't the
countless other Google services have anywhere near this level of
clarity, and why is the remainder of the Chrome policy still full of
things like this:


5.5 Unless you have been specifically permitted to do so in a separate
 agreement with Google, you agree that you will not reproduce,
 duplicate, copy, sell, trade or resell the Services for any purpose

##### A separate agreement... like the actual license of the source
     code?

8.3 Google reserves the right (but shall have no obligation) to
 pre-screen, review, flag, filter, modify, refuse or remove any or
 all Content from any Service.

##### So Google may block any site from being accessed with Chrome and
     retains the rights to modify pages as they see fit?

10.2 You may not (and you may not permit anyone else to) copy, modify,
  create a derivative work of, reverse engineer, decompile or
  otherwise attempt to extract the source code of the Software or any
  part thereof, unless this is expressly permitted or required by
  law, or unless you have been specifically told that you may do so
  by Google, in writing.

##### Again... this is an open source product. Why is this even in
     here?

It's not that I think that Google intends to do any of these things,
but contracts, even non-negotiable EULAs, should be read in the worst
case scenario. If you don't intend to enforce provisions in a
contract, >take them out<. You know what's simple and easy on users?
Legal documents that say what they mean instead of hiding behind
inappropriate boilerplate language that may or may not apply.


--
                                - 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