However, as this article suggests, as is also the case with most Google services there are hidden catches which most users should, but probably won’t, be aware of.  I’ve written about EULAs before, and the Chrome EULA is a cracker.  The main issue is this clause:

7.3 Google reserves the right (but shall have no obligation) to pre-screen, review, flag, filter, modify, refuse or remove any or all Content from any Service. For some of the Services, Google may provide tools to filter out explicit sexual content. These tools include the SafeSearch preference settings (see http://www.google.com/help/customize.html#safe). In addition, there are commercially available services and software to limit access to material that you may find objectionable.

To understand what this clause is saying, we need to understand what “Services” and “Content” are in this agreement. Services are defined in clause 1.1 to include:

Google’s products, software, services and web sites

So Services would include Google’s web search, Picasa, Google Maps, and the Chrome browser itself.

Content is defined in clause 7.1 as follows:

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

Content would arguably include any websites or images you access via Google search, and anything at all that you access using Chrome as your browser.

Let’s assume, as seems to be the case, that the purpose of the majority of Google’s “Services” is to provide access to information in the form of “Content”.  The sting of clause 7.3 is in the following: Google “reserves the right … to pre-screen, review, flag, filter, modify, refuse or remove any or all Content from any Service.“  This is an extremely broad clause, and legitimises any number of actions Google might elect (at its discretion) to take with respect to “Content”.  In particular:

• “pre-screen” suggests that Content may be subjected to certain criteria before it is provided;
• “review” suggests that Content may be scrutinised after it has been accessed by a user;
• “flag” is one of the more disturbing words used, and is clearly not limited to flagging particular issues to the user – it could also quite reasonably be said to include flagging certain content to Google or to the authorities;
• “modify” suggests that Content may be manipulated from its original state (without the user necessarily being aware of that fact) before being provided to the user;
• “refuse” suggests that Content may simply not be provided in some circumstances; and
• “remove” indicates a degree of intervention in Content which has already been accessed.

On a generous reading of the intention behind this clause, it might be concluded that Google wishes to protect itself from lawsuits in circumstances where it, for example, does not transmit viruses or other malicious software to users, or where it automatically provides optional content filtering against porn and the like (e.g. “moderate safesearch”, which is turned on by default in Google Image Search).

However, a generous reading of intention does not limit the rights that you confer on Google when you agree to the EULA.  If you use Chrome as your web browser, then based on the clear terms of the agreement, you have agreed that Google has the right to:

• monitor what you are or have been looking at on the web and store that information (‘review’ or ‘pre-screen’);
• transparently alter websites or other information you access using Chrome so that you are in fact viewing a modified version without knowing it (‘modify’);
• report you to the authorities if you access specific content, identified solely according to Google’s own policies or arrangements with said authorities (‘flag’);
• make it appear that websites or other information is unavailable when in fact it is being filtered (‘refuse’); and
• delete information from your web browser (e.g. cookies, bookmarks, history) or arguably even from your computer (content downloaded via Chrome) at its discretion (‘remove’).

So, to put the foregoing in the form of tangible (but purely hypothetical) examples, by agreeing to the EULA you have agreed that if Google wanted to, and so long as you are using Chrome, it could:

• prevent you from accessing information about euthanasia or abortions;
• prevent you from accessing the websites of specific political or social organisations;
• report you to the police if you access particular kinds of pornography;
• report you to anti-terrorism authorities if you are doing research into islamic terrorism;
• silently modify statistical or factual data on a website you are accessing;
• silently doctor photographs or maps;
• prevent you from accessing websites critical of Google (like this one, I suppose!);
• store everything you look at and mine it for commercial or personal data at a later date; or
• delete bookmarks of websites of Google’s competitors from your browser .

I am happy to admit that Google probably won’t do any of those things, at least in the West.  It would be commercially foolish at best.  But Google already has a track record of cooperating with nasty totalitarian governments in censoring the Internet.  So it should at least be assumed that Google might do some or all of the above.  It is also known that Google stores and mines all of your email sent or received via Gmail (don’t email me from Gmail addresses, god damn you) for its own commercial purposes, as well as storing it in random places where it may be subject to warrants or government spying.

There’s a simple solution, of course: don’t use Google Chrome.  When you have the choice of using a web browser which definitely won’t do any of the above, it would be insane to use one which exposes you to even a slight possibility of any of those things occurring.  Ideally, therefore, you should use Firefox or even Internet Explorer in preference to Chrome.

If you care about your privacy and having unfettered access to information, I would suggest that steering clear of Gmail, Google Web Albums and any other service where you actually upload or download data using Google products is a good idea.  If you use Firefox, you may also like to use the excellent CustomizeGoogle plugin to control how much information about you Google is actually collecting.

Until Google learns to totally respect its users freedom to access and use third party information anyway they see fit and without corporate oversight, they do not deserve your business, even with respect to their “free” browser.

