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

https://blog.zoom.us/zooms-term-service-ai/

by chrononaut • 3 years ago

336 179 3 years ago

blog.zoom.us

sherlock_h• 3 years ago

Seems like they are addressing it heads-on

gruez2• 3 years ago

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.

tailspin2019• 3 years ago

Given the company’s history, it doesn’t seem very baffling at all…

Zoom has agreed to pay $85 million to settle claims that it lied about offering end-to-end encryption and gave user data to Facebook and Google without the consent of users. The settlement between Zoom and the filers of a class-action lawsuit also covers security problems [0]
Mac update nukes dangerous webserver installed by Zoom [1]
The 'S' in Zoom, Stands for Security - uncovering (local) security flaws in Zoom's macOS client [2]

[0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/08/zoom-to-pay-85m-...

[1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/07/silen...

[2] https://objective-see.org/blog/blog_0x56.html

hackernewds• 3 years ago

That seems an intentional business decision where expected value of fine < perceived benefit. $85M is little

ec1096853• 3 years ago

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

Occam's razor also applies here.

gjsman-1000• 3 years ago

I'm sorry, I didn't maliciously stab the guy, I was just really, really, really incompetent with handling this axe.

JohnFen4• 3 years ago

I think Hanlon's razor isn't true often enough to consider it a valid rule of thumb.

But, really, does it matter whether the bad thing is caused by incompetence or malice outside of a court of law? The bad thing happens either way.

hypeit• 3 years ago

Let's please not pretend like philosophical razors are anything other than rhetorical devices. There's exactly zero data to back any of them up and it wouldn't matter if there was since each case is unique.

There is however research (that aligns with a lot of people's experience) to suggest psychopaths and sociopaths are very over represented in leadership:

https://www.sakkyndig.com/psykologi/artvit/babiak2010.pdf

function_seven• 3 years ago

I'm done with Hanlon and his Razor. It's useless.

I now use Hanlon's Shaving Brush. Its a broad brush that I use to paint every sketchy move businesses make. "Is it malice? Or is it incompetence that merely looks like malice?". I don't care! I'll assume malice unless otherwise shown.

It's not my job to try and find out how evil shit was done accidentally. It doesn't matter if they "oopsied" into selling a firehose of my data to a "trusted partner" to analyze to death. Nobody actually gives a shit at these companies, so I need to treat them all as if they're malicious. If the underlying cause was a bit of incompetence a few years ago, that does nothing for me when I'm discovering the fuckery.

rangerelf• 3 years ago

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.

jwie• 3 years ago

There are two aspects to that saying.

The word adequately, and the fact it was made when presuming good faith was more reasonable.

These days it's better to assume everything is theft, fraud, or marketing.

checkyoursudo2• 3 years ago

Never ascribe to a hasty overgeneralisation that which is adequately explainable by observation and evidence.

I think attributing everything to incompetence vastly underrepresents intent. Maybe not all bad acts are malice, but too many are attributed to incompetence. Maybe it is not malice, but it can still be intentional actions against or indifferent to your interests.

burkaman• 3 years ago

Yes, who could imagine such a thing from a company that leaked personal data without consent (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58050391) and lied about end-to-end encryption for 5 years (https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2020/11/...).

berbec• 3 years ago

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, copy, distribute, translate, transcribe, create derivative works, and process Customer Content and to perform all acts with respect to the Customer Content.
(ii) for the purpose of product and service development, marketing, analytics, quality assurance, machine learning, artificial intelligence, training, testing, improvement of the Services, Software, or Zoom’s other products, services, and software, or any combination thereof

mplewis• 3 years ago

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.

dr_monster• 3 years ago

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.

littlestymaar3• 3 years ago

without your consent.

