zlacker

>>chrono+(OP)
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

>>berbec+Vp
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.

>>Imnimo+LZ
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.

>>Animat+o01
I have not had a chance to read up on this yet but does zoom not have a paid version or corporate version that would not follow under these same TOS? If not it seems crazy like a shot in the foot because lots of businesses use zoom and I know most want or are required to use privacy preserving programs.