3 ms·

> especially when the data wouldn't even exist unless the monitoring software was there to create it. The data does exist, in transit. It's google's own code w

> especially when the data wouldn't even exist unless the monitoring software was there to create it. The data does exist, in transit. It's google's own code which creates new metadata from it; that's not anything each individual vendor/user is doing other than providing access to the data for google to collect. You're a developer; this should be apparent to you. I'm not really here to debate the legal merits with someone when neither of us are qualified to do so (you're not a lawyer, I'm not a lawyer, and existing lawyers have already commented on this to no end and disputed endlessly the idea that anyone in this arena would be considered a contractor). I'm just seeing how much you're willing to flesh out your novel legal theory in association with your public name on the internet.

gojomo 8y ago
Which lawyers have said they're not contractors? (I haven't noticed anyone responding to my queries who's reported legal expertise – but I have quoted a legally-trained reporter who advances the same interpretation.) In what way does a person under contract to perform certain duties, on their own devices, being compensated, in accordance with a legally-enforceable contract not fit this dictionary definition of a 'contractor'? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contractor https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contractor In what ways do they not meet this law dictionary definition? https://thelawdictionary.org/contractor/ https://thelawdictionary.org/contractor/ Or this one? https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contractor https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contractor Compensated research panelists meet all these definitions. Did you know that Nielsen restructured its payments to its similarly monitored panelists, because it knew it'd otherwise have to 1099 them, like any other natural person receiving compensation for services under a contract? https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/36602/nielsen-plan-would-avoid-audits-irs.html https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/36602/nielsen...
- eganist 8y ago
  What makes them research panelists?
  - gojomo 8y ago
    'Panelist' is just the term for that role in a market research program, and that's also what Google calls them: https://support.google.com/audiencemeasurement/answer/7566134?hl=en https://support.google.com/audiencemeasurement/answer/756613... But this, too, is irrelevant. Is there a contract? (Yes.) Are they being paid pursuant to the terms of that contract? (Yes.) They're contractors. Can you find me a lawyer who's argued otherwise?
    - eganist 8y ago
      You realize the debate is whether all counterparties to a contract are considered "internal" to Google, right? You're still missing that. Vendors, Contractors, etc. are all counterparties to Google in their agreements. Vendors are not considered internal to any company unless explicitly stated. And the distinction between vendors v. independent contractors etc. can be found on any number of legal blogs, such as https://legalforgood.com/grantswhatsthedifferencebetweenavendorasub-recipient/ https://legalforgood.com/grantswhatsthedifferencebetweenaven... It's so fascinating watching the machinations in your mind trying to justify that all of these folks are somehow internal to Google. ------- Anyway, it's settled. Google agrees with the notion that the app should not have been operated under Apple's program, which itself is a tacit agreement with the premise that this app is not an internal app by any stretch of the imagination. > "The Screenwise Meter iOS app should not have operated under Apple's developer enterprise program. This was a mistake, and we apologize." https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-shuts-down-iphone-data-gathering-app-this-was-a-mistake-and-we-apologize/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-shuts-down-iphone-data-... The debate's settled. Unless you disagree with Google.
      - gojomo 8y ago
        You claimed: "existing lawyers have already commented on this to no end and disputed endlessly the idea that anyone in this arena would be considered a contractor" But now there are... none? So you hallucinated their comments? And you can't identify any way the panelists don't meet the multiple 'contractor' definitions I've provided? And you've apparently forgotten that the Apple terms explicitly allow the enterprise's contractors, as part of the definition of "Permitted Users". I've stated elsewhere that the apps may have violated another aspect of the Enterprise Terms, about the use of the "Network Extension Framework". And further that even if the use was OK by the current terms, Apple has the power to change them. And both Apple and Google would rather this go away, so Google isn't going to go-to-the-legal-mat with their best arguments unless this platform cold war gets a lot hotter. (In particular, some of the best anti-competition arguments that could be made about Apple's behavior are arguments Google wouldn't want made against its own behaviors elsewhere.) So no, Google's admission of error is strategic kiss-and-make-nice rather than dispositive on the terms, and especially doesn't hinge on your insistence that these contracted workers aren't 'contractors'. And finally, the "legal blog" URL you've provided (<https://legalforgood.com/grantswhatsthedifferencebetweenavendorasub-recipient/> https://legalforgood.com/grantswhatsthedifferencebetweenaven...) identifies "vendors" as... a kind of contractor! I quote: "A Vendor, in contrast, is just a contractor who provides goods and/`or services to the recipient so the recipient can accomplish the project’s purposes. Selected terms and conditions might be passed through to the vendor." It's an inappropriate reference, anyway, since it's specifically talking about the lingo of federal grants, not more general agreements. But if you're imagining lawyers-in-the-conversation who aren't here, and supplying links that explicitly refute your claim of a bright-line vendor/contractor distinction, I think we're done. Good day, sir!

