Will the party of the first party explain to the party of the second part

re: Will the party of the first party explain to the party of the second part

Chris Knight — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 06:53:37 GMT

Actually, some good commentary can be found here:

www.mattcutts.com/.../google-chrome-license-agreement

Section 11 of the EULA has been changed as a result.

Is Google sucking the "Chrome" off your Browser?

Ben Yarbrough — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 03:16:02 GMT

Could there be more to Chrome than meets the eye? Is Google "sucking the "Chrome" off your Browser"? Maybe Google plans on Going Green by Burning your CPU cycles when you search? I am not sure it is possible , but it seems covered by the EULA.

Google is all about sorting and organizing content which is no small task. The enormity of the issue is only getting worse. The legal structure of the EULA suggests there may be MUCH more at play here. Not sure.... Let's take a deeper dive.

The first comment addresses an apparent conflict between the Google Privacy Statement and Section 11 of the EULA for Chrome which seem on their face at complete odds. However, after further thought I am not so sure that is really case. Section 11 is focused on licensing the "Content" that you drive through the browser. The privacy statement is all about associating "you" with that "Content." These two need not be the same (or linked) to have value - especially given the search issues. Anonymous data has real value.

"Content" is defined in section 8.1 as "... all information (such as data files, written text, computer software, music, audio files or other sounds, photographs, videos or other images) which you may have access to as part of, or through your use of, the Services. This definition in 8.1 attributes responsibility for "Content" to the originator. This is really trying to limit the liability of Google.

Susan correctly points out that Section 11 is where it gets juicy. Section 11.1 licenses Google to "display" the "Content" in the browser. This initial part of the license from YOU to Google is consistent with the intent of a browser....to display the Content for the user. This part seems ok. However, the other parts of Section 11 are different. Check out Section 11.2 - "11.2 you agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies…s for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services." Remember "Content" includes all information you run through your browser..... This is far broader than contemplated by Section 11.1. It suggests the "Content" you view (or any part) may then be used for the performance of the Services.

Either Section 11.2 is a very poor drafting attempt to have authors license Google for republication of their original "Content" [seems unlikely] - OR Google is getting your permission to use your browsing sessions to build its database. How might Google do this.....? Could they use data and search term correlation, updating indexes.... or otherwise? Maybe they plan on building server farms in your homes and offices.... not just Lenoir, NC!

I guess I have to check with my super geek (Lawrence) - I am sure he is up!

Leveraging community data can yield enormous benefits. However, the buyer (or free user) should be made aware and understand the implications. Google should provide more clarity on its intentions for Chrome.

Has anyone looked at the Source Code yet? Lawrence…..(add it to you to do list)!

re: Will the party of the first party explain to the party of the second part

OBTS — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 18:57:47 GMT

What it means is that I will be uninstalling that sucker soonest. This doesn't make me feel bad, because I get the impression that it is just a glorified Google toolbar, which I have never installed. Worse, the current skin is ugly as sin, and I have no intention of looking at it any more. I have constructed a "home page" which I have hosted on my own IIS server, and it provides most of the links I use on a regular basis. One of those is to Google. OBTS

Compile from source, and state your own EULA?

llaurén — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 13:46:42 GMT

So Google has a separate EULA for the source code -- which i haven't read, but i suppose it won't be easier on the eyes than the executable code EULA. Suppose i'd be able to compile the source code. Then i wouldn't be tied by the exe-EULA and paragraph eleven wouldn't apply any longer?

I too need a lawyer... no actually, i need simpler EULAs.

re: Will the party of the first party explain to the party of the second part

Bill V — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 11:52:35 GMT

Ah... quote from "The Quiet Man" if I'm correct.

re: Will the party of the first party explain to the party of the second part

Chris Knight — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 08:13:12 GMT

There was a robust discussion of Google's T&Cs on the SAGE-AU mailing lists (membership-only list) earlier this year, including commentary from a Google employee whose role was in the security space.

The rationale was the Google is all about "machine read" - computer takes human-generated data and manipulates it, such as multiple copies (for cluster redundancy), language translation, smart quote removal, spam/malware scrubbing, accessibility translation (TTS), distribution (what e-mail does, really). The T&Cs therefore need to be able to grant Google with the legal ability to perform these actions with user consent.

The other comment that was made that the T&Cs need to be read in conjunction with Google's Privacy Policy to gain a more balanced view of what Google intends to do with your data.

The bottom line is that Google needs your permission to perform their magic on your data. If you don't trust them, you don't use them. Nor do you use any other online service that has access to your data (OWN, Mozy, Jungle Disk, Amazon S3, Yahoo, Hotmail, etc).