Their response is basically "we won't abuse it".

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.

Anyone remember when Instagram changed their TOS and then said "trust us"? And now they're training AI on it.

Nobody's falling for it, Adobe.

All of the stuff that they're saying in that response about how they won't abuse it is stuff that's already in the TOS. If you don't trust them despite that, then you should not be using their products regardless of what the TOS says.

I think we all know that, but we are also commenting on how it’s an awful tack to take for them and that this is likely not for “content moderation” only but for intelligence gathering, AI training, and also opens up all your content for industrial espionage because it leaves what little bit of control you have over your data that Adobe is spying on for themselves and others.

> Their response is basically "we won't abuse it".

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.

Every time I read corpo-speak like the voice in my head is Joe Isuzu.

Right out of the gate the phrasing “pushed a routine re-acceptance of those terms” reads with a hint of user contempt, like “just click Accept damnit, it’s normal that there are updates, you’re not supposed to read them”.

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 is in their interest to make the permissions in the TOS they grant themselves as broad as possible, since it's free to them (at least, they assume people don't care).

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.

How it works for people doing handling material that obviously violates ToS? It would be expected for police investigators, war crime prosecutors, etc?

Imagine that a crime ends up impune because adobe decides to delete part of the proofs!

There is a special version of Photoshop like the ltsc versions of windows but they are not as easily accessible. They come without a subscription though.

The use weasel terms like “such as” and “may include” are great big red flags.

“Your vehicle purchase may include items such as a steering wheel and brakes.”