It’s often tempting to think that politicians are all the same and that the Obama administration in reality represents only a miniscule shift towards the centre.  In reality, this seems to be another sign that the Obama administration is prepared to operate in wholly “reality based” environment rather than the “faith based” administration of Bush (and Blair).  In Obama’s America, a war on a concept is seemingly no longer a valid way to describe foreign policy.

The War on Terror has dominated our lives in the West for nearly a decade now.  I doubt many will mourn its passing.

Despite the fact that (a) the laws have nothing to do with bikies per se and can be applied to virtually any organisation in an unreviewable and arbitrary manner and (b) the fact that there is no evidence so far that they actually work at all, and indeed evidence that laws like this don’t work, it seems the South Australian government now well and truly has the bit between its teeth.

Today the SA Police Commissioner has indicated that there are more laws on the way which assume guilt and require the accused witch and/or bikie to prove his or her innocence. It sounds like these ones will be based on prior convictions, whereby a person who has “unexplained” assets and has previously been convicted of a criminal offence will be liable to have those assets seized unless they can prove how they came by them.

You need to look at seizing their assets; we’re looking at new laws, one of them is about unexplained wealth, where you don’t have to prove the connection with committing crime, where you’ve got somebody with a criminal history and they have a certain amount of assets and no known income,

Commissioner Mal Hyde tells us.  He goes on to explain that:

…it should be up to them to show that it has been legitimately acquired and, if not, then it should be able to be seized, so that’s one of the new pieces of legislation being considered

Now, based on Mal’s offhand remarks, I’m guessing that Magna Carta and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights aren’t part of the SA Police basic training program, but here are some tips, Mal:

• Article 17 of the Universal Declaration states that “(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others” and “(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.”  If you are wondering, Mal, the Universal Declaration is an international document setting out the commonly agreed basic rights to which all humans are entitled.  For the avoidance of doubt, people who ride motorbikes, criminals, and Commissioners of Police are all examples of “humans”.
• Magna Carta, Mal, although of mostly symbolic relevance today in that it underpins the common law and many of the basic premises of liberal democracy, clearly pointed out in its 1297 iteration that it’s not ok for the police to roll around seizing stuff from people they don’t like the looks of: “No constable or other bailiff of ours shall take the corn or other chattels of any one except he straightway give money for them, or can be allowed a respite in that regard by the will of the seller. “
• Magna Carta also pointed out a few home truths about the problems which arise when arbitrary executive decisions replace due process: “No bailiff, on his own simple assertion, shall henceforth any one to his law, without producing faithful witnesses in evidence. “
• And of course, Magna Carta 1297 (did I mention that it is “widely regarded as one of the most important documents in the history of democracy” according to the UK National Archives, Mal?) stated more fundamentally that “NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs…”

So, to summarize, because we don’t like organised crime (and despite what various members of the SA Government would say in light of the foregoing, I don’t like it either), we propose to abandon wholesale:

• the presumption of innocence (again);
• the notion that no-one will be deprived of property without due process of law;
• the crazy idea that the state actually prove that someone acquired something illegally before it is taken from them by force of law; and
• the notion that it should not be within the power of law enforcement to arbitrarily seize and retain assets.

This goes along with those things we have already abandoned:

• freedom of association;
• presumption of innocence more generally and the notion that actual evidence is generally required before personal freedoms are interfered with;
• the idea that if rights and freedoms should ever be interfered with by a law, it should be with maximum oversight and to the smallest extent possible to achieve the objective of the law in question.

Greg Barns helpfully summarises the effect of SA’s current anti-association laws as follows:

The new law gives the Attorney-General the right to call an organisation, which could be anything from an informal group of people who meet at the local pub for a weekly drink through to a football club or a business, a declared organisation. The Attorney-General just has to be satisfied that he thinks that members of the organisation associate for the purpose of planning, organising, facilitating or engaging in serious criminal activity-which is basically anything except traffic offences-and that the organisation represents a risk to public safety and order. The Attorney-General can use secret and untested evidence in making that declaration, and his decision can’t be challenged in the courts.

The Commissioner of Police can ask a court to make a Control Order against a person if that person is a member of a declared organisation, or regularly associates with members of the declared organisation. A Control Order may be issued by a court without giving any notice to the person affected and the Order can stop people from even speaking with members of a declared organisation or going anywhere near where members might happen to be. Once again, these Orders can be made on secret evidence that the person affected cannot see.

And if a friend of yours is subject to a Control Order or is a member of a Declared Organisation and you meet with them six times or more in one year you can go to jail for up to five years.

And finally, the icing on the cake. The SA police have the power to make a Public Safety Order if they are satisfied that a person or a group of people pose a serious risk to public safety or security.

Even if a person or a group is gathered somewhere for a protest rally or a strike action, the police can still make a Public Safety Order and have them removed from the area. These Orders can even be made on the spot, verbally, by the police.

I looked at the Act back in early 2008 when it was still a bill.  And of course I’ve mentioned before that this same benevolent SA Government is the one which is spying on random ‘citizens of interest’ for no known reason.

