https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/06/clarification-a...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40606768
Previous:
Photoshop ToS grants Adobe access to user projects for 'content moderation' - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40591860 - (86 comments)
Even if we trust them, this response is not good enough for any project under NDA. Unless I can, somehow, put Adobe under the NDA, it's not helping.
Never mention most of us don't actually trust them to be not abusing.
Nobody's falling for it, Adobe.
Their response states that the data will be used for the improvement of existing products and services. They offer generative AI as a service. So "we won't abuse it" may be about using the data for something else.
Ultimately what I’m getting from the terms directly and their response is that they want to be able to review things that go through their cloud, including with humans manually looking at it, but have given themselves a broader general license to review anything you open or create with their software, with a “trust us” message on the side saying it’s just for specific purposes. Additionally since all software these days seems to want you to save everything to the cloud, you’re likely to be prompted many times to save files there, where they may be subject to manual review even under the “trust us” purposes.
It's good that this is getting attention, because the change supposedly already have been put in since Feb 2024! It's only recently that the UI exposed it with the accept screen!
I say that the laws should be changed such that TOS cannot actually be changed from the time the contract was signed, unless a new commercial contract be signed for the new TOS.
Imagine that a crime ends up impune because adobe decides to delete part of the proofs!
“Your vehicle purchase may include items such as a steering wheel and brakes.”
These terms are still absolutely bogus, of course.
You dummies, it's needed! They have to access our data, it's needed!
N.b. this is one of the worse examples of corporate writing I've seen in recent memory. I feel like this entire thing is gaslighting the reader and using corpo jargon to make the thing easier to swallow.
They could specify a minimal set of permissions they need from you to offer their service but they deliberately worded it as ambiguously as possible to allow them to change their mind later. The question isn't what they need it for, the question is what they can justify later with the language they use now.
The phrase refers to 2.2 "Our Access to Your Content" - https://www.adobe.com/legal/terms.html
Anyway, I have utmost faith that an app can open and edit files without calling home.
> Access is needed for Adobe applications and services to perform the functions they are designed and used for.
...which boils down to, 'we need access to your stuff to do what we want'... which is not very reassuring.
The thumbnail example was just 1 example. Another example would be an adobe service designed for training AI on your content.
As long as the service designed for training AI on your content only accesses and uses your data for training AI on your content, it would be in compliance with these terms.
What they say:
> Access is needed for Adobe applications and services to perform the functions they are designed and used for (such as opening and editing files for the user or creating thumbnails or a preview for sharing).
What you read:
> A tautology: in order to open a file on your computer for use in an Adobe app, that app will need to open a file ("access") on your computer.
What they actually mean:
> Adobe can review ("access") any data you put into their apps and services. For instance, if you open a file in Photoshop, Adobe can have a human or an automated process review that file. This behavior is needed.
A huge part of this is the awful business-y passive tone they are using to disguise intent: "access is needed" - access by whom, and to what? Needed why?
In the past, this was pretty clear. The application is running on my computer, unconnected to the outside world, running on my behalf, in order to do what I want it to do. When I ran Borland's C++ compiler on DOS, I would have never even considered "Borland" having access to my data.
These days, with every device connected to the Internet, companies are deliberately blurring the line between the application and the company that made it. If my iPhone accesses my location, is Apple accessing my location? Who knows? Some people think no, some people think yes. If my Windows PC takes a screenshot of my desktop, is Microsoft accessing the contents of my desktop? No clue. They say they aren't, but all they can offer for proof is "Trust me, bro."
I'm so tired of software that is so hopelessly intertwined and tethered to the software's vendor. When I buy a software from someone, I buy it in order to use it, by itself, with no "help" from the vendor. I don't want a relationship with my software vendor. I just want to use the software alone.