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

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

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