4 ms·

It doesn't seem like a terrible deal (http://www.sonos.com/en-us/legal/privacy http://www.sonos.com/en-us/legal/privacy). What part of the privacy policy do yo

It doesn't seem like a terrible deal (http://www.sonos.com/en-us/legal/privacy http://www.sonos.com/en-us/legal/privacy). What part of the privacy policy do you specifically have an issue with?

Silhouette 9y ago
The principle is at stake here. What the change is doesn't matter. The fact that the deal can be changed at all after a purchase has already been made is fundamentally unfair.
ralphm 9y ago
The part where playing audio, including that from 3rd party sources, doesn't need Sonos to get any device usage data. However they still want it 'to improve their service', and you can't turn that off. Not accepting terms means that you'll never get firmware updates.
- crispyambulance 9y ago
  OK, but "usage data" just doesn't seem like a big deal. Netflix and all other content providers collect "usage data" too, as does the devices these may run on such as "Roku" and other players.
  - FilterSweep 9y ago
    Streaming Content Provider vs. Physical Device specifically made to play music you physically own or streamed from devices you physically own.
    - crispyambulance 9y ago
      You can play stuff you physically own from a Roku too. Are you saying that Sonos could arbitrarily upload your media files to their servers? Doubtful. At worst, they could do a sound-print analysis locally on the device to identify it and send the metadata to Sonos. I am trying to think of concrete examples of scenarios where actual harm would REALISTICALLY be done to individual consumers because of Sonos privacy policy.
      - mhb 9y ago
        1. Government 'dissident' listens to 'subversive' podcasts via Sonos. 2. Government compels Sonos to provide data on customers' listening histories. 3. Chilling effect, political implications, oppression.
        crispyambulance 9y ago
        If an out-of-control oppressive government is the real concern here, is a flimsy EULA _really_ going to provide any protection whatsoever? Can you really even have 100% trust that the EULA will be obeyed by the company if they can get away with violating it?
        s73ver_ 9y ago
        I'm not pleased at this Sonos development either, but that's way too tinfoil hat for me.
        bigiain 9y ago
        If you're a "government dissident" and you're inviting internet connected always-on microphones into your home - you're doing it wrong... "Alexa? Send details of my subversive plan to the government!" "OK Google, upload the audio of the last 30mins discussion with my co-conspirators directly to PRISM!" "Hey Siri? Which law enforcement agency needs to know about this surprise protest we just planned?"
        mhb 9y ago
        What does this have to do with Sonos?
  - squeaky-clean 9y ago
    Why would you assume ralphm is happy with those other services doing it? Maybe they don't use any of those things.
- givinguflac 9y ago
  Read the privacy policy, you can opt out of usage data. This article is clickbait crap and completely inaccurate. They clearly tell users how to opt out of usage data collection; I'm not seeing the problem here. As for the data collection you can't opt out of, it's super basic data like your ip and account registration info. How do you expect to use a cloud service if it doesn't know your ip?
squeaky-clean 9y ago
Mostly this part: > Sonos may modify or update this Statement when necessary to reflect customer feedback and changes in our Products and Service; so, please review it periodically. When we update this Statement, we will revise the “Last Updated” date at the top of the Statement. If there are material changes to the Statement or in how Sonos uses your personal data, we will notify you either by posting a notice of such changes before they take effect or by sending you a notification. We encourage you to periodically review this Statement to learn more about how Sonos is using and protecting your information. Your continued use of the Service or Products after any modification to this Statement will constitute your acceptance of such modification and updates. I wouldn't have to just agree to the policy as you linked it today. One agrees to all future versions of the policy.
- Silhouette 9y ago
  I'm starting to think that any sort of B2C legal agreements, but particularly standard form contracts and similar documents like terms of service, EULAs and privacy policies, should be explicitly banned from including terms that essentially say the deal can be revised unilaterally and the customer is responsible for keeping an eye out for this. It's simply not a reasonable or practical arrangement for any normal person to do that, and it's the worst form of legalese CYA wording. Perhaps, as with various other unreasonable or one-sided provisions, there should be a presumption under consumer protection laws that any such terms are invalid, that any substantial change in an agreement must have the customer's explicit, active consent, and that if the customer does not consent and this results in something they purchased no longer providing the expected benefit then the usual protections about broken purchases should apply. You'd have to be a bit careful, because sometimes these self-updating terms are used to deal with minor changes in the legal landscape that are formalities with no real impact on anyone, but that seems like the sort of thing a court could sensibly decide in the event of a dispute.
  - justincormack 9y ago
    I don't think they are valid in most jurisdictions, explicit consent is required.

