3 ms·

Even if this is not what Adobe are doing, the author of the tweet is not incorrect to make such an interpretation from the terms. Now would be a good time for

by quitit 2y ago

Even if this is not what Adobe are doing, the author of the tweet is not incorrect to make such an interpretation from the terms. Now would be a good time for Adobe to do away with vague "catch all" language, because we now live in an era where user data is being swept up for AI model generation and governments are leaning heavily into tech companies for policing. However to play the devil's advocate we can see how these terms have come about without rounding up to tweeter's interpretation. Note: There is also good reasoning to believe this interpretation because using software that collects data indiscriminately would significantly impact the ability of Adobe's large customers to use their software. Since service agreements and various compliance standards forbid as such. First up are Adobe's online terms that relate to CSAM, abiding by subpoenas, security, and feedback/bug support. Those are all pretty standard for hosted services. So while some may not like that, this is a "nothing to see here" clause. However the "gotcha" for users comes about because a lot of Adobe's features rely on their cloud infrastructure which they may use unintentionally. This extends beyond using their cloud storage allowance or the Behance social network. Here are some examples: - Generative AI: in & out painting will send image data to Adobe for matching. - Farm rendering: Some apps, such as Dimension, feature off-site processing options. These of course mean that your content, textures, logos, etc are then on Adobe's servers for processing. - Forms dissemination: Hosting forms means that Adobe will have not just your content, but also that of people that fill out the form. - Review features: Review features are all performed through the cloud. - Moving documents between devices: Using the app's built into tools to move a document/graphic between devices is performed via the cloud. There are many more scenarios, but I've tried to choose a range to demonstrate variety, and how that extends beyond actions where the user is deliberately using online storage. The next part of Adobe's terms is noting that they don't specifically call out online versus offline processing, rather they use the terms "Services" and "Products". This would appear to be explainable as Adobe's apps include algorithms that enforce certain types of document security, such as anti-counterfeiting measures, watermarking, Content Credentials and copyright embedding. The vague language of this clause is the source of the problem, as Adobe don't demarcate where and why the processing is performed. So in summary the overly vague language can be chalked up to legal brevity, but in this era that is insufficient for peace of mind.

Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
> Now would be a good time for Adobe to do away with vague "catch all" language, because we now live in an era where user data is being swept up for AI model generation and governments are leaning heavily into tech companies for policing. 100%. The thing is, I've seen in B2B sales, one business handling another's data will have to very explicitly say who will be acting as subprocessors and storage of data. You might have to disclose that you're using AWS and Snowflake to store and process data. Maybe it's time for B2C to start doing that, too. Instead of "We may send your data to 3rd parties for processing", say WHICH 3rd parties and WHY. > legal brevity An exceptionally rare thing to see. "Legalese" exists because people create loopholes by exploiting the slightest ambiguity. I invented a story of a mom telling her kid to stop jumping on the bed, and the kid says "I'm not jumping, I'm hopping!" and goes into a diatribe on the difference between jumping and hopping, the mom says "well quit it!" and leaves, only to come back later and the kid is still jumping, the mom is angry, and the kid says "I'm not jumping or hopping, I'm bouncing!" and eventually the mom has to say something like "Do not jump, hop, bounce, spring, leap, or otherwise use your feet or any other body part, nor any object, to propel yourself upwards or laterally from the bed". And then later, the mom checks on the kid, and he has removed the mattress from the bed and is still jumping on it.
- quitit 2y ago
  Adobe have released a statement on the topic: https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/06/clarification-adobe-terms-of-use https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/06/clarification-a... Interestingly the problematic language was already in the terms prior to this update.

by quitit 2y ago

Sohcahtoa82 2y ago

> Now would be a good time for Adobe to do away with vague "catch all" language, because we now live in an era where user data is being swept up for AI model generation and governments are leaning heavily into tech companies for policing. 100%. The thing is, I've seen in B2B sales, one business handling another's data will have to very explicitly say who will be acting as subprocessors and storage of data. You might have to disclose that you're using AWS and Snowflake to store and process data. Maybe it's time for B2C to start doing that, too. Instead of "We may send your data to 3rd parties for processing", say WHICH 3rd parties and WHY. > legal brevity An exceptionally rare thing to see. "Legalese" exists because people create loopholes by exploiting the slightest ambiguity. I invented a story of a mom telling her kid to stop jumping on the bed, and the kid says "I'm not jumping, I'm hopping!" and goes into a diatribe on the difference between jumping and hopping, the mom says "well quit it!" and leaves, only to come back later and the kid is still jumping, the mom is angry, and the kid says "I'm not jumping or hopping, I'm bouncing!" and eventually the mom has to say something like "Do not jump, hop, bounce, spring, leap, or otherwise use your feet or any other body part, nor any object, to propel yourself upwards or laterally from the bed". And then later, the mom checks on the kid, and he has removed the mattress from the bed and is still jumping on it.

quitit 2y ago
Adobe have released a statement on the topic: https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/06/clarification-adobe-terms-of-use https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/06/clarification-a... Interestingly the problematic language was already in the terms prior to this update.