Change to Email Terms of Sevice

[TECHHEAD]

---

@BSwrote:

Glad to see that the media is still pushing on this - I couldn't read the Globe one - I have viewed the limit I can for free in a month and don't have a subscription.

Bruce

---

@BS,

Use the  INCOGNITO option to view web pages that limit the amount of times you visit. While viewing in INCOGNITO your browser does not store cookies so the "Globe" can't count the amount of visits you make.  

[Zaphod64]

For those of you who can't read the Globe and Mail article, here are some points from it that are not in the Toronto Star article:

- Canada’s privacy commissioner Daniel Therrien said Tuesday that his office continues to investigate other concerns raised over new terms of service recently sent to users of @rogers.com e-mail addresses

- In testimony before a standing parliamentary committee in Ottawa Tuesday, Mr. Therrien said that after his office began an investigation, Oath agreed to remove that particular term.

“We’re also investigating other issues with respect to that organization but on that specific point, my understanding is that they have agreed to withdraw that part,” he said.

- In response to requests for comment last month, Oath said customers can opt out of the e-mail scanning that allows the company to deliver what it calls interest-based advertisements. But many people complained they could not find a way to do so.

- Rogers said Tuesday that it is updating its website to provide customers with more information on this issue and will be e-mailing @rogers.com users directly this week.  “We take our customers’ privacy very seriously. We know some customers had concerns about Yahoo’s term related to personal contacts, so we are pleased it was removed,” spokeswoman Sarah Schmidt said Tuesday. “We are working with our customers to address their questions and help them use Yahoo’s opt out settings to customize their e-mail preferences.”

- Charles Stewart, a spokesman for Oath, said in a statement Tuesday that the now-withdrawn provision “made clear to our users that they were responsible for obtaining the consent of their contacts when they chose to have Yahoo Messenger invite their friends to the app.” The term, which has now been removed from a 27-page document outlining the new policy, did not specifically mention Yahoo Messenger. Mr. Stewart said Oath did not use those contacts for advertising purposes and added, “Upon further review, we’ve removed this section of our terms of service as the functionality does not currently exist in our product offerings.”

[BS]

Nope, must be at the IP level - don't have my VPN on at the moment.

But then again, we really aren't supposed to be discussing work arounds like this - just being mindful of the terms we agreed to.

Suggestion doesn't work anyway on any browser, but thanks for trying to help.

Wonder what the terms on that site are??  Should check since I use it a lot - I got another new set of terms, from ebay this time, again driven by the EU changes in rules and the magic May 25th date.  Thank you EU for starting this, guess it is there way of attempting to protect their citizens from Facebook/Cambridge practices.

Wonder just how many of those analytics companies that are sitting in our cookies.  I know that when I dug at one point using a tracking blocker, even Rogers is sending a lot of stuff to analytics companies when we go to MyRogers, and when on this forum.

Given how much I have been on this forum, there must be no shortage of data out there who knows where on me.

But until law and legislation and legal fights catch up to the technology, we need to take greater care in what we click ok to - we never know who is watching when we find that word "share" in one of these agreements.

It has been a great education, and I am sure this topic is going to be staying high in the profile for a while, as it all gets weeded out.  Basically every major democratic country that believes in freedom and privacy is looking very seriously at what happened as identified in the US election and we still don't know the full extent of the impact or who was involved.  So read those terms - athough I am getting kind of tired of all the new ones coming, but at least I have the time to read them, and have also ended a few services, changed choices where possible, and have been looking to find as many as I can where I can identify what data they have and what they may have done with it.

Power through speech and education.

Bruce

Bruce

[LLB]

Scary statement:

“Upon further review, we’ve removed this section of our terms of service as the functionality does not currently exist in our product offerings.” Charles Stewart/Globe

Does he mean:

"We can't do it yet but when we can we will take your contact list" and/or

"If we can use any part of your data in more scary ways in the future we'll do that as well."

Not a confidence builder

[LLB]

Bruce when you mention: "Given how much I have been on this forum, there must be no shortage of data out there who knows where on me."

The Ottawa Citizen did a small experiment

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/just-how-much-of-your-personal-data-is-actually-online-we-tak...

He downloaded 1.66 gigabytes concerning himself.  And that was for just 3 apps.

[Datalink]

I would interpret this to mean that they will mine your contact data without permission from those contacts.  They don't seem to have sworn off of using that contact data, just that they won't push for you to indicate that you have your contact's permission for Oath to do whatever it wants to do.

[BS]

I am glad to hear that Rogers says they are going to communicate to us - I await that email.

Interesting fancy dancing by Oath in its explanation around the consent issue of our contacts - I can't say that I understand what was being said there, but I sure the commission pushed them to clarify and they pulled it from Yahoo mail, then from their other products, then claim , " “Upon further review, we’ve removed this section of our terms of service as the functionality does not currently exist in our product offerings.”

So they put it in their for future use I guess?? 

and:

"the now-withdrawn provision “made clear to our users that they were responsible for obtaining the consent of their contacts when they chose to have Yahoo Messenger invite their friends to the app.”

Not it was clear to me that they would treat it as if my contacts had given consent, not that I now had to by the 25th of May contact all my contacts and get their consent - they really think my contacts would give it - let's get serious here - and I don't recall anything explicit about Yahoo Messenger in that notice, just reference to their products - what do I know about yahoo messenger - I never used it.  So they were relying on the principles that Facebook uses and other products that use connections as friends inviting them to be able to communicate with me.

Sorry, but I didn't interpret it that way.  It would have been an interesting discussion to watch when that was said, and had we known that a week ago or so there would have been a lot more things we would be talking about.

Thank you to the commission for pushing and getting Oath to say that - it doesn't help Oath's cause nor does it suggest a full committment to transparency and clarity.

Wonder what else we are going to learn from this investigation.

It certainly has made all companies involved jump and duck and dodge and weave a bit before moving to clarify and adjust to reflect Canadian law.

Shame on them all.

Thanks for sharing that.

Bruce

[LLB]

In the T&C's they capture and store your email data which includes header data which comprises the email address and name of people sending you emails and anyone you send an email to, plus subject.

The only thing missed is phone number - which is covered by a different law/regulation.

As you say: they have the information and will no longer require you to ask permission and won't send on "your behalf"

Yahoo messenger is another animal.

[BS]

Also takes us back to the clause - we can change policy at any time and don't have to advise us - can we be assured they won't try it in the future?

Yes, does not instill trust.

Bruce

[Nettangel]

If you have any concerns and wish to add your protest to preserve online privacy, here’s a link. You can remain anonymous.

https://services.priv.gc.ca/q-s/allez-go/eng/8b62761b-7100-4016-886c-0279a78670d6

I wrote a new letter below to many government agencies as well as the media yesterday. 

The policy is still infringing on our rights.

Good day,

I am writing regarding the new Terms and Services from the US corporation owned by Verizon. 
Yahoo/Oath is contracted out by Rogers for email services here in Canada.
This contract is a violation of online Canadian Privacy Laws.
My concern is, should this be allowed, it will set precedence for other foreign nations to skirt around Canadian laws.

Gathering private online data, scanning and storing our personal information on US servers is an invasion of privacy.
The 27 page policy states they will read and store documents, in and outgoing emails and photos, to be sold to third parties. No law suits can be made for any wrongdoing on their part.

Doctor, lawyer and clergy confidentiality will be at stake when emails are read and stored. 
The policy also states that financial information will also be fair game.

As a Canadian citizen, I feel my rights to privacy will be violated.
The deadline is coinciding with the new privacy EU rules, which take effect May 25th.
Trusting that this matter will be dealt with before this time.

Regards