Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Google\'s new browser
#1
Called Chrome, it was released today for windoze XP and Vista (?!) and it is blisteringly fast, as well as rather nattily designed, with some very clever things you can do with tabs. Give it a whirl (Mac and Linux versions - no, it doesn't run under Wine - are promised soon) and see what you think - it renders RAT nicely and all of my web pages look okay and, most importantly, BBC iPlayer looks great too ;-).

Mike Bishop
You know my method. It is founded upon the observance of trifles

Blogging, tweeting, and mapping Hadrian\'s Wall... because it\'s there
Reply
#2
Bet like me you didn't read the fine print. This from Slashdot:
Slashdot on Google EULA
Quote:Much ink and many electrons are being spilled over Google's Chrome browser (discussed here twice in recent days): from deep backgrounders to performance benchmarks to its vulnerability to a carpet-bombing flaw. The latest angle to be explored is Chrome's end-user license agreement. It does not look consumer-friendly. "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."
Richard Campbell
Legio XX - Alexandria, Virginia
RAT member #6?
Reply
#3
Quote:Bet like me you didn't read the fine print. This from Slashdot:
Slashdot on Google EULA
Quote:Much ink and many electrons are being spilled over Google's Chrome browser (discussed here twice in recent days): from deep backgrounders to performance benchmarks to its vulnerability to a carpet-bombing flaw. The latest angle to be explored is Chrome's end-user license agreement. It does not look consumer-friendly. "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."
What content does a user submit? Only the URLs of the sites, I think. In other words, Google has an opportunity to analyze your surfing behavior. That's indeed an alarming thought. And I wonder if passwords are part of the license. Does Google get the right to read your passwords? I can hardly imagine that, but it is part of the content you submit.
Jona Lendering
Relevance is the enemy of history
My website
Reply
#4
How about the content you submit on Wikipedia or a public forum, say, RAT?
Greets!

Jasper Oorthuys
Webmaster & Editor, Ancient Warfare magazine
Reply
#5
Quote:How about the content you submit on Wikipedia or a public forum, say, RAT?
You mean: if I type this through my Firefox, or a Windows Explorer, it remains ours, but if I would write these words through Chrome, it's no longer ours?
Jona Lendering
Relevance is the enemy of history
My website
Reply
#6
Quote:9.4 Other than the limited license set forth in Section 11, Google acknowledges and agrees that it obtains no right, title or interest from you (or your licensors) under these Terms in or to any Content that you submit, post, transmit or display on, or through, the Services, including any intellectual property rights which subsist in that Content (whether those rights happen to be registered or not, and wherever in the world those rights may exist). Unless you have agreed otherwise in writing with Google, you agree that you are responsible for protecting and enforcing those rights and that Google has no obligation to do so on your behalf.

Quote: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. 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.

11.3 You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this license shall permit Google to take these actions.

Hmmm... does that make any sense?
Dan Diffendale
Ph.D. candidate, University of Michigan
Reply
#7
Quote:Bet like me you didn't read the fine print.

And did you read the EULA on windoze, Office etc etc? ;-) Yes, of course I did and read the blog that started the panic. My copyright is my copyright and no boilerplate lawyer-funding digital guff like this takes that away (DMCA anyone?). They have re-worded legal stuff more felicitously before when it causes an uproar. The intent of Google is what matters here: they have produced an open-source browser; other prominent IT companies (no names no pack drill, but the sort who do not open source their browsers) can easily be interpreted as being just such evil-doers (but as a cock-up rather than conspiracy-oriented viewer of history, I doubt it). Governments, my own included, concern me more, but not because of their sinister cloak-and-dagger doings, but because of their incompetence (thumb drives dropped, laptops left on trains, major computer projects bungled etc etc).

Mike Bishop
You know my method. It is founded upon the observance of trifles

Blogging, tweeting, and mapping Hadrian\'s Wall... because it\'s there
Reply
#8
Sounds like they reserve the right to publish anything you write, without accepting the blame if they violate your rights, which remain yours, but which you have to enforce yourself.

