5 ms·

Yeah, I think it's safe to assume this. One time as a contractor, I was working on a GIS-enabled game for some company. Their privacy policy was very clear that

Yeah, I think it's safe to assume this. One time as a contractor, I was working on a GIS-enabled game for some company. Their privacy policy was very clear that they will not use or sell your data for any reason. It was even on their home page, because it was a key selling point. By the time I was involved with this app, the money was running out, and I vividly remember being in a meeting with the leadership where they were enumerating their options, one of which was to find someone to buy all this user data they'd collected. Their commitment to privacy disappeared the instant it was tested. Ever since then, I just assume this is how every company works. No matter what they say, they're selling your data.

fhd2 3y ago
That's a fair assumption in my experience from running companies. I've seen management with ethics, but even then, eventually new people are in charge, shares (or the whole thing) get sold... That's what contracts are for, commitments from a company are commitments from people that might not be around very long.
- voakbasda 3y ago
  Most EULA contracts have a clause that expressly permits the company to abandon their obligations upon sale of the business or other such events. However, that seems somewhat redundant, since these same contracts also assert that they can modify the terms whenever they want. For the average user, there's little to no recourse when the original contract gets violated.
  - ronsor 3y ago
    Courts seriously need to crack down on these EULAs
crazygringo 3y ago
This suggests that we require an explicit law that forbids changes in ToS from ever apply to data collected retroactively. With a real monetary punitive incentive that allows users to sue. I absolutely believe that companies should have the freedom to change their ToS moving forwards, and that "promises" to "never" change a ToS are worthless (your example is a perfect reason why). BUT, I simply don't see how it could ever be fair to use data retroactively. If you change your ToS, you should only get to monetize new user data going forwards. It seems like a basic legal principle. Is there any existing law/precedent that suggests this is already the case, i.e. that such a company can be successfully sued but that people don't usually try? Or do we need new laws around this, and are there any government reps pushing for this?
- Nostromos 3y ago
  Sounds good in principle because you're worked up and mad about your data (which is the correct reaction). I just don't love the idea that my dinky little app has to ask every customer every time I add a new feature significant enough (debatable) or different enough (debatable) that uses their data in a way either I or they didn't anticipate (debatable). God forbid I try to monetize it (debatable). 'Control over your data' is meaningless in our current paradigm and I'll rue the day something like GDPR comes to the US in a meaningful way. No wonder the EU can't build. As for this specific article, Zoom's (rightfully) getting heat for this but I don't blame them or any company for exploring how they can monetize every last morsel of data. In zoom's case (and many enterprise software companies), customers are paying a shit load of money and they didn't sign a contract and consent to give data for training an LLM.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > I don't blame them or any company for exploring how they can monetize every last morsel of data. I absolutely do, if it's customer data that the company previously promised not to monetize. It's not their data to do with as they please, after all. But the tech sector has fallen very far in terms of ethics so no company can be trusted. It's just a shame. The public views our industry in a very, very poor light and that view is 100% earned.
  - gspencley 3y ago
    IANAL but it seems to me that this "law" already exists. A TOS is a contract. It literally stands for "Terms of Service." Meaning, you give me money and here are the terms under which I will offer you the service you are paying for. How enforceable that "contract" is depends on a ton of things, differing in various jurisdictions (law is complicated), but it is - at the end of the day - a contract. So I don't know how actionable it is, but the OP said that the company considered changing their TOS for currently active users. That could, in theory, be breach of contract and the customers might have a claim (again IANAL). [There could have also been a clause in the TOS saying that they could change the terms at any time for any reason - though I suspect in many if not most jurisdictions, that would make the entire contract unenforceable]. In your case, don't make [potentially] contractually binding promises that you can't or don't want to keep.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

fhd2 3y ago

That's a fair assumption in my experience from running companies. I've seen management with ethics, but even then, eventually new people are in charge, shares (or the whole thing) get sold... That's what contracts are for, commitments from a company are commitments from people that might not be around very long.

voakbasda 3y ago
Most EULA contracts have a clause that expressly permits the company to abandon their obligations upon sale of the business or other such events. However, that seems somewhat redundant, since these same contracts also assert that they can modify the terms whenever they want. For the average user, there's little to no recourse when the original contract gets violated.
- ronsor 3y ago
  Courts seriously need to crack down on these EULAs

crazygringo 3y ago

This suggests that we require an explicit law that forbids changes in ToS from ever apply to data collected retroactively. With a real monetary punitive incentive that allows users to sue. I absolutely believe that companies should have the freedom to change their ToS moving forwards, and that "promises" to "never" change a ToS are worthless (your example is a perfect reason why). BUT, I simply don't see how it could ever be fair to use data retroactively. If you change your ToS, you should only get to monetize new user data going forwards. It seems like a basic legal principle. Is there any existing law/precedent that suggests this is already the case, i.e. that such a company can be successfully sued but that people don't usually try? Or do we need new laws around this, and are there any government reps pushing for this?

Nostromos 3y ago
Sounds good in principle because you're worked up and mad about your data (which is the correct reaction). I just don't love the idea that my dinky little app has to ask every customer every time I add a new feature significant enough (debatable) or different enough (debatable) that uses their data in a way either I or they didn't anticipate (debatable). God forbid I try to monetize it (debatable). 'Control over your data' is meaningless in our current paradigm and I'll rue the day something like GDPR comes to the US in a meaningful way. No wonder the EU can't build. As for this specific article, Zoom's (rightfully) getting heat for this but I don't blame them or any company for exploring how they can monetize every last morsel of data. In zoom's case (and many enterprise software companies), customers are paying a shit load of money and they didn't sign a contract and consent to give data for training an LLM.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > I don't blame them or any company for exploring how they can monetize every last morsel of data. I absolutely do, if it's customer data that the company previously promised not to monetize. It's not their data to do with as they please, after all. But the tech sector has fallen very far in terms of ethics so no company can be trusted. It's just a shame. The public views our industry in a very, very poor light and that view is 100% earned.
- gspencley 3y ago
  IANAL but it seems to me that this "law" already exists. A TOS is a contract. It literally stands for "Terms of Service." Meaning, you give me money and here are the terms under which I will offer you the service you are paying for. How enforceable that "contract" is depends on a ton of things, differing in various jurisdictions (law is complicated), but it is - at the end of the day - a contract. So I don't know how actionable it is, but the OP said that the company considered changing their TOS for currently active users. That could, in theory, be breach of contract and the customers might have a claim (again IANAL). [There could have also been a clause in the TOS saying that they could change the terms at any time for any reason - though I suspect in many if not most jurisdictions, that would make the entire contract unenforceable]. In your case, don't make [potentially] contractually binding promises that you can't or don't want to keep.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]