zlacker

It's great that you are engaging and writing about this, many thanks.

While your blog is interesting, it doesn't change the impact of the Terms of Service as currently written. They seem to give you the freedom to train your current and future AI/ML capabilities using any Customer Content (10.4), and your terms apparently have your users warrant that doing so will not infringe any rights (10.6).

Perhaps your terms of use should reflect your current practices rather than leaving scope for those practices to vary without users realising? Will you be changing them following all this feedback?

>>webmin+(OP)
Following up on this point, we’ve updated our terms of service (in section 10.4) to further confirm that we will not use audio, video, or chat customer content to train our artificial intelligence models without your consent.

You can see that now clearly stated in our blog: https://blog.zoom.us/zooms-term-service-ai/

>>michae+3a1
Can there be some easy to file screen shots on how to disable it for anyone who is not a new user?

Your COO’s wording is that a new user will have to opt in. It seems the major still might have to know where to opt out.

>>michae+3a1
This addresses concerns about Zoom Video Communications, Inc. itself using e.g. recordings for purposes of training their own AI models. It does not address the potentially much greater risks arising from the company potentially selling access to the collection of zoom recordings to other companies for purposes of training AI models of such other companies. Here’s a somewhat-in-depth analysis: https://zoomai.info/

>>michae+3a1
Thanks for following up, Michael, it is much appreciated. It does leave me (and judging my adjacent comments, also others) with questions, including:

* That wording seems very specific - is there a reason you did not just say "we will not use Customer Input or Customer Content to train our AI" given you have defined those terms? Are you leaving scope for something else (such as uploaded files or presentation content) to still be used? * Can you also clarify exactly which (and whose) "consent" is applicable here? In meetings between multiple equal parties there may not be any one party with standing to consent for everyone involved. Your blog post seems to assume there can be, but the ToS don't appear to define "consent".