Oh and Mike, you are of course right to mistrust governments, but don't look in one direction only. Some companies or organisations are already far more powerful and of more influence on our daily lives than our government.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#9
Sounds like you've read None Dare Call it Conspiracy, Robert.
M. Demetrius Abicio
(David Wills)

Saepe veritas est dura.
Reply
#10
Quote:They have re-worded legal stuff more felicitously before when it causes an uproar. The intent of Google is what matters here

And the sound of back-peddling is already becoming audible ;-)

Quote:Oh and Mike, you are of course right to mistrust governments, but don't look in one direction only. Some companies or organisations are already far more powerful and of more influence on our daily lives than our government.

Yet not quite as potent as some other governments can be over one's own, sometimes.

Mike Bishop
You know my method. It is founded upon the observance of trifles

Blogging, tweeting, and mapping Hadrian\'s Wall... because it\'s there
Reply
#11
Well, Mike, clandestine illegal entry into military computers, and altering files? Rendering military computers inoperable? Hmm. That doesn't seem to be benign behavior.

It was, after all, a British court that upheld the extradition order, wasn't it? A crime committed in another country from that of the perpetrator, should he be found guilty, is typically punishable in the country of the offended. That happens all the time, worldwide, within and without various nations.

Deeds have consequences, sometimes they can be severe.
M. Demetrius Abicio
(David Wills)

Saepe veritas est dura.
Reply
#12
Quote:Well, Mike, clandestine illegal entry into military computers, and altering files? Rendering military computers inoperable? Hmm. That doesn't seem to be benign behavior.

It was, after all, a British court that upheld the extradition order, wasn't it? A crime committed in another country from that of the perpetrator, should he be found guilty, is typically punishable in the country of the offended. That happens all the time, worldwide, within and without various nations.

Deeds have consequences, sometimes they can be severe.

My understanding is that he allegedly did this whilst on British soil, not in the USA. I have no argument with the illegality or stupidity of the alleged crime (looking for evidence of UFOs, I believe, was claimed), but this in and of itself disturbs me. Would it work as easily the other way?

Mike Bishop
You know my method. It is founded upon the observance of trifles

Blogging, tweeting, and mapping Hadrian\'s Wall... because it\'s there
Reply
#13
Quote:My understanding is that he allegedly did this whilst on British soil, not in the USA. I have no argument with the illegality or stupidity of the alleged crime (looking for evidence of UFOs, I believe, was claimed), but this in and of itself disturbs me. Would it work as easily the other way?

Mike Bishop

Since when does any sovereign country extradite its citizens instead trying them at home??? Are there no laws in the UK that forbid extradition? Germany doesn't even hand over German or foreign WW2-criminals.
[size=85:2j3qgc52]- Carsten -[/size]
Reply
#14
But back to interesting stuff, I will guess it's a toss up which is getting more press: Google's Chrome or Sarah Palin.
Richard Campbell
Legio XX - Alexandria, Virginia
RAT member #6?
Reply
#15
Quote:Would it work as easily the other way?
I don't know the specific laws, but I know Americans have been extradited to other countries before. I also know other nation's citizens have been extradited here. I can't say what the circumstances were, or the exact legal requirements for that process are, not being an attorney.

Some people have been tried and convicted in absentia, also, and if they are ever caught, they'll be theoretically subject to extradition from wherever, and subsequently serving their sentences here.

One has to wonder why there's a contentious issue between allies, though, considering the mortally dangerous world we live in these days, data vulnerability concerns, and the common threats nations face. It would seem that extradition would be pretty much a given, if the information in the news source is correct.

UFOs? Man, there he's onto something. If the US Gov't has information on them, they're certainly being pretty close-mouthed about it. Not for lack of people asking and turning over rocks and making a public nuisance of their suspicions. What if they do? I wouldn't mind seeing it, and I don't think I'd be driven insane by the knowledge...although admittedly it wouldn't be a long journey. :lol: [/quote]
M. Demetrius Abicio
(David Wills)

Saepe veritas est dura.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Rockmelt Browser Redguru 0 780 11-14-2010, 04:53 PM
Last Post: Redguru

Forum Jump: