4 ms·

This is the full quote from MS, provided in The Register article: "Customer privacy and trust is our top priority at Microsoft. We do not sell any information

This is the full quote from MS, provided in The Register article: "Customer privacy and trust is our top priority at Microsoft. We do not sell any information to third-party companies and only share customer information with Azure Marketplace publishers when customers deploy their product, as outlined in our Terms and Conditions. Our terms with our publishers allow them to provide customers with implementation and technical support for their products but restricts them from using contact details for marketing purposes." My interpretation is: Every time you buy or use something from the Marketplace, MS will give your contact details to the Marketplace publisher. That publisher is then restricted in what they can do with the information. They may not use it for Marketing, they may use it to provide technical support.

tfehring 6y ago
Yeah, I agree with your interpretation and that makes sense from Microsoft's perspective. Just one open question that that raises: does a name and employer count as "contact details"? Do Microsoft's terms allow Canonical to reach out to someone on LinkedIn for marketing purposes as long as they don't look them up using the email address Microsoft gives them? And if the answer to that last question is no, what can Canonical do with the data that's actually valuable to them? If I were given access to a database of sales leads that I was explicitly disallowed from contacting, I would actively avoid even accessing the data to avoid any accusation or perception that I violated those terms, just in case I independently got in touch with those same leads through a different channel.
- rkangel 6y ago
  So I don't know the answers to your questions - but here's one interesting thing - according to GPDR your email address is personal information as you'd expect. However your work email address is not. Companies can do all sorts of harvesting and collection on professional information that they can't on personal.
  - iamacyborg 6y ago
    This is not strictly true. Sales@example.com would not be considered personal data, bob.smith@company.com would be
- nickflood 6y ago
  If they discover a huge security problem with the distribution you installed, they can contact you and help you upgrade to a non-vulnerable version? This like like what "technical support" is supposed to mean
sorokod 6y ago
How more reasonable it would have been for Microsoft to provide the publishers details to consumers instead of the other way around. Interesting that this is not so.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Microsoft can earn more money this way (selling data for sales purposes), so their behavior meets my expectations.
  - sorokod 6y ago
    Mine too, it is hilarious that they present this gratuitous data sharing as "this is normal/we are the victims as much as you are"
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - moron4hire 6y ago
    But they aren't selling the data
    - sorokod 6y ago
      On the off chance you are not being sarcastic, do you think that Canonical got the data for free?
      - Hawxy 6y ago
        Yes? Its pretty evident that when you publish a marketplace app, the details of those that installed it are automatically stored for use by the vendor. All of the statements above align with this, unless you're insinuating that Microsoft are liars.
pbhjpbhj 6y ago
This sounds like plausible deniability to me. "We sell your details to companies whose products you're using - which would be really useful marketing information; but they say they don't use it for that, so we did what we need to."? Microsoft being lily-white (/s) would ensure they had GDPR-like positive consent from customers that they could pass on those customers info to specific third parties... The idea that companies keep some sort of information wall between their support and marketing departments is pretty ridiculous. MS have to be fully aware of this, surely. So, the story is Canonical taking part in the same crap as the more overtly crap companies, and just this one agent not being clever enough to keep their leads under wraps. GDPR obliges companies to provide information on all this parties PII has been passed to. Given cookie lists (or UBlock blocked files) are hundreds of companies long I'm surprised we're not getting reports of who is buying up all this info.

tfehring 6y ago

Yeah, I agree with your interpretation and that makes sense from Microsoft's perspective. Just one open question that that raises: does a name and employer count as "contact details"? Do Microsoft's terms allow Canonical to reach out to someone on LinkedIn for marketing purposes as long as they don't look them up using the email address Microsoft gives them? And if the answer to that last question is no, what can Canonical do with the data that's actually valuable to them? If I were given access to a database of sales leads that I was explicitly disallowed from contacting, I would actively avoid even accessing the data to avoid any accusation or perception that I violated those terms, just in case I independently got in touch with those same leads through a different channel.

rkangel 6y ago
So I don't know the answers to your questions - but here's one interesting thing - according to GPDR your email address is personal information as you'd expect. However your work email address is not. Companies can do all sorts of harvesting and collection on professional information that they can't on personal.
- iamacyborg 6y ago
  This is not strictly true. Sales@example.com would not be considered personal data, bob.smith@company.com would be
nickflood 6y ago
If they discover a huge security problem with the distribution you installed, they can contact you and help you upgrade to a non-vulnerable version? This like like what "technical support" is supposed to mean

sorokod 6y ago

How more reasonable it would have been for Microsoft to provide the publishers details to consumers instead of the other way around. Interesting that this is not so.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
Microsoft can earn more money this way (selling data for sales purposes), so their behavior meets my expectations.
- sorokod 6y ago
  Mine too, it is hilarious that they present this gratuitous data sharing as "this is normal/we are the victims as much as you are"
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- moron4hire 6y ago
  But they aren't selling the data
  - sorokod 6y ago
    On the off chance you are not being sarcastic, do you think that Canonical got the data for free?
    - Hawxy 6y ago
      Yes? Its pretty evident that when you publish a marketplace app, the details of those that installed it are automatically stored for use by the vendor. All of the statements above align with this, unless you're insinuating that Microsoft are liars.

pbhjpbhj 6y ago

This sounds like plausible deniability to me. "We sell your details to companies whose products you're using - which would be really useful marketing information; but they say they don't use it for that, so we did what we need to."? Microsoft being lily-white (/s) would ensure they had GDPR-like positive consent from customers that they could pass on those customers info to specific third parties... The idea that companies keep some sort of information wall between their support and marketing departments is pretty ridiculous. MS have to be fully aware of this, surely. So, the story is Canonical taking part in the same crap as the more overtly crap companies, and just this one agent not being clever enough to keep their leads under wraps. GDPR obliges companies to provide information on all this parties PII has been passed to. Given cookie lists (or UBlock blocked files) are hundreds of companies long I'm surprised we're not getting reports of who is buying up all this info.