Hacker News Reader

Comment by gnicholas | Hacker News Reader

> solely for the limited purpose of operating and enabling the Service to work as intended for You and for no other purposes.

To me (a former corporate lawyer) the "for You" qualifier would limit their ability to use content to train an AI for use by anyone other than "You". Is there an argument? Yes. But by that argument, they would also be allowed to "publicly perform" my videoconf calls for some flimsy reasons that don't directly benefit me.

View on HN

I write these policies for my day job and I agree with this.

> I write these policies for my day job

My regrets :-p

it isn't for you solely/exclusively. If it "improves" the service for everyone - that includes "you".

Yep, I acknowledge that is a possibility, but it would also lead to them having permission to display literally the entirety of my videonconf calls to anyone, for advertising purposes or some other purpose that only incidentally benefits me. That would be a strained reading IMO.

Additionally courts consider the fact that users have little if any say in the terms and thus tend to take the most restrictive but still reasonable view of any uncertainty in the terms.

Basically "if you wanted it you could have asked for it, if you didn't then that is a problem".

Yep, contracts of adhesion, and construing against the drafter: both favor the user here.

To misquote Bill Clinton, it depends on what the means of 'you' is.

More like a certainty :)

Something like: If I have a call with you once, theoretically I might have a call with you again in the future. If they use my content to train "your" AI that would improve our theoretical future call, too, and is a "for me" use, I guess?

And I might have a call with any other zoom user, too, potentially, maybe. So really they are doing me a service by using my content all over the place — who knows, it might benefit me at some point!

"You" is a defined term in Jitsi's Terms of Service.

>...any legal entity or business, such entity or business (collectively, “You” or “Your”)

In case this is meant to imply that perhaps my business and your business are both part of the same "You", they are not. They are each a party to a separate contract with Jitsi; we are not all party to one huge contract with each other (which would hypothetically allow Jitsi to do anything with our content for the purpose of helping them serve all of us).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com