It doesn't seem like a terrible deal (http://www.sonos.com/en-us/legal/privacy http://www.sonos.com/en-us/legal/privacy). What part of the privacy policy do you specifically have an issue with?

Silhouette 9y ago

The principle is at stake here. What the change is doesn't matter. The fact that the deal can be changed at all after a purchase has already been made is fundamentally unfair.

ralphm 9y ago

The part where playing audio, including that from 3rd party sources, doesn't need Sonos to get any device usage data. However they still want it 'to improve their service', and you can't turn that off. Not accepting terms means that you'll never get firmware updates.

crispyambulance 9y ago
OK, but "usage data" just doesn't seem like a big deal. Netflix and all other content providers collect "usage data" too, as does the devices these may run on such as "Roku" and other players.
- FilterSweep 9y ago
  Streaming Content Provider vs. Physical Device specifically made to play music you physically own or streamed from devices you physically own.
  - crispyambulance 9y ago
    You can play stuff you physically own from a Roku too. Are you saying that Sonos could arbitrarily upload your media files to their servers? Doubtful. At worst, they could do a sound-print analysis locally on the device to identify it and send the metadata to Sonos. I am trying to think of concrete examples of scenarios where actual harm would REALISTICALLY be done to individual consumers because of Sonos privacy policy.
    - mhb 9y ago
      1. Government 'dissident' listens to 'subversive' podcasts via Sonos. 2. Government compels Sonos to provide data on customers' listening histories. 3. Chilling effect, political implications, oppression.
      - crispyambulance 9y ago
        If an out-of-control oppressive government is the real concern here, is a flimsy EULA _really_ going to provide any protection whatsoever? Can you really even have 100% trust that the EULA will be obeyed by the company if they can get away with violating it?
      - s73ver_ 9y ago
        I'm not pleased at this Sonos development either, but that's way too tinfoil hat for me.
      - bigiain 9y ago
        If you're a "government dissident" and you're inviting internet connected always-on microphones into your home - you're doing it wrong... "Alexa? Send details of my subversive plan to the government!" "OK Google, upload the audio of the last 30mins discussion with my co-conspirators directly to PRISM!" "Hey Siri? Which law enforcement agency needs to know about this surprise protest we just planned?"
        mhb 9y ago
        What does this have to do with Sonos?
- squeaky-clean 9y ago
  Why would you assume ralphm is happy with those other services doing it? Maybe they don't use any of those things.
givinguflac 9y ago
Read the privacy policy, you can opt out of usage data. This article is clickbait crap and completely inaccurate. They clearly tell users how to opt out of usage data collection; I'm not seeing the problem here. As for the data collection you can't opt out of, it's super basic data like your ip and account registration info. How do you expect to use a cloud service if it doesn't know your ip?

squeaky-clean 9y ago

Mostly this part: > Sonos may modify or update this Statement when necessary to reflect customer feedback and changes in our Products and Service; so, please review it periodically. When we update this Statement, we will revise the “Last Updated” date at the top of the Statement. If there are material changes to the Statement or in how Sonos uses your personal data, we will notify you either by posting a notice of such changes before they take effect or by sending you a notification. We encourage you to periodically review this Statement to learn more about how Sonos is using and protecting your information. Your continued use of the Service or Products after any modification to this Statement will constitute your acceptance of such modification and updates. I wouldn't have to just agree to the policy as you linked it today. One agrees to all future versions of the policy.

Silhouette 9y ago
I'm starting to think that any sort of B2C legal agreements, but particularly standard form contracts and similar documents like terms of service, EULAs and privacy policies, should be explicitly banned from including terms that essentially say the deal can be revised unilaterally and the customer is responsible for keeping an eye out for this. It's simply not a reasonable or practical arrangement for any normal person to do that, and it's the worst form of legalese CYA wording. Perhaps, as with various other unreasonable or one-sided provisions, there should be a presumption under consumer protection laws that any such terms are invalid, that any substantial change in an agreement must have the customer's explicit, active consent, and that if the customer does not consent and this results in something they purchased no longer providing the expected benefit then the usual protections about broken purchases should apply. You'd have to be a bit careful, because sometimes these self-updating terms are used to deal with minor changes in the legal landscape that are formalities with no real impact on anyone, but that seems like the sort of thing a court could sensibly decide in the event of a dispute.
- justincormack 9y ago
  I don't think they are valid in most jurisdictions, explicit consent is required.