zlacker

>>isodev+(OP)
edit: I'm retracting my earlier comment. Earlier I wrote that the headline didn't seem to match what was in the TOS, since OP never mentioned which part they're concerned about.

I'm now assuming the part they don't like is §10.4(ii):

> 10.4 Customer License Grant. 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_

Notice that 10.4(ii) says they can use Customer Content "for ... machine learning, artificial intelligence, training", which is certainly allowing training on user content.

>>jxf+6f
Who in their right mind would use Zoom as a service. My employees will never connect to another conference call with a third party that uses zoom again, ever.

>>proxif+kr
I appreciate your sentiment but sometimes there’s immense pressure to use it because it’s what everyone else is using, and refusing would cause a meeting to be disrupted (or force you not to attend).

>>hairof+Zr
But sometimes legal has the trump card in terms of dictating company policy, and having confidential information laundered into the public domain via training on "customer content" seems like a very red line.