6 ms·

Yeah, if the TOS says one thing, and a blogpost pinky-promises another, only one of those two actually counts as far as I'm concerned.

by Imnimo 3y ago

Animats 3y ago
The AI part isn't the bad part. It's the "use for marketing", like gMail. One implication is that lawyers can no longer use Zoom for anything which is attorney-client privileged.
- jonplackett 3y ago
  How does this add up with E2EE? They claim they can’t read anything passing through the server. Is there some other way they’ll get access? https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/360048660871-End-to-end-E2EE-encryption-for-meetings#:~:text=Zoom's%20E2EE%20offering%20uses%20public,have%20the%20necessary%20decryption%20key https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/360048660871-End-t....
  - thesimon 3y ago
    E2EE is not the default mode for Zoom.
  - bananapub 3y ago
    e2ee is not the default, and is incompatible with some of their other features like "cloud recordings". they also got caught being malicious and/or dumb in the past (https://www.businessinsider.com/china-zoom-data-2020-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/china-zoom-data-2020-4) so there's no reason to bother with them now.
- 14 3y ago
  I have not had a chance to read up on this yet but does zoom not have a paid version or corporate version that would not follow under these same TOS? If not it seems crazy like a shot in the foot because lots of businesses use zoom and I know most want or are required to use privacy preserving programs.
reilly3000 3y ago
I wonder if a deceptive marketing post explaining a privacy policy change could be considered material if there was a lawsuit.
- j16sdiz 3y ago
  I wonder if you could found out when they violate their own terms.
happytiger 3y ago
I actually consider the act of doublespeak potentially insinuating ill intent. What you and what you say need to be consistent to preserve user trust and then being inconsistent shows mismanagement by senior leadership or even potentially intent to deceive or spin the situation while still implementing the policy. It’s the PR classic do one thing say another. Edit: Oh, and then this hits almost at the same time… https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/zoom-return-to-office-announcement-18283831.php https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/zoom-return-to-office-an...
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  >I actually consider the act of doublespeak potentially insinuating ill intent I agree with this sentiment and it feels like a heuristic at this point. I think it comes from a decade of watching when corporate officers get caught red handed then try and denial of service the bad press with their jingoistic pablum.
  - tigerlily 3y ago
    > I agree with this sentiment and it feels like a heuristic at this point. Well I might just take that heuristic and do some basic sentiment analysis to rank companies on their doublespeak.
    - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
      If you do I’d love to see the results
- dietr1ch 3y ago
  This doublespeak should result in huge fines, but there's lobbying instead
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    And corrupt officials that accept the lobbying, which is the bad bit.
proxiful-wash 3y ago
Exactly the point of my last comment no one will ever use this service again. Taking a hard NO on this forever.
haldujai 3y ago
Speaking of pinky promises: > We will not use ... protected health information, to train our artificial intelligence models without your consent. > We routinely enter into ... legally required business associate agreements (BAA) with our healthcare customers. Our practices and handling of ... protected healthcare data are controlled by these separate terms and applicable laws. To my understanding there is nothing in the separate terms (BAA) or applicable laws (HIPAA) that actually guarantees this. I don't want to assume malice but if in good faith I would have expected an updated BAA with an explicit declaration regarding data access and disclosure in a legally-binding fashion rather than a promissory blogpost vaguely referencing laws that don't themselves inherently restrict the use of PHI for training by Zoom. It would really only require a single term.
- petesergeant 3y ago
  They have added: > Notwithstanding the above, Zoom will not use audio, video or chat Customer Content to train our artificial intelligence models without your consent.
  - Jare 3y ago
    Doesn't the TOS already count as consent?
    - checkyoursudo 3y ago
      That is where I am stuck. Until the TOS clearly says otherwise, as far as I can see, the TOS at least implies this: 1. We will not use your data to train AI without your consent. 2. By accepting these TOS, you give your consent to everything in this long list (which includes training AI).
      - mnw21cam 3y ago
        In Europe/UK, it is established law that agreeing to TOS is not consent for everything in it, especially when referring to the use of personal data for things that aren't strictly necessary to do what the user has asked, and also especially given that in order for it to be consent freely given then there must be no difference in service depending on whether consent is given or not. However, many companies reckon they'll get away with it, the enforcement is not universal and rapid, and I don't trust Zoom as far as I can throw it on this particular score.

