Google's finally gone and done it - they've built and released a browser, the most fundamental window to the computing experience of a new era. That's big news, but the small print is raising some concerns. What appears to be a recycled Terms of Service (from Google Docs) gives Google a long list of rights to reuse and share with other companies "any Content which you submit, post or display on or through the Services." Update: Since this controversy has erupted, Google has removed the offending section of the Terms of Service. It seems that the default Google service TOS includes these kinds of claims, even though they may not be as appropriate in some circumstances as in others.
Google's Matt Cutts dropped by our previous coverage to say that "no, we don't want rights to everything you send through Chrome." Can Google be trusted though? Below we review just the most recent history of privacy concerns raised about Google. It's a mixed bag, but we argue that given this context, no individual case should be taken lightly.
Last November we wrote about how Google could fight Facebook by taking the high road regarding user privacy. A year later it might seem like user control over information is a more reasonable request, but neither concept seems to be getting a lot of respect.
There are big important questions about privacy online that need to be addressed. We discussed what some of those general questions were in January. Looking at them in regards to the particular steps taken by the Google giant is important as well.
In February of this year, we raised concerns about the new Google Social Graph API, which was going beyond indexing the formally declared social connections that the company focused on and in fact pulled in social graph data from MySpace and who knows where else. That controversy has died down, but our concerns still linger about this admittedly very useful sounding program.
In May Google launched Google Health, and privacy advocates shuddered in fear. In the end, we found Google Health's privacy protections to be very strong. Perhaps it was because they were so strong that the whole application felt overly cautious, tame and unexciting. It's a difficult balance to strike.
In July Google gave up YouTube user names to Viacom in a copyright lawsuit. Privacy watchdogs complained that Google should have resisted the pressure.
Streetview, the van-shot images of city streets around the world, has also faced criticism from privacy advocates. It faced a legal challenge in the UK in July. Last month Google faced allegations of streetview photographers driving past no-trespassing signs onto private roads - though the company claims such incidents were a mistake and have removed the found photos of private land.
One issue that made a small number of people very angry was the loose handling of Google Reader shared items. People you've emailed with repeatedly or who were otherwise understood as a contact using some Google algorithm were suddenly shown all the items you marked to "share" in Google Reader. Previously, shared items were something you exposed selectively by sharing an obscure URL for your shared items feed. Google's initial response was to tell people to stop sharing if they didn't like it, but last month the company finally implemented a more nuanced solution. Points for Google, after a fight.
Also in August, Google joined with Yahoo and Microsoft in working on a "Code of Conduct" that offered some luke-warm commitment to protecting free speech during the Olympics over the companies' networks. The wording of the proposed agreement was very vague.
This is just a short look at a few of the privacy issues people have raised about Google's practices. Beyond the particular practices, though, there are inherent risks brought about by the huge amount of information Google controls. As we wrote in our post "Questions to Consider in the Coming Privacy Wars"
Hello, Google. Hello Google Search, Maps, Sky, Streetview, GMail, Docs, 23andMe genetics, Talk, Goog411, Google Scholar... surely I'm still missing a lot of the data that Google has collected about us.Is data centralization in the hands of a single vendor an inherent threat to privacy? Yes. To draw an analogy, trusting the "Do No Evil" line is like saying you'd support a President that you like changing the constitution to allow warrantless wiretapping. Centralization of power, even if it's exercised benevolently at any given time, is not in our best interest in the long term. In fact, I'd argue that it's highly irrational.
That's the context we see all this happening in. So if Google and Matt Cutts want to say "trust us, what we want is not what it looks like in a literal reading of that agreement you just singed on to" - well then we ask you, readers, to judge for yourself. It makes us feel very funny.
We love Google apps, but with great power...comes a responsibility to do something really extraordinary to protect our privacy while still delivering such great services. We're still waiting for that.
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
OK, now I'm concerned because that's in the Google Docs TOS. Why should Google have the right to do anything with material I create using Google Docs? My employer's even got us using Google Docs now -- I wonder if that applies to stuff we do under the employer's Google Apps system? I wonder if they're even aware of that?
Posted by: Kathleen McDade | September 3, 2008 12:54 PM
And this is the reason to protest. Google must change this.
See this group on Facebook - and join it to protest: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=29820455835
Posted by: Jan | September 3, 2008 1:29 PM
I am writing (last edit I hope) the second edition of Online Public Relations, these issues will be part of it. The whole future of cloud computing is compromised by these confidentiality issues. They are also part of the net neutrality debate and Jonathan Zitrain at Harvard will, no doubt be an interesting commentator.
