3 ms·

They consented if the data was public. Opt-out scanning practices is a whole other beast. But unfortunately, unless you challenge the ToS in court, you consent

They consented if the data was public. Opt-out scanning practices is a whole other beast. But unfortunately, unless you challenge the ToS in court, you consented the moment you didn't delete all of your data after the policy update. Is that fucked? Sure, and maybe we need regulation around that, but in the face of current legislation, consent was granted.

jprete 3y ago
Failing to actively say "no" is not the same thing as saying "yes". If your point is that the law means nothing unless someone is willing to file lawsuits, your point is taken.
Retric 3y ago
That’s factually incorrect. GitHub’s ToS don’t give them any rights to use your information in this way. Their argument is they don’t need any such permission, but they can profit from this data by selectively allowing large scale scrapping by 3rd parties thus breaking their TOS by selling your data.
- soulofmischief 3y ago
  GitHub's ToS expressly allows them to change the terms of their service at will, and they do indeed publish these changes, and your continued use of their website is considered consent. Furthermore, as [0] states: > We may use your information to provide, administer, analyze, manage, and operate our Service. For example, we use your information for the following purposes: > ...Improve and develop our products and services including to develop new services or features, and conduct research... [0] https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/privacy-policies/github-privacy-statement#how-github-uses-your-information https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/privacy-policies/gith...
  - Retric 3y ago
    They didn’t limit copilot to active users who therefore have implied consent to ToS changes. “Improving and developing products and services” doesn’t cover what they did. Which is why that line isn’t being brought up in the ongoing litigation. Further, at scale they are well aware users didn’t own the copyright to all uploaded data making their ToS insufficient shielding for this use. Which is why they aren’t even trying to suggest the ToS enabled this kind of use as that suggests it would be required and opens themselves to massive amounts of liability.

jprete 3y ago

Failing to actively say "no" is not the same thing as saying "yes". If your point is that the law means nothing unless someone is willing to file lawsuits, your point is taken.

Retric 3y ago

That’s factually incorrect. GitHub’s ToS don’t give them any rights to use your information in this way. Their argument is they don’t need any such permission, but they can profit from this data by selectively allowing large scale scrapping by 3rd parties thus breaking their TOS by selling your data.

soulofmischief 3y ago
GitHub's ToS expressly allows them to change the terms of their service at will, and they do indeed publish these changes, and your continued use of their website is considered consent. Furthermore, as [0] states: > We may use your information to provide, administer, analyze, manage, and operate our Service. For example, we use your information for the following purposes: > ...Improve and develop our products and services including to develop new services or features, and conduct research... [0] https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/privacy-policies/github-privacy-statement#how-github-uses-your-information https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/privacy-policies/gith...
- Retric 3y ago
  They didn’t limit copilot to active users who therefore have implied consent to ToS changes. “Improving and developing products and services” doesn’t cover what they did. Which is why that line isn’t being brought up in the ongoing litigation. Further, at scale they are well aware users didn’t own the copyright to all uploaded data making their ToS insufficient shielding for this use. Which is why they aren’t even trying to suggest the ToS enabled this kind of use as that suggests it would be required and opens themselves to massive amounts of liability.