No doubt these new laws will be tailored to address the particular problem with the same level of care and attention to detail as the current SA “bikie” laws, i.e. none.  Although of course, by some strange quirk the legislation will be inapplicable to current and former politicians and high profile business people.

Happy news

Of course the NSW police would never, for example, be corrupt, so there’s no need to worry about planting evidence or other abuses of the power or anything like that.  And as always, those who obey the law have nothing to fear from the police secretly going through their private possessions and emails while they are away on holiday.  So that’s fine then.

Meanwhile here in South Australia, the State Government has been building files on thousands of innocent people who have seemingly done little to bring themselves to the attention of the powers-that-be.  The files include:

well-known business people, company directors, sports personalities, people in the entertainment industry, religious groups, the media and legal profession

So, yes.  I’m not exactly sure why we bothered with that whole World War II thingo, might have been cheaper to just let the Germans impose an efficient police state on us rather than killing them and then building our own over the course of the next 60 years.

I only hope Labor is serious about a national charter of rights, although I have my doubts at this stage.  The proposals currently in vogue generally make it a trivial exercise for governments to sidestep their operation with the stroke of a pen.

“The Opposition firmly believes that adult supervision, supported by optional user-end filters, effective law enforcement and education should be front and centre of any efforts to keep children safe online,” he said.

“In relation to criminal conduct online, our nation’s law enforcement bodies must be adequately resourced to monitor and investigate unlawful activity.

“There is no technical substitute for appropriate adult supervision when it comes to keeping our children safe online and most parents and teachers take that responsibility very seriously and any suggestions to the contrary are patronising and offensive,” Senator Minchin said.

“Labor’s plan to implement a mandatory Internet filter at ISP level has been roundly attacked with valid concerns raised about its likely effectiveness, the adverse impact it would have on Internet speeds and performance and also the precise nature of the content the Government plans to filter.

“The Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has further fuelled concerns with his talk of filtering not only illegal content, but also unwanted and inappropriate content. This policy proposal is also causing Australia embarrassment internationally, with comparisons to the world’s most repressive regimes,” Senator Minchin said.

Wow… when they talk this way the Liberals don’t even sound like a spineless bunch of socially conservative, economically radical spin merchants.  Maybe they should consider taking a leaf out of the book of the UK Conservatives, who have apparently figured out that:

1. part of true conservatism is minimising the role of government in all respects, not just in terms of controlling huge corporations as they pillage society for everything it’s got; and

2. people quite like it when politicians take principled and rational positions and stick to them.

Left: prohibited Internet content.  Enjoy it while it lasts.

Meanwhile this is a nice update on Senator Conroy’s ongoing campaign to deny that he is doing exactly what he is doing, whilst also accusing anyone who disagrees with him (i.e. most people) of “wanting to have access to child porn”.

* Actually the laws are already in place and the technical system appears to have been chosen, so this is really only a policy fight, not a legal one (until someone challenges it, which might not work under our woefully rights-free Constitution).

More on it later.  If you already know about it, get a move on and write to your state’s senators.

It’s easy to be offended by this stuff, but I would like to see these groups taking a more creative approach to fighting back. They still have the common law legal system at their disposal – they just need to use it.

Specifically, I would like to see them obtain undertakings, warranties or other legally binding statements or agreements from participants in their groups in order to give them some leverage when it is discovered that someone is a spy.  In particular, some form of token contract comes to mind – the organisation could contract with each member that in exchange for $1 from the group, the member agrees not to spy on it for the duration of their membership.

Strictly speaking a contract cannot contain an enforceable penalty clause which is disproportionate to any real loss suffered by one of the parties upon a breach by the other. For example, in theory when a bank charges you an ‘administration fee’ for overdrawing your account, they are only allowed to charge you the actual cost to them of any administration or other real costs (obviously this is not enforced much as people don’t tend to go to court over $40, although the world might be a less annoying place if they did).

On the other hand, it is not impermissible to include a clause for special damages, that is, losses which might not ordinarily be said to flow from a breach of the contract, but which both parties agree are in contemplation should a breach occur. So for instance, each member of a group could be asked to sign an agreement not to conduct any covert spying (defined somehow) while they are a member of the group, and to further agree that if they breach that term then the damages which flow from it include the costs of legal representation for the group in relation to that spying, the costs of media publicity to counter-act the negative consequences of the spying, the costs of losing new members who will be scared off, et cetera.

Another option would be to bind someone with a confidentiality agreement, which is a different creature altogether but effective in some circumstances.

All of this would have to be done in a way that wouldn’t seem insulting or frightening to legitimate members of your group.

There are other problems – you would have to find some basis for there to be a contract in the first place (i.e. some kind of bi-directional exchange of value). You would have to be able to quantify the damages referred to above somehow (although a court will not reject a damages claim just because it is difficult to quantify). There might be other issues depending on the particular legislation which apparently empowers the police to do these things in the first place.

That’s enough rambling: my main point is that groups like these in Australia might do better to think of creative solutions to these problems, rather than relying on the generally apathetic Aussie public to rise up in anger at the governments which permit these things to happen.