4 ms·

Thanks, and now we're getting somewhere! I don't see the definition of "Internal Use Application" as clearly prohibiting app usage by these research panels – p

by gojomo 8y ago

Thanks, and now we're getting somewhere! I don't see the definition of "Internal Use Application" as clearly prohibiting app usage by these research panels – paid contractors of FB/Google. And, the disclosures to panel members may have met the "clear and complete information" clause. But the limits on the "Network Extension Framework" usage might be a violation. I suspect FB/Google were effectively building "user profiles for advertising" with this data... though perhaps they could make a case that these specific networking hooks were walled away to a separate, non-prohibited purpose.

Macha 8y ago
> specifically excluded from Internal Use Applications are any programs or applications that may be used, distributed, or otherwise made available to other companies, contractors (except for contractors who are developing the Internal Use Application for You on a custom basis and therefore need to use or have access to such Application), distributors, vendors, resellers, endusers or members of the general public. Even if you make the argument that the users of this app are paid contractors of FB/Google, they are not contractors who are "developing the Internal Use Application for You on a custom basis and therefore need to use or have access to such Application", so it still seems pretty clear cut.
- gojomo 8y ago
  The "specifically excluded from..." section you quote is preceded by "Except as otherwise expressly permitted herein". And, other sections of the terms (just before that) expressly enable "a software program… for Your own business purposes… and solely for internal use by Your Employees or Permitted Users" – where, as noted, "Permitted Users" also was defined to include "contractors".
  - eganist 8y ago
    What makes them a contractor here? You seem pretty fixed on this point. They're being paid for a product (their data). By what I'm gathering, I could define Netflix as my contractor for delivering my team streamed movies for $n per month... which isn't true unless a more specific relationship e.g. a c2c is put in place.
    - gojomo 8y ago
      A person who enters an agreement to provide something of value (here, data) for something else of value (here, a small monthly payment, perhaps as gift cards) has entered a contract, and is a contractor. (Yes, when Netflix agrees to provide you with something in return for your payment, you've entered a contract with them, and they are your contractor. If somehow you were an US entity with 50+ netflix subscriptions for different offices, and thus paid them more than $600/year, you technically might be on the hook to file a 1099.)
      - mynameisvlad 8y ago
        > (Yes, when Netflix agrees to provide you with something in return for your payment, you've entered a contract with them, and they are your contractor. If somehow you were an US entity with 50+ netflix subscriptions for different offices, and thus paid them more than $600/year, you technically might be on the hook to file a 1099.) Source. Now. Because I highly doubt this is accurate. I have never heard of someone having to file a 1099 for purchasing services, of any kind. Hell, half of everyone's time would be spent filing 1099s because as a society we spend far more than 600 dollars with any one company over the course of a year literally all the time.
        gojomo 8y ago
        I forgot that all payments to C-Corps or S-Corps are exempt from 1099 filings, so yes, as long as Netflix remains a C-Corp, there's no need to file. (That's a matter of 1099 tax law, though - it's still a contracted relationship. And so while it is uncommon to think of them as a 'contractor', that's what Netflix is, when delivering a service for payments under the terms of a contract.)
        xenadu02 8y ago
        I don't know how many people have to keep explaining this to you. "Contractor" is a term of art that has specific meaning with regard to employment and contract law. You're using what is known as a "cute trick". Judges are rarely amused by "cute tricks". Like a Sovereign Citizen believer you can keep claiming to be correct all the way to a loss in court, followed by denied appeal after denied appeal.
duskwuff 8y ago
There's a lot more in the program agreement I didn't include. These are just a few of the highlights I happened to notice. > ...though perhaps they could make a case that these specific networking hooks were walled away to a separate, non-prohibited purpose. They could not. The primary purpose of the Facebook and Google research apps was not to provide a VPN service; as such, using VPN services was a violation of the program terms. The use cases mentioned -- "to serve advertising or to otherwise build user profiles for advertising" -- are examples of prohibited use cases, not the full extent of the prohibitions.

by gojomo 8y ago

Macha 8y ago

> specifically excluded from Internal Use Applications are any programs or applications that may be used, distributed, or otherwise made available to other companies, contractors (except for contractors who are developing the Internal Use Application for You on a custom basis and therefore need to use or have access to such Application), distributors, vendors, resellers, endusers or members of the general public. Even if you make the argument that the users of this app are paid contractors of FB/Google, they are not contractors who are "developing the Internal Use Application for You on a custom basis and therefore need to use or have access to such Application", so it still seems pretty clear cut.

gojomo 8y ago
The "specifically excluded from..." section you quote is preceded by "Except as otherwise expressly permitted herein". And, other sections of the terms (just before that) expressly enable "a software program… for Your own business purposes… and solely for internal use by Your Employees or Permitted Users" – where, as noted, "Permitted Users" also was defined to include "contractors".
- eganist 8y ago
  What makes them a contractor here? You seem pretty fixed on this point. They're being paid for a product (their data). By what I'm gathering, I could define Netflix as my contractor for delivering my team streamed movies for $n per month... which isn't true unless a more specific relationship e.g. a c2c is put in place.
  - gojomo 8y ago
    A person who enters an agreement to provide something of value (here, data) for something else of value (here, a small monthly payment, perhaps as gift cards) has entered a contract, and is a contractor. (Yes, when Netflix agrees to provide you with something in return for your payment, you've entered a contract with them, and they are your contractor. If somehow you were an US entity with 50+ netflix subscriptions for different offices, and thus paid them more than $600/year, you technically might be on the hook to file a 1099.)
    - mynameisvlad 8y ago
      > (Yes, when Netflix agrees to provide you with something in return for your payment, you've entered a contract with them, and they are your contractor. If somehow you were an US entity with 50+ netflix subscriptions for different offices, and thus paid them more than $600/year, you technically might be on the hook to file a 1099.) Source. Now. Because I highly doubt this is accurate. I have never heard of someone having to file a 1099 for purchasing services, of any kind. Hell, half of everyone's time would be spent filing 1099s because as a society we spend far more than 600 dollars with any one company over the course of a year literally all the time.
      - gojomo 8y ago
        I forgot that all payments to C-Corps or S-Corps are exempt from 1099 filings, so yes, as long as Netflix remains a C-Corp, there's no need to file. (That's a matter of 1099 tax law, though - it's still a contracted relationship. And so while it is uncommon to think of them as a 'contractor', that's what Netflix is, when delivering a service for payments under the terms of a contract.)
        xenadu02 8y ago
        I don't know how many people have to keep explaining this to you. "Contractor" is a term of art that has specific meaning with regard to employment and contract law. You're using what is known as a "cute trick". Judges are rarely amused by "cute tricks". Like a Sovereign Citizen believer you can keep claiming to be correct all the way to a loss in court, followed by denied appeal after denied appeal.

duskwuff 8y ago

There's a lot more in the program agreement I didn't include. These are just a few of the highlights I happened to notice. > ...though perhaps they could make a case that these specific networking hooks were walled away to a separate, non-prohibited purpose. They could not. The primary purpose of the Facebook and Google research apps was not to provide a VPN service; as such, using VPN services was a violation of the program terms. The use cases mentioned -- "to serve advertising or to otherwise build user profiles for advertising" -- are examples of prohibited use cases, not the full extent of the prohibitions.