[manigandham]

This is standard language to cover everything in normal use. Billing details is obvious. Profile info is provided when you signup and use the service. The system info is used to run and optimize the calls.

Zoom isn't actively scraping your info, and there's 0 evidence of anything in the Tweet.

[jjoonathan]

Lawyerspeak: "It's just boilerplate."

Translation: "Yeah, that's one of the parts where we really screw you, but you don't have a choice, lol."

[manigandham]

You have a choice to not use Zoom.

[jjoonathan]

Sure! Except it was mandated by your boss. Or you have a choice between a bunch of offerings with the exact same screwball terms. This might not actually be true for videoconferencing now that it's getting somewhat democratized and competitive.

Point is: "just boilerplate" is just rationalization. An honest person would never present it as comforting and a knowledgeable person would never find it comforting. Of course, the world is full of dishonest people, so it gets used all the time. Hence "lawyerspeak."

[blacksmith_tb]

True, though you could dial in from a phone (even a landline), unless you were being asked to not only attend but also share your screen.

[manigandham]

Do you refuse to use any other software mandated by your company? What's the difference?

It's standard policy to cover any potential personal data that they might receive. What is your concern exactly? That they shouldn't spell it out? That would be illegal under current data regulations.

[lostmsu]

The receipt from the top comment about joining from the browser works nicely.

[kachnuv_ocasek]

Not really if your lecturer or boss requires it for lectures, meetings or team communication.

[manigandham]

What information do you not want to share that you think they have but don't need?

[CivBase]

Yet.

There is an incentive to do so and they have taken measures to legally protect themselves if they do. That's grounds enough for alarm, even without evidence of them actually doing it.

[manigandham]

Alarm for what? It's enterprise video conferencing tech. They make their money from subscriptions. Your personal data is rather useless to them and now a liability under data regulations.

Worrying about Zoom here (and I'm not sure the tweet is accurate) seems to ignore all context of the product and business.

[CivBase]

> Alarm for what?

That privacy policy is a clear indication that Zoom is only concerned about protecting themselves at all costs. They may not be acting maliciously, but they clearly aren't dedicated to acting ethically either.

I'm not saying it's an emergency, but a privacy policy like that should at least set off some warning flags for a privacy-concious user.

> They make their money from subscriptions. Your personal data is rather useless to them...

I don't care if the data os valuable to them as long as it's valuable to someone.

> ...and now a liability under data regulations.

The liability is worth it if the price is right.

[manigandham]

Every company will protect themselves. Why is this controversial? Please list the companies that open themselves up to litigation and show me how that's ethical.

"as long as it's valuable to someone"

This is so vague as to be meaningless. What about your browser, ISP, OS, phone, and the million other services that you use? Context matters.

"The liability is worth it if the price is right."

Are you claiming that a company selling enterprise video tech for 100s of millions and operating under all the latest data regulations is somehow trying to squeeze out a few pennies by selling some worthless data while risking massive lawsuits?