gojomo 8y ago

Which lawyers have said they're not contractors? (I haven't noticed anyone responding to my queries who's reported legal expertise – but I have quoted a legally-trained reporter who advances the same interpretation.) In what way does a person under contract to perform certain duties, on their own devices, being compensated, in accordance with a legally-enforceable contract not fit this dictionary definition of a 'contractor'? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contractor https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contractor In what ways do they not meet this law dictionary definition? https://thelawdictionary.org/contractor/ https://thelawdictionary.org/contractor/ Or this one? https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contractor https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contractor Compensated research panelists meet all these definitions. Did you know that Nielsen restructured its payments to its similarly monitored panelists, because it knew it'd otherwise have to 1099 them, like any other natural person receiving compensation for services under a contract? https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/36602/nielsen-plan-would-avoid-audits-irs.html https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/36602/nielsen...

eganist 8y ago
What makes them research panelists?
- gojomo 8y ago
  'Panelist' is just the term for that role in a market research program, and that's also what Google calls them: https://support.google.com/audiencemeasurement/answer/7566134?hl=en https://support.google.com/audiencemeasurement/answer/756613... But this, too, is irrelevant. Is there a contract? (Yes.) Are they being paid pursuant to the terms of that contract? (Yes.) They're contractors. Can you find me a lawyer who's argued otherwise?
  - eganist 8y ago
    You realize the debate is whether all counterparties to a contract are considered "internal" to Google, right? You're still missing that. Vendors, Contractors, etc. are all counterparties to Google in their agreements. Vendors are not considered internal to any company unless explicitly stated. And the distinction between vendors v. independent contractors etc. can be found on any number of legal blogs, such as https://legalforgood.com/grantswhatsthedifferencebetweenavendorasub-recipient/ https://legalforgood.com/grantswhatsthedifferencebetweenaven... It's so fascinating watching the machinations in your mind trying to justify that all of these folks are somehow internal to Google. ------- Anyway, it's settled. Google agrees with the notion that the app should not have been operated under Apple's program, which itself is a tacit agreement with the premise that this app is not an internal app by any stretch of the imagination. > "The Screenwise Meter iOS app should not have operated under Apple's developer enterprise program. This was a mistake, and we apologize." https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-shuts-down-iphone-data-gathering-app-this-was-a-mistake-and-we-apologize/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-shuts-down-iphone-data-... The debate's settled. Unless you disagree with Google.
    - gojomo 8y ago
      You claimed: "existing lawyers have already commented on this to no end and disputed endlessly the idea that anyone in this arena would be considered a contractor" But now there are... none? So you hallucinated their comments? And you can't identify any way the panelists don't meet the multiple 'contractor' definitions I've provided? And you've apparently forgotten that the Apple terms explicitly allow the enterprise's contractors, as part of the definition of "Permitted Users". I've stated elsewhere that the apps may have violated another aspect of the Enterprise Terms, about the use of the "Network Extension Framework". And further that even if the use was OK by the current terms, Apple has the power to change them. And both Apple and Google would rather this go away, so Google isn't going to go-to-the-legal-mat with their best arguments unless this platform cold war gets a lot hotter. (In particular, some of the best anti-competition arguments that could be made about Apple's behavior are arguments Google wouldn't want made against its own behaviors elsewhere.) So no, Google's admission of error is strategic kiss-and-make-nice rather than dispositive on the terms, and especially doesn't hinge on your insistence that these contracted workers aren't 'contractors'. And finally, the "legal blog" URL you've provided (<https://legalforgood.com/grantswhatsthedifferencebetweenavendorasub-recipient/> https://legalforgood.com/grantswhatsthedifferencebetweenaven...) identifies "vendors" as... a kind of contractor! I quote: "A Vendor, in contrast, is just a contractor who provides goods and/`or services to the recipient so the recipient can accomplish the project’s purposes. Selected terms and conditions might be passed through to the vendor." It's an inappropriate reference, anyway, since it's specifically talking about the lingo of federal grants, not more general agreements. But if you're imagining lawyers-in-the-conversation who aren't here, and supplying links that explicitly refute your claim of a bright-line vendor/contractor distinction, I think we're done. Good day, sir!