†but we'll prompt you an overly long privacy policy including such consent whose acceptation is just a checkbox you tick the first time your join a call without even paying attention (nor choice)

pseudosavant• 3 years ago

"...will not use...to train..." (emphasis mine)

They'll do inference all day long, but not train without consent. Only being slightly paranoid here, but they could still analyze all of the audio for nefarious reasons (insider trading, identifying monetizable medical information from doctor's on Zoom, etc). Think of the marketing data they could generate for B2B products because they get to "listen" and "watch" every single meeting at a huge swath of companies. They'll know whether people gripe more about Jira than Asana or Azure Devops, and what they complain about.

stefan_• 3 years ago

That still allows them to broadcast your meeting in a feature film of their choice. No, this is insane. The only reasonable option here is (1) end-to-end encryption or (2) ephemeral storage purely for the provision of the service.

singleshot_4• 3 years ago

A very powerful example of the difference between the words “will” and “shall.”

Hats off to zoom for the free contract drafting lesson!

[edit: thanks to HN commenter lolinder for the actual lesson].

fbdab103• 3 years ago

Does that mean they could sell the data and let someone else train their AI model without consent?

fabbari• 3 years ago

Interesting that they limited the clause to only audio, video and chat. Looking at their definition of Customer Content it means that they can use, for example, documents you shared, transcripts, a very nebulous ‘outputs’ and visual displays.

So they can create a transcript of the conversation and train with it. Or train on any document you may have shared during a Zoom meeting.

I woukd have preferred the exception - if that was the intent - to enumerate the components of the Customer Content that they want to use for training.

10.1 Customer Content. You or your End Users may provide, upload, or originate data, content, files, documents, or other materials (collectively, “Customer Input”) in accessing or using the Services or Software, and Zoom may provide, create, or make available to you, in its sole discretion or as part of the Services, certain derivatives, transcripts, analytics, outputs, visual displays, or data sets resulting from the Customer Input (together with Customer Input, “Customer Content”);

nabakin3• 3 years ago

It's gone. They removed this part.

https://www.diffchecker.com/RLiqgAaA/

gchamonlive• 3 years ago

redistribute, publish, import, access, use, store, transmit, review, disclose, preserve, extract, modify, reproduce, share, use, display, copy, distribute, translate, transcribe, create

This is very Technologic

PaulDavisThe1st• 3 years ago

It's missing "pickle" and "ferment", but I guess there's not enough culinary influence at Zoom HQ.

denton-scratch2• 3 years ago

They're also allowed to use it twice. Also, they can distribute it, and then redistribute it.

Imnimo• 3 years ago

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.

Animats• 3 years ago

The AI part isn't the bad part. It's the "use for marketing", like gMail.

One implication is that lawyers can no longer use Zoom for anything which is attorney-client privileged.

reilly3000• 3 years ago

I wonder if a deceptive marketing post explaining a privacy policy change could be considered material if there was a lawsuit.

happytiger2• 3 years ago

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…

https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/zoom-return-to-office-an...

proxiful-wash• 3 years ago

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

haldujai4• 3 years ago

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.

ethbr0• 3 years ago

You agree to grant and hereby grant Zoom [...] license and all other rights required or necessary to [...] create derivative works [...]
[...] for the purpose of product and service development, marketing, analytics, quality assurance, machine learning, artificial intelligence, training, testing, improvement of the Services, Software, or Zoom’s other products, services, and software, or any combination thereof [...]

Those two clauses, coupled with the current murky state of AI-from-copyrighted-material, should make everyone run screaming from Zoom as a product that can be entrusted with confidential information.

happytiger2• 3 years ago

We can drop them from all of our portfolio companies and I personally can as well.

But what are the best alternatives at the moment?

Zoom is very popular…

willsmith72• 3 years ago

I find google meet pretty good. The zoom desktop client kills my mac, but the web client doesn't have great performance. Meet performs better in the browser for me

robertlagrant6• 3 years ago

If you use Slack their video calling is pretty good these days, at least for internal calls.

cbsmith• 3 years ago

The marketing piece explains why you might want them to let them have these rights. The TOS are what you're giving up in exchange.

flower-giraffe• 3 years ago

It is perhaps a sign of how pervasive the assumption that a subscriber is an asset rather than a stakeholder that they have thought it is reasonable for a commercial communication service to claim copyright on private communications of their subscribers.

