Thread: Chrome - The new browser by Google

NPR got me hooked on it. Not so sure about the codes, but the mentioned that it was built from the ground up for a multimedia web. And that if one tab crashes the others will still function. Have yet to find a crash, not sure how to create one

All in all, it at least rivals firefox, though someone today asked me if I looked at IE8...Oi...the battles for our loyalty.

I love it.

Before you get all too excited: did you actually bother to read the EULA?
For some people it doesn't matter that much, but for people who produce content like graphics, audio, video, code, thesis, ... it does.

"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. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the services and may be revoked for certain services as defined in the additional terms of those services."

google left their 'do no evil' motto at the door at their IPO.
And everybody is cheering them for it.

Bruno,

I've seen this come up before, but I don't understand the sinister connotations. What harm does granting a non-exclusive license do, exactly? It seems to me that this type of agreement is necessary when you're dealing with the web, and search and advertising in particular. For example, Google's caching feature essentially copies and reproduces content, which in the traditional understanding of copyright law would be illegal.

I guess I just don't see how Google would run off with someone's thesis and make a million dollars off of it.

For photographers and graphic artists on the Web, Google should be the least of their worries when there are millions of unscrupulous users out there who would rip their images off in myriad ways.

Can you elaborate?

Josh

It seems they changed the wording to their intent after they saw the storm in the cup of water.

Personally my biggest concern is the possibility of unblocked adds by special sponsors.

The concern is that you allow google to do anything with the things that you do using their browser.

For example,

If I mail artwork to david using the Chrome browser, then I also automatically give google the permission to use my artwork.
If I mail a self made music file to a distributor, I automatically give google the rights to publish it on youtube or to simply make it otherwise available.
If I mail a secret document to another party, google is allowed to use that however they see fit, as long as they withing their EULA, which is vague and broad.
If you submit an article to a publisher (something I do via webmail)....
If you submit confidential or legal documents, ....
If you mail or upload source code to applications you've written (something I do regularly)...

See the picture: if it touches your browser, it'll never get free of google's talons, and you have no recourse if they abuse it. Maybe you could sue. Which would be extremely expensive no matter how it turns out.

If Microsoft would have the same EULA on IE, they would be keelhauled and their browser market share would plummet.
But if it's google, people care far less. Although this issue seems to be getting enough attention to have an impact.
Google has abandoned 'do no evil' a long time ago. They bow to the chinese censorship requests, they tried to strongarm the german owner of gmail.de into releasing his domain, .... And now they try to get people to use a browser that allows them to do anything with your data as soon as it has touched

OK..

Because Chrome is open source, technically you can compile it on your own machine, which means that their EULA is not worth the pixels it's printed on.

Paranoia here is not a good thing. IF they were doing as you say, then you could see it in the source anyhow and knowing how vocal everyone is about privacy these days - it'd be found out soon enough.

99% of the people will not compile it themselves. I won't, and I am a programmer.
So it is safe to say that 99% of the actual installed base IS covered by the EULA, because if it is installed through the distributed installer, the EULA applies.

Furthermore, there is no guarantee that what they share is the same as what they distribute,
Building chrome with a different build environment will give you a different binary.
The only way to know for sure what it is doing is to reverse engineer.

But regardless... I am prepared to accept that they are based on the same code. That doesn't matter because if you use Chrome to upload anything towards one of the google services, they have your data AND the license to do with it what they please. If you use Chrome to e.g. use gmail. then any data that you send is also subject to that license. and you will never know that they gathered it, because it happens serverside.

You say that paranoia is not a good thing, but would you react the same way if it was IE or Safari?
You may say 'But Microsoft is evil' and I will say 'Yeah but so is google'
Google did do the things I already mentioned, where they sacrificed principles for business reasons.
They have lost the aura of 'being honest' imo, so I am not going to give them the legal right to abuse my data on their discretion.

This article at DSLreports.com says Gogole has changed the TOS for the browser:
"You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services."

The way I see it, their terms of service are a protection for the company, not a statement of intent. They are trying to prevent lawsuits.

If I'm wrong, and Google starts selling confidential documents or posting musicians' work for free on the Internet, Google will be dead overnight. They have every incentive to shield their users' information.

Also, the terms state that Google has non-exclusive rights to the content, which means that I retain full use of my work and the right to profit from it.

It will be interesting to see if Google's policy changes, given Chrome's earlier-than-planned launch.

Edit: Sensei posted while I was working on mine. I wonder if this was a trial balloon from Google. If so, it seems that it's been shot down decisively. Gotta love free markets.

Josh