[conradev]

It is Zoom’s responsibility to list Facebook here:

https://zoom.us/subprocessors

Not sure why Vice called out the omission from the privacy policy – I’ve never seen one that actually lists all companies out by name. The GDPR mandates a list of subprocessors, though!

[elliekelly]

GitHub’s privacy policy is exceptional. Particularly the section on sub-processors[1] where they list out every company, don’t have any sort of CYA language that covers others that might not be listed, and make a commitment to update that page every time the sub-processors or the sub-processor’s function changes.

[1] https://help.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-subproc...

[mikebonnell]

Corrected link: https://help.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-subproc... (original has an extra s on the end)

[elliekelly]

Thank you!

[conradev]

Their privacy policy even explicitly calls that out:

> Zoom, our third-party service providers, and advertising partners (e.g., Google Ads and Google Analytics) automatically collect some information about you when you use our Products, using methods such as cookies and tracking technologies (further described below).

[sneak]

Listing this on their webpage doesn’t solve the spying problem.

“Well, at least they told us about it” is absolutely no solution to “so many of our tools are spying on us”.

[HenryBemis]

It is their right to run their business as they see fit, and it is our right to not use them. It is the deception we do not allow (any more) with GDPR.

[sneak]

Most present societies and thus governments do not believe that people should get to run their businesses however they see fit.

There are a thousand different ways in which companies are not presently allowed to be operated, even if the owner sees fit to do so: worker safety, discrimination, collusion, et c.

I’m not saying these things are good or bad, or that there should be more or less of them. I’m saying that Zoom’s (and Facebook’s) spying is a problem, remains a problem, and is not solved by them putting some text on their webpage.

[matheusmoreira]

> It is their right to run their business as they see fit

It absolutely isn't. We want to use services but we do not want to be subjected to surveillance capitalism. Privacy is more important than some business and if it can't operate without being invasive it should fail. If they insist on being hostile and tracking people despite their wishes, people will use the product anyway and they will find a way to break the tracking. They will delete the surveillance code, use network filters, send fake data, whatever it takes to stop the surveillance.

> It is the deception we do not allow (any more) with GDPR.

That law also says users have the right to object to what the service is doing with their data and that they must stop doing it if the objection is valid. Almost all data collection taking place today is objectionable, especially those related to marketing and advertisements.

Collecting data on people is not a god-given right. It is a privilege and it can be revoked. People trusted companies with that power because they thought companies would act in their best interests but they were exploited instead. Now it's time to take it away.

[crazy1van]

> We want to use services but we do not want to be subjected to surveillance capitalism.

Who is the “we” you are referring to? I think most people care so little about this that they don’t even bother to skim the TOS before using a service.

[HenryBemis]

To add to your point (which I fully agree) (and I am surprised of the downvotes - I don't care for the karma but it looks that I didn't write it clear enough and/or people misunderstood my comment 2-3 levels up).

I am not touching the "add value" bit, I will stick to the ethics. Some businesses are (imho) scum (Facebook, Google, Zoom, every tracker, every data aggregator, etc.)

They may uphold the law or they may ignore the law. Since we should not burn their buildings down in retribution, we can sue them (or whatever the local privacy laws state), we can stop giving them money (our free/paid information). But it is up to us. Zoom clearly needs a (sic) phat penalty by EU to get their stuff straight. Then every EU user should bombard both Zoom and FB with questions on their data practices and "right to be forgotten". Then we should burry them in the sand and move to other service providers.

I am adamant on the issue of privacy and the reason for that is that these scum KNOW they are violating our rights, and the voice in their minds tells them "screw them, £€¥$ goes first".

[matheusmoreira]

Caring about this shouldn't be necessary. When people sign up for a service, they shouldn't have to stop everything and wonder about the many, many ways their personal information could be abused. Nor should they have to scrutinize the terms of every single service out there just to know exactly how they're being exploited without being able to do anything about it. This constant paranoia about everything is not a good way to live.