Yeah, if the TOS says one thing, and a blogpost pinky-promises another, only one of those two actually counts as far as I'm concerned.

by Imnimo 3y ago

Yeah, if the TOS says one thing, and a blogpost pinky-promises another, only one of those two actually counts as far as I'm concerned.

Animats 3y ago

The AI part isn't the bad part. It's the "use for marketing", like gMail. One implication is that lawyers can no longer use Zoom for anything which is attorney-client privileged.

jonplackett 3y ago
How does this add up with E2EE? They claim they can’t read anything passing through the server. Is there some other way they’ll get access? https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/360048660871-End-to-end-E2EE-encryption-for-meetings#:~:text=Zoom's%20E2EE%20offering%20uses%20public,have%20the%20necessary%20decryption%20key https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/360048660871-End-t....
- thesimon 3y ago
  E2EE is not the default mode for Zoom.
- bananapub 3y ago
  e2ee is not the default, and is incompatible with some of their other features like "cloud recordings". they also got caught being malicious and/or dumb in the past (https://www.businessinsider.com/china-zoom-data-2020-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/china-zoom-data-2020-4) so there's no reason to bother with them now.
14 3y ago
I have not had a chance to read up on this yet but does zoom not have a paid version or corporate version that would not follow under these same TOS? If not it seems crazy like a shot in the foot because lots of businesses use zoom and I know most want or are required to use privacy preserving programs.

reilly3000 3y ago

I wonder if a deceptive marketing post explaining a privacy policy change could be considered material if there was a lawsuit.

j16sdiz 3y ago
I wonder if you could found out when they violate their own terms.

happytiger 3y ago

I actually consider the act of doublespeak potentially insinuating ill intent. What you and what you say need to be consistent to preserve user trust and then being inconsistent shows mismanagement by senior leadership or even potentially intent to deceive or spin the situation while still implementing the policy. It’s the PR classic do one thing say another. Edit: Oh, and then this hits almost at the same time… https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/zoom-return-to-office-announcement-18283831.php https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/zoom-return-to-office-an...

AndrewKemendo 3y ago
>I actually consider the act of doublespeak potentially insinuating ill intent I agree with this sentiment and it feels like a heuristic at this point. I think it comes from a decade of watching when corporate officers get caught red handed then try and denial of service the bad press with their jingoistic pablum.
- tigerlily 3y ago
  > I agree with this sentiment and it feels like a heuristic at this point. Well I might just take that heuristic and do some basic sentiment analysis to rank companies on their doublespeak.
  - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    If you do I’d love to see the results
dietr1ch 3y ago
This doublespeak should result in huge fines, but there's lobbying instead
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  And corrupt officials that accept the lobbying, which is the bad bit.

proxiful-wash 3y ago

Exactly the point of my last comment no one will ever use this service again. Taking a hard NO on this forever.

haldujai 3y ago

Speaking of pinky promises: > We will not use ... protected health information, to train our artificial intelligence models without your consent. > We routinely enter into ... legally required business associate agreements (BAA) with our healthcare customers. Our practices and handling of ... protected healthcare data are controlled by these separate terms and applicable laws. To my understanding there is nothing in the separate terms (BAA) or applicable laws (HIPAA) that actually guarantees this. I don't want to assume malice but if in good faith I would have expected an updated BAA with an explicit declaration regarding data access and disclosure in a legally-binding fashion rather than a promissory blogpost vaguely referencing laws that don't themselves inherently restrict the use of PHI for training by Zoom. It would really only require a single term.

petesergeant 3y ago
They have added: > Notwithstanding the above, Zoom will not use audio, video or chat Customer Content to train our artificial intelligence models without your consent.
- Jare 3y ago
  Doesn't the TOS already count as consent?
  - checkyoursudo 3y ago
    That is where I am stuck. Until the TOS clearly says otherwise, as far as I can see, the TOS at least implies this: 1. We will not use your data to train AI without your consent. 2. By accepting these TOS, you give your consent to everything in this long list (which includes training AI).
    - mnw21cam 3y ago
      In Europe/UK, it is established law that agreeing to TOS is not consent for everything in it, especially when referring to the use of personal data for things that aren't strictly necessary to do what the user has asked, and also especially given that in order for it to be consent freely given then there must be no difference in service depending on whether consent is given or not. However, many companies reckon they'll get away with it, the enforcement is not universal and rapid, and I don't trust Zoom as far as I can throw it on this particular score.