[flagged]
How Zoom’s terms of service and practices apply to AI features
111–120 of 185 posts
Re: How Zoom’s terms of service and practices apply to AI features
#112This 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…
The TOS has been updated to state the following: > Notwithstanding the above, Zoom will not use audio, video or chat Customer Content to train our artificial intelligence models without your consent.
Does that mean they could sell the data and let someone else train their AI model without consent?
Re: How Zoom’s terms of service and practices apply to AI features
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they are all "too hard" or something Users vote with their feet based on cost and UX. While intertia is certainly a thing, there's a reason Zoom got a foothold while others didn't. The ability to send out links and having people join the meeting without creating accounts or manually installing clients first is huge in most real-world scenarios. Could you do that with... Teams? Skype? Hangouts if they weren't gmail…
[The ability to send out links and having people join the meeting without creating accounts or manually installing clients first is huge in most real-world scenarios ] this is how it used to be, until HTTPS and cloudflare-like hosting solutions, were guzzled back like electric kool-aid. all you really needed was an IP and perhaps a port number if endpoint was behind NAT.
I worked in technical support when techniques like that were de rigeur. Your average adult would be exponentially less likely to navigate that process successfully than a zoom invite. Sure, it's more simple from a technical perspective, but not even close to as simple from a user flow standpoint.
Re: How Zoom’s terms of service and practices apply to AI features
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is really important, and I would further emphasize the word our . Zoom doesn't need permission to "train" their own in-house artificial intelligence model when it can just transmit/sublicense that data to someone else who will train a model, or to an internal team who will use it (perhaps in few-shot prompts at scale, which is not technically training a model!) for "consulting services" in the broadest sense tha…
> If a management team doesn't think they'll survive a bad couple of quarters (or that they won't hit performance cliffs that let them keep their jobs or bonuses) Agreed, and these kinds of short-term incentives are one of the problems with American companies. On the flip side... Japanese companies think about products in decades -- the product line has to make money 10 years from now. Some old European brands think…
This is overly broad generalization that does not hold up to scrutiny.
Konami vs Kojima and any of the DieselGate companies come to mind.
Re: How Zoom’s terms of service and practices apply to AI features
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I wonder if a deceptive marketing post explaining a privacy policy change could be considered material if there was a lawsuit.
I wonder if you could found out when they violate their own terms.
Re: How Zoom’s terms of service and practices apply to AI features
#116This 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…
The terms have since been updated. It's still an interesting lesson in spin when the change they made looks like this https://diffcheck.io/y-_v1LkBYyk4WBueHX
Re: How Zoom’s terms of service and practices apply to AI features
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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.
Re: How Zoom’s terms of service and practices apply to AI features
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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.
Doesn't the TOS already count as consent?
Re: How Zoom’s terms of service and practices apply to AI features
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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.
The BAA (https://explore.zoom.us/docs/en-us/baa.html) looks the same. Did you mean to the TOS (which is subject to change as has now happened twice)?
The BAA still states: Zoom shall not Use and/or Disclose the Protected Health Information except as otherwise limited in this Agreement ... for the proper management and administration of Zoom ... Zoom will only use the minimum necessary Protected Health information necessary for the proper management and administration of Zoom’s business specific purposes
As discussed in my comments on yesterday's post "proper management and administration" is vague language copied from HHS and can be construed as improving products as described in a legal analysis I quoted. I would also hazard a guess that a provider signing this agreement could be construed to have implied consent.
Nevertheless, it would not be hard to explicitly state that this does not include training models in the only truly legally binding agreement at play. An explicit declaration was also recommended in said legal analysis.
Re: How Zoom’s terms of service and practices apply to AI features
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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… http…
This doublespeak should result in huge fines, but there's lobbying instead