Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Zoom’s terms of service and practices apply to AI features

blog.zoom.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 185 posts

Re: How Zoom’s terms of service and practices apply to AI features

#101

Post by walrus01 »

berbec wrote: post #4

This is a nice statement, but the TOS is the important part, not what this marketing piece says. > You agree to grant and hereby grant Zoom a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicensable, and transferable license and all other rights required or necessary to redistribute, publish, import, access, use, store, transmit, review, disclose, preserve, extract, modify, reproduce, share, use, display, cop…

> but the TOS is the important part,

You think a TOS that's biased towards the company, or the customer, has any legal effect on a Chinese domestic corporation that's subject to the laws and regulations of the Ministry of State Security? Really?

Re: How Zoom’s terms of service and practices apply to AI features

#102

Post by proxiful-wash »

Imnimo wrote: post #43
berbec wrote: post #4

This is a nice statement, but the TOS is the important part, not what this marketing piece says. > You agree to grant and hereby grant Zoom a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicensable, and transferable license and all other rights required or necessary to redistribute, publish, import, access, use, store, transmit, review, disclose, preserve, extract, modify, reproduce, share, use, display, cop…

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.

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

Re: How Zoom’s terms of service and practices apply to AI features

#103

Post by walrus01 »

autoexec wrote: post #51

Zoom was proved as being dishonest and untrustworthy years ago ( https://citizenlab.ca/2020/04/move-fast-roll-your-own-crypto... ) but companies never cared about the privacy of the people they forced to use the software and all the security problems and leaks that followed still didn't discourage people from using it. I doubt their mining of personal data for AI will stop people from using it either. Although there…

Let's also not forget that Zoom's internal processes and engineering standards for security were so poor that Apple implemented the rarely-used malware removal tool, because they screwed up their client software so badly:

https://techcrunch.com/2019/07/10/apple-silent-update-zoom-a...

https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/10/20689644/apple-zoom-web-s...

https://www.macrumors.com/2019/07/10/apple-update-remove-zoo...

Re: How Zoom’s terms of service and practices apply to AI features

#104

Post by haldujai »

kevdev wrote: post #90
synaesthesisx wrote: post #58

I wonder if they allow opting-out. My last company was in the healthcare space, and we used Zoom for all internal communication. Often this could contain sensitive information (PII etc) which would likely be a privacy violation if exposed.

Yeah medical info and HIPAA was the first thing I thought of when I saw this. My company doesn’t deal with medical data but I can’t imagine any company dealing with PII wants to use Zoom now.

You'd be surprised how often companies use PHI (legally) and healthcare provider networks don't care.

The few with smarter lawyers and IT departments, usually academic, do but a majority of all of the new "AI" health tech products I've heard about pitched to hospitals use customer PHI for product development.

Re: How Zoom’s terms of service and practices apply to AI features

#105

Post by haldujai »

Imnimo wrote: post #43
berbec wrote: post #4

This is a nice statement, but the TOS is the important part, not what this marketing piece says. > You agree to grant and hereby grant Zoom a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicensable, and transferable license and all other rights required or necessary to redistribute, publish, import, access, use, store, transmit, review, disclose, preserve, extract, modify, reproduce, share, use, display, cop…

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.

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.

Re: How Zoom’s terms of service and practices apply to AI features

#107

Post by rangerelf »

ec109685 wrote: post #19
gruez wrote: post #3

Called it a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37022827 It's baffling how many people in previous threads thought a company that gets most of its money from enterprise/business clients, will burn all their reputation by surreptitiously using client data to train their AI.

Always wise to remember Hanlon's razor: "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence" Occam's razor also applies here.

Way over quoted, and it didn't represent the incentives companies have to screw over their own customers in the pursuit of profits.

Maybe it's both: malice to kick off the effort and incompetence because they got found out.

Re: How Zoom’s terms of service and practices apply to AI features

#109

Post by jen20 »

nightpool wrote: post #86
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, there's a couple of reasons that people use it: 1) Until recently, Zoom's video/audio quality knocked everyone else's into a cocked hat. I don't think that's the case, anymore. Looks like a lot of folks got off their butts, and improved their quality, but I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere, by anyone. 2) Everyone else is using it. #2 is a biggie. Monopoly inertia is pretty hard to overcome, for people not i…

What video platforms do you think improved their audio quality to be comparable to Zoom? Meet certainly hasn't, their noise cancelling is awful and isn't going to get better as long as they're stuck in the browser. (I'm fine with browser performance 99% of the time, but when I'm spending hours a day on calls I'm going to prefer Zoom and native-quality audio processing)

WebEx certainly is.

Re: How Zoom’s terms of service and practices apply to AI features

#110

Post by gruez »

TheRealPomax wrote: post #88
jackpt wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't those fines inflated due to the companies having a large revenue/to make an example?

I wish, the bigger the company, the smaller the fines (proportionally) tend to be. Like slapping Google on the wrist with a $125m fine. "oh no, an amount we can make back in about an hour, whatever shall we do!"

>Like slapping Google on the wrist with a $125m fine. "oh no, an amount we can make back in about an hour, whatever shall we do!"

If the specific misconduct they got caught for netted them $x, and they got fined for $5x, who cares how much % of their global revenue is? That specific crime was still a net negative for them. I'm not sure why conglomerates should be punished more harshly just because they have more revenue overall.

Post reply on HN