Can you imagine the response to telephone company saying they can use your voicemail messages for their own purposes.

neltnerb• 3 years ago

It is illuminating to do a search for the word "consent" in the document, considering they say that they will not use things without it.

Seems like it might be worth them including, IANAL. Otherwise can't they just change it in the website UI...? They don't promise any particular process for acquiring consent, but sure declare you give it to them for many many other things.

walrus012• 3 years ago

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?

wfme• 3 years ago

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

esperent2• 3 years ago

It's very hard to read that on mobile. What changed?

wodenokoto• 3 years ago

If my hours of watching legal eagle on YouTube qualifies me to give legal advice for a country I don’t even live in then yes, that marketing statement can have very real influence on how a court is willing to interpret the agreement between Zoom and its users.

mikro2nd• 3 years ago

Funny how people have been granting pretty much the same batch of rights to Microsoft for decades when they used Skype, and nobody minded.

In addition Skype's ToS granted MS a licence to any and all IP you might discuss during a Skype call.[1] I wonder why no businesses were bothered by that...?

[1] ...decades ago, I don't know how it reads now, can't be arsed to check.

gmerc• 3 years ago

Times have changed. AI invokes existential dread.

raverbashing• 3 years ago

They have amended the TOS with this statement:

Notwithstanding the above, Zoom will not use audio, video or chat Customer Content to train our artificial intelligence models without your consent.

dolmen5• 3 years ago

The main point is that "You agree" is the customer, not the end user.

Which means that in the case where Zoom is provided to you by your employer, they claim that the employer consent is just what matters. Once more "Fuck GDPR".

littlestymaar3• 3 years ago

As part of our commitment to transparency and user control

Bold claim for a company that already lost a class action for deliberately lying to its users.

dylan6042• 3 years ago

It's like a drug addict that only went to rehab to avoid jail and is not really wanting to stop. That next relapse is just right there waiting for them.

littlestymaar3• 3 years ago

Except the drug addict has an actual excuse for getting back to it: addiction is a medical condition, whereas here it's just lack of any kind of decency.

DueDilligence• 3 years ago

.. just today, we decided to cancel our K12 contract with zoom.

All 350+ workstations.

robertlagrant6• 3 years ago

Moving to what?

yread• 3 years ago

What is K12? Kindergarten?

bluefishinit4• 3 years ago

Section 10.2 covers that there is certain information about how our customers in the aggregate use our product — telemetry, diagnostic data, etc. This is commonly known as service generated data. We wanted to be transparent that we consider this to be our data so that we can use service generated data to make the user experience better for everyone on our platform.

Well, I consider that to be my data and actually it is since I canceled our company's Zoom account when they adjusted their TOS. I'll take my data elsewhere.

lolinder4• 3 years ago

Just out of curiosity—did you cancel the account in April when they changed the terms, or in August when people finally noticed?

bluefishinit4• 3 years ago

August, when I saw the changes. I have to admit I'm not babysitting all of our vendor's TOS so am glad these things get surfaced on HN.

rpgbr• 3 years ago

I guess you'll have a hard time trying to find a service, video calls and else, that doesn't have terms similar to these.

bluefishinit4• 3 years ago

It's definitely a challenge, but another good thing about HN is people link alternatives in threads like this. I'm already checking out Jitsi (mentioned up thread) and it looks awesome. It's even open source:

https://jitsi.org/

jwr• 3 years ago

Whereby? https://whereby.com/

tagami• 3 years ago

Put that right in the TOS.

codexb• 3 years ago

It was a poor choice on their part. Some large employers were already on the fence about dropping zoom in favor of teams, and this is just going to push them over the edge.

smrtinsert• 3 years ago

Jokes on them, I'm already streaming my AI avatar.

autoexec• 3 years ago

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 are a ton of alternatives out there they are all "too hard" or something, so since Zoom mostly works OK most of the time and is dead simple to use it will continue to win out over everything else.

