That’s a big document with lots of acronyms and references to specific standards for compliance that law professionals might be familiar with, but is otherwise completely meaningless.

You also mentioned that collecting user data is how Microsoft is paid in the GP comment. That’s pretty clear to me. I thought when I paid Microsoft, that was the main revenue stream.

The document provided in theory communicates what you said so succinctly before, but with more legal and confusing language.

If it says the opposite, then just asking me to assume that this document that’s extremely difficult to read explains why outlook should ingest information I wasn’t told about, since I live in a jurisdiction where Microsoft doesn’t need to, and why that’s actually a neutral or possibly “good” thing for me, is a bit silly.

—

Edit: if I’m misunderstanding what you said earlier by:

> We have to collect customer data that's what we get paid for.

Then I’m sorry. I don’t mean to frame you as saying something you don’t mean to.