Chrome is seductive but time will come when the line between the network of networks internet and the emerging virtual intranets will diverge.
We will all have to start all over again...
Posted by: David Phillips | September 3, 2008 1:30 PM
Note that Google legal is changing this:
(http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-license-agreement/)@1 - Docs is different in that you're asking them to store and display data on your behalf. You may ask them to share that information with someone via the sharing option. You could even make a document on Docs fully public. In order to do that they're making sure that you agree that they have the legal right to make things public or share them with the people you designate. The objection I and others had to those terms being in Chrome was that Chrome is NOT a service that stores and displays data on your behalf -it's an application.
Posted by: rick | September 3, 2008 2:06 PM
THANKS RWWW..
GOOGLE ADMITS A FUCK UP.. http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-license-agreement/
Posted by: COP | September 3, 2008 2:14 PM
I have to say this controversy is a bit amusing.
What, exactly, does people think will happen?
How will Google capitalize on this, if the worst conspiracy theories where to come true?
Has common sense gone and died?
Posted by: Mikael Bergkvist | September 3, 2008 3:18 PM
Hey Marshall, I'm sorry that I took a sort of "Can't you just trust us" attitude in my earlier comments. I added this to the end of my blog post:
"Update: I did this post quickly because I had to go to a meeting. Coming back to read what I wrote, I think I was too strident (both here and commenting a few places around the web) and I apologize for that. As a long-time Googler, I knew that Google wouldn’t want rights to everything that somebody did in Chrome. It also seemed like there had been incidents like this in the past and they always got cleared up quickly.
But it was clearly a mistake on Google’s part to include that language when it shouldn’t have been there, and I should have been grateful to the people that pointed it out. Instead of getting snippy with people, my reaction should have been more along the lines of “Oh crap, I don’t think that’s intentional. Thank you so much for noticing that and pointing it out. I’ll see if we can get an official clarification or reaction as soon as possible.” I apologize for that, and I appreciate the people who push Google to be better."
Again, I'm sorry that I had the wrong attitude when you and others were rightfully pointing out something that we should have done differently.
Posted by: Matt Cutts | September 3, 2008 3:45 PM
Thanks to ReadWriteWeb for all detailed coverage on chrome! I won't subscribe, but I'll most assuredly check in several times a day.
I was about to pontificate, too, in reaction to some posts above, but I think I'm done for today.
Sincerely: thanks again!
Posted by: fjpoblam | September 3, 2008 3:52 PM
It's good that Chrome uses a robust rendering engine (Webkit) and that the user ease of use will improve. I can see that some people have legitimate reasons for switching to Chrome. But this is a individual standpoint.
The list of the privacy/choice concerns does not only pose a personal problem but a socail one. As you hinted Google is still moving forward to controlling search engines, user data and web platforms. By the time it will be prosecuted by antitrust measures it will be too late (like it was too late for Microsoft on the desktop).
One can contribute to diminish IE market share while keeping Firefox market share by pushing IE users to switch to Firefox.
Posted by: Félicien Breton | September 4, 2008 2:45 AM
Thanks for collecting the discussions on this interesting topic. Just imagine how many terabytes or petabytes of data Google collect daily throughout its many many services and product.
It's just scary! This is for sure one of their biggest challenges for them to handle collected data properly over the long term.
Posted by: Ad Manager | September 4, 2008 10:11 AM
It is not enough that Google has reacted to the outrage and edited their TOS for Chrome. If google wants the enterprise market to adopt their various SAS offerings, then the TOS for all the SAS products must be similarly amended. Enterprise use of Google's SAS is totally incompatible with these TOS.
JD
Posted by: John Durkin | September 4, 2008 12:09 PM
If Google really wanted to bring out a brand-new Browser that was in line with today's rich web pages (rich with graphics, pictures, multimedia etc., as opposed to moneyed, that is!), they would have designed Chrome from the ground up, not gone in for the Mozilla Browser engine that is used by Firefox, Flock and SeaMonkey! Chrome is NOT GMail - it isn't going to succeed, using the same dough (read Mozilla Browser engine).
What credentials does Google have as software developers, in comparison with Microsoft (who have the market leader Browser) or Apple (who have Browsers for both the Mac and the Windows platforms)?
Chrome isn't going to succeed and push out the leading Chefs (read Microsoft, Apple!). The current commotion is merely because Chrome is new and everyone knows about the rivalry between Google and Microsoft.
Chrome will prove to be another Google Docs - marginally successful, nothing more!
Posted by: welloiledpc | September 6, 2008 6:40 AM