Is Chrome bad for designers?

3 Sep 2008 - 10:22am
5 years ago
7 replies
451 reads
DrWex
2006

I got tossed a pointer to this blog entry:
http://www.edrants.com/google-chrome-is-bad-for-writers-bloggers/
I also blogged this at Copyfight:
http://copyfight.corante.com/archives/2008/09/03/google_chrome_and_copyright.php

For the tl;dr crowd:

Google's EULA for Chrome claims the right to use, redistribute, and
profit from, any content created in Chrome.

That would include this email, blog entries, and so on. But more
scarily, it could be extended to my RIAs. Which are used by
securities traders. If they run my app in Chrome, does Google think
it has any rights to those customers' financial data?

I can't imagine anything that would scare customers away from RIAs
faster. No matter how good it is for designers and developers of
RIAs, if customers believe their data is at risk by using this browser
they'll flop in the commercial space. I wouldn't be surprised to see
Chrome barred from corporate desktops if this is really their
approach. (Individuals may be less sensitive - I suppose it will vary
from person to person and depend a lot on whether Google really uses
those rights it claims. Corporations are much more risk-averse.)

It's still very early in the game, but I'm not liking what I'm seeing
so far, regardless of how cool the technology is.

--Alan

Comments

3 Sep 2008 - 4:17pm
jet
2008

Alan Wexelblat wrote:

> Google's EULA for Chrome claims the right to use, redistribute, and
> profit from, any content created in Chrome.

If so, ow on earth can that be legal, much less enforceable?

--
jet / KG6ZVQ
http://www.flatline.net
pgp: 0xD0D8C2E8 AC9B 0A23 C61A 1B4A 27C5 F799 A681 3C11 D0D8 C2E8

3 Sep 2008 - 4:31pm
DrWex
2006

Well, IANAL, but fortunately I have several who read my blog and
within an hour of posting on Copyfight I had a response from a lawyer
who noted that he found the language unusual as well.

On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 5:17 PM, j. eric townsend <jet at flatline.net> wrote:
> Alan Wexelblat wrote:
>> Google's EULA for Chrome claims the right to use, redistribute, and
>> profit from, any content created in Chrome.
>
> If so, ow on earth can that be legal, much less enforceable?

EULAs are still somewhat gray but generally the court decisions that
have been handed down so far tend to find EULA terms to be enforceable
voluntary contracts. Nobody says you have to run Chrome - and my
guess is that from an enterprise/business point of view it might be
deemed too risky.

That said, I think that what we're seeing is a first-off cut-and-paste
set of terms. They needed something and this was probably just pulled
wholesale from the Gmail EULA. I expect those terms to change between
now and when Chrome really takes off. Google is aiming Chrome
straight at Microsoft Windows (not IE) and if they are serious about
that then they'll need to put together legal language that won't set
corporate lawyers' teeth on edge.

(This is me speaking ex recto - I have no actual information, just
speculations.)

--Alan

3 Sep 2008 - 12:21pm
Sterling Koch
2008

>Google's EULA for Chrome claims the right to use, redistribute, and
>profit from, any content created in Chrome.

>That would include this email, blog entries, and so on. But more
>scarily, it could be extended to my RIAs. Which are used by
>securities traders. If they run my app in Chrome, does Google think
>it has any rights to those customers' financial data?

My reading of this EULA was more that it was poorly worded/Draconian, but that it really didn't say anything that Google (and all the other major players) doesn't already do - track your clicking habits, store copies of sites on their servers, etc.

3 Sep 2008 - 2:56pm
Mario Bourque
2008

That could certainly pose a risk in the enterprise.

Corporate information could be easily used by Google for their own interests
and/or against yours. Using Google Chrome as a thin client for Google Apps
or other RIA intranet program would put sensitive data at risk.
--
Mario Bourque
Web: www.mariobourque.com
Email: mario at mariobourque.com
Twitter: www.twitter.com/mariobourque

3 Sep 2008 - 4:54pm
Jared M. Spool
2003

Google has admitted it was a mistake and change the EULA.

http://tinyurl.com/6zhx4h

Jared

On Sep 3, 2008, at 5:31 PM, Alan Wexelblat wrote:

> Well, IANAL, but fortunately I have several who read my blog and
> within an hour of posting on Copyfight I had a response from a lawyer
> who noted that he found the language unusual as well.

3 Sep 2008 - 6:22pm
Narla
2008

I personally think that it is not a great idea to capture all the
sensitive information in the name of RIA. I would be very paranoid
about using it.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=32599

4 Sep 2008 - 7:52am
Dave Malouf
2005

wait? you go by "anonymous" and you claim THIS would make you
paranoid? hmmm?

Putting that aside for a Sec. I found this in C|Net this morning
interesting and relevant to this topic:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10031703-56.html?tag=newsEditorsPicksArea.0

It seems that Google is back tracking slightly on the EULA.

But it does speak to a play we didn't talk about in the other
thread. Maybe they just want more data. The stream of users is a huge
supply of data. The more they get and the deeper its sources the more
"useful" it is., no?

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, just pointing out.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=32599

Syndicate content Get the feed