161–170 of 185 posts
Question (I may know the answer), if the call is end to end encrypted, how can they use users content?
Read the TOS again. They are only speaking about customer consent. Not "user". If you are not the one signing the contract or are just invited to a call (not hosting) you basically have no rights to define settings such as any form of opt-out (assuming they exist).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 reve…
As for "who cares about %": every one who understands that fines that cost a company nothing, do nothing, all they say is "it'll cost you a trivial amount more to do this", turning what should be an instrument to rein in companies into simple monetary transaction that just goes on the books as an entirely expected and affordable expense.
It should be a crime, and they should have been found guilty in court over that, and the fine should be such that no matter your company's size, you can't risk running afoul of the law repeatedly. But it absolutely isn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Apparently the TOS can be edited at any time to say anything without notice. It’s worth mentioning that per this agreement they can still do almost anything else with that data. They could put your face up on a billboard if they wanted to. I’m out. I was a paying user. Can’t run fast enough from ever doing business with them again.
They just made another edit and removed the line.
Here's the edit history going all the way back to March:
- 4/1 https://www.diffchecker.com/dCuVSMnp/
- 7/1 https://www.diffchecker.com/Zny4Rjqw/
.. just today, we decided to cancel our K12 contract with zoom. All 350+ workstations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I notice in these comments it’s really hard to drive home User Experience and friction (sometimes!) and what seems easy to you (just an IP address!) is really like talking magic to your average user.
Even worse, it tends to go hand-in-hand with astonishing overconfidence in their understanding of other fields. I've had two other primary careers-- designer, and chef-- and I can't count how many developers have "explained" parts of those fields to me despite knowing I'm a subject matter expert. Like their astonishing intellect and that related Metafilter thread they skimmed makes them authoritative. I get supernova-intensity cringe when I hear other developers shoot off Dunning-Kruger-esque oversimplifications of other fields' genuinely hard problems.
When I hear developers talk about the arrogance of designers, I can't help but laugh... then maybe cry. Many seem genuinely aggrieved that interface designers have more input on the interface design than they do.
Earlier 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…
You can do that in Google Meet. I just checked in an incognito window, the only thing I needed to enter to join a meeting was a name. I never really understood why people like Zoom's UX, I find it unintuitive and awkward.
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…
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…
Or you inherently can't make it "forget about it UX and extremely high quality" as most non techies define it. Because you have the issue that even if a company self hosts a meeting tool, they likely can't get the backbone connections Zoom etc can get. They at least need someone to use a URL to get there. It can be made mostly simple, but then you're back to some company running it - works for corporate use maybe, not for your home user. Even Signal lags compared to Zoom. And people really dislike Signal's phone number requirement, but it's what makes it somewhat possible to route connections for users.
What's a system that a home person could use that's not going to get them routing through one companies servers, but is actually simple enough to use?
The place where I do get somewhat exasperated as a techie is that the equivalent of asking for a phone number or address in any program that isn't an e-mail website is seen as "too hard". This makes pretty much any privacy respecting design impossible to scale beyond nerds.
Earlier 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.
> You agree to grant and hereby grant Zoom a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, … [rest already quoted several times in the thread]
so that promise to not do it without consent is meaningless as they have consent from anyone who has agreed to the ToS which anyone using the service/product has done.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Apparently the TOS can be edited at any time to say anything without notice. Yes, as with most terms of service. It's one of the things that makes terms of service statements unreliable.
This is not true. At least in the US you are required to notify customers when you change the terms of service, and as far as I know in the EU as well.