My position on Zoom hasn't changed since 2020: Anyone using Zoom will continue to get exactly what they deserve.

ChrisMarshallNY2• 3 years ago

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 in the tech industry (we'll change on a whim).

Zoom is not easy to use. Its settings are a mess, but everyone is used to dealing with the Zoom pain, and don't want to switch.

We can be remarkably cavalier in dismissing non-tech folks, but I learned to stop doing that, many years ago. We're not the only smart people in the world.

People (in general) don't like getting sidetracked by their tools. They want to get a job done, and how they get it done is not irrelevant, but not that important to them. They develop and refine a workflow, which is usually heavily informed by their choice of tools, and that "wears a groove." They don't want to switch grooves; even if they are not enjoying their tool.

Most tech folks, on the other hand love tools. I had an employee that would stop his main project, and design a massive subsystem, just to make a simple command-line process a few seconds shorter. I had to keep on my toes. He was the best engineer I've ever worked with, but it was a chore to keep him focused.

Non-tech types are seldom like that, and we can sometimes miss it.

These are the folks that use our products, and we don't actually gain anything by disrespecting them, even when they really piss us off.

TL;DR: Want people to stop using Zoom? Produce something better, and make it something that non-tech folks will love.

That means easy to use, forget-about-it UX, and extremely high quality.

nightpool2• 3 years ago

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)

andreyvit• 3 years ago

Not to mention other super-important features like background blurring. It has very recently become available with in-browser solutions, but still not exactly on par, and with less options (e.g. no green screen support). That alone justifies using Zoom.

jp10558• 3 years ago

I find that the issue with "Produce something better, and make it something that non-tech folks will love." is just that you get the "Twitter to Threads" sort of thing where you still have the centralized / walled garden / new boss same as the old boss problem.

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.

chefandy5• 3 years ago

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 users? Do those people know anyone with the knowledge and gumption to host something?

From the beginning of my involvement in FOSS like 25 years ago, developers have griped about non-technical users being intimidated, or even just really annoyed by UX resistance that we consider trivial. That's the primary reasons open source alternatives are alternatives rather than the standard in user-facing software.

rolph• 3 years ago

[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.

bspammer• 3 years ago

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.

walrus012• 3 years ago

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...

synaesthesisx• 3 years ago

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.

kevdev• 3 years ago

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.

haldujai4• 3 years ago

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.

dolmen5• 3 years ago

The GDPR page of Zoom is just a joke: https://explore.zoom.us/en/gdpr/

They basically claim that the customer (the one who signs the contract, not the Zoom user) who hosts the meeting is responsible for GDPR compliance by defining the right account settings. So if you are invited on a call you basically have no rights.

karaterobot• 3 years ago

Ahh, so they're pulling the old "You can leave the meeting if you don't like becoming part of our training data" routine, and that's what they mean by consent.

kornhole• 3 years ago

Nextcloud Talk has no TOS AFAIK. It is FOSS and self-hosted. Nextcloud AI tools run on your instance with the exception of the optional OpenAI plugin app. They are developing further FOSS AI models to replace those. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14gSiyAl9Fw

ddtaylor• 3 years ago

I love Nextcloud. What will eventually happen is that Zoom (and other services in this model) will cause some problem that is so catastrophic that companies realize the true risk of being so deeply entrenched into these toxic one-sided relationships and then will begin to adopt more self-hosted tools.

sean_hogle• 3 years ago

Zoom's lawyers are trying to pull a fast one with these revised Terms. The new sentence on user consent being required to train AIs applies only to "Customer Content," not "Service Generated Data."

In sec. 10.4, Zoom says "... Zoom will not use audio, video or chat Customer Content to train our artificial intelligence models without your consent."

Customer Content is defined in 10.1 and is broadly worded. But the first sentence of sec. 10.2 clearly states that "Customer Content" does NOT include "Service Generated Data."

Therein lies the rub. "Service Generated Data" = "any telemetry data, product usage data, diagnostic data, and similar content or data that Zoom collects or generates in connection with your or your End Users’ use of the Services ...." (sec. 10.2).

Zoom is allowed to use Service Generated Data for any purpose (sec. 10.2) because it is not "Customer Content."

This "clarification" does nothing meaningful to assuage the serious data privacy concerns posed by Zoom's use of captured user video content.

slt2021• 3 years ago

are Embeddings (text-emb, visual-emb, etc) of Customer Content service generated data?

This might be a loophole Zoom is trying to use - while they technically not using customer data (Zoom client not sending video stream to train AI), but zoom client can process data locally and send only embeddings (numeric vectors without ties to customer PII data) and it still will be customer data

discoverIT• 3 years ago

Drawing from my experience in the eDiscovery field, I want to emphasize that there's no necessity for video or audio content. Rather, a tool can be developed to convert all audio into a text layer. This text layer can be extracted from the local files sourced from platforms like Zoom. Subsequently, AI/ML can be employed to process and analyze this data, providing valuable insights that compromises companies' intellectual property and sensitive information.

graeme• 3 years ago

What are the equivalent terms for Microsoft Teams?

barbazoo• 3 years ago

And Google Meet

AndrewKemendo3• 3 years ago

Nope

We’re not buying it

The days of the “corporate responsibility” letter are over. Nothing you say will be believed if it conflicts with your bottom line.

There’s saying in Texas…won’t be fooled again

lightedman• 3 years ago

Too late, what you publicly advertised online and what you have in the TOS are conflicting and false advertising.

But this is par for the course for Zoom.

rukuu001• 3 years ago

For AI, we do not use audio, video, or chat content for training our models without customer consent.

Don't we provide consent when we agree to the TOS? And we can't use the product without doing that?

andreagrandi• 3 years ago

Question (I may know the answer), if the call is end to end encrypted, how can they use users content?

layer8• 3 years ago

Zoom is not E2EE by default, and when E2EE is enabled, many Zoom features are not available, including presumably the new AI features.

dolmen5• 3 years ago

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).

TheCapeGreek• 3 years ago

To pile on the alternative recommendations: I've enjoyed using Whereby[0] in the past. I also somehow keep forgetting about them in these discussions until someone reminds me. The main thing of it for me is it's been more reliable than Jitsi (though I do need to give Jitsi another try) and doesn't need to be self-hosted.

[0]https://whereby.com/

1vuio0pswjnm7• 3 years ago

Zoom is getting desperate. They have been in decline since the end of the pandemic. That's what the analysts are saying.

Lio• 3 years ago

What I really want to know is, can I as someone compelled to use Zoom as an employee can opt-out of Zoom training their AI on my voice, image and data?

If my employer is the "customer" what say, if any, do I have as an individual?

By participating in a call am I giving Zoom permission to do things like train deep fakes of me?

This is all too Blackmirrory for my liking.

sneak2• 3 years ago

You're not compelled; you get to choose your employer.

It's much the same as the issue that was raised a few days ago, where your employer instructs or expects you to lie. The only way they have to "force" you is to threaten dismissal; this is insufficient to justify the terms "compel" or "force".

A police officer holding a Glock can compel you. Your boss cannot.

dolmen5• 3 years ago

Resigning with a 3 months notice period would not fix the issue anyway. I would still have to use Zoom for that period.

I had the same issue when my EU-based employer was sold to an US company. My personal data suddenly went from EU to US-based HR systems without my consent. Resigning would not have fixed anything. My personal data will be in the US forever.

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

Related Stories