3 ms·

> solely for the limited purpose of operating and enabling the Service to work as intended for You and for no other purposes. To me (a former corporate lawyer)

> solely for the limited purpose of operating and enabling the Service to work as intended for You and for no other purposes. To me (a former corporate lawyer) the "for You" qualifier would limit their ability to use content to train an AI for use by anyone other than "You". Is there an argument? Yes. But by that argument, they would also be allowed to "publicly perform" my videoconf calls for some flimsy reasons that don't directly benefit me.

zeusk 3y ago
it isn't for you solely/exclusively. If it "improves" the service for everyone - that includes "you".
- gnicholas 3y ago
  Yep, I acknowledge that is a possibility, but it would also lead to them having permission to display literally the entirety of my videonconf calls to anyone, for advertising purposes or some other purpose that only incidentally benefits me. That would be a strained reading IMO.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Guvante 3y ago
    Additionally courts consider the fact that users have little if any say in the terms and thus tend to take the most restrictive but still reasonable view of any uncertainty in the terms. Basically "if you wanted it you could have asked for it, if you didn't then that is a problem".
    - gnicholas 3y ago
      Yep, contracts of adhesion, and construing against the drafter: both favor the user here.
  - turbojerry 3y ago
    To misquote Bill Clinton, it depends on what the means of 'you' is.
  - benatkin 3y ago
    More like a certainty :)
johndhi 3y ago
I write these policies for my day job and I agree with this.
- oblio 3y ago
  > I write these policies for my day job My regrets :-p
crftr 3y ago
"You" is a defined term in Jitsi's Terms of Service. >...any legal entity or business, such entity or business (collectively, “You” or “Your”)
- gnicholas 3y ago
  In case this is meant to imply that perhaps my business and your business are both part of the same "You", they are not. They are each a party to a separate contract with Jitsi; we are not all party to one huge contract with each other (which would hypothetically allow Jitsi to do anything with our content for the purpose of helping them serve all of us).
smoofles 3y ago
Something like: If I have a call with you once, theoretically I might have a call with you again in the future. If they use my content to train "your" AI that would improve our theoretical future call, too, and is a "for me" use, I guess? And I might have a call with any other zoom user, too, potentially, maybe. So really they are doing me a service by using my content all over the place — who knows, it might benefit me at some point!

zeusk 3y ago

it isn't for you solely/exclusively. If it "improves" the service for everyone - that includes "you".

gnicholas 3y ago
Yep, I acknowledge that is a possibility, but it would also lead to them having permission to display literally the entirety of my videonconf calls to anyone, for advertising purposes or some other purpose that only incidentally benefits me. That would be a strained reading IMO.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Guvante 3y ago
  Additionally courts consider the fact that users have little if any say in the terms and thus tend to take the most restrictive but still reasonable view of any uncertainty in the terms. Basically "if you wanted it you could have asked for it, if you didn't then that is a problem".
  - gnicholas 3y ago
    Yep, contracts of adhesion, and construing against the drafter: both favor the user here.
- turbojerry 3y ago
  To misquote Bill Clinton, it depends on what the means of 'you' is.
- benatkin 3y ago
  More like a certainty :)

johndhi 3y ago

I write these policies for my day job and I agree with this.

oblio 3y ago
> I write these policies for my day job My regrets :-p

crftr 3y ago

"You" is a defined term in Jitsi's Terms of Service. >...any legal entity or business, such entity or business (collectively, “You” or “Your”)

gnicholas 3y ago
In case this is meant to imply that perhaps my business and your business are both part of the same "You", they are not. They are each a party to a separate contract with Jitsi; we are not all party to one huge contract with each other (which would hypothetically allow Jitsi to do anything with our content for the purpose of helping them serve all of us).

smoofles 3y ago

Something like: If I have a call with you once, theoretically I might have a call with you again in the future. If they use my content to train "your" AI that would improve our theoretical future call, too, and is a "for me" use, I guess? And I might have a call with any other zoom user, too, potentially, maybe. So really they are doing me a service by using my content all over the place — who knows, it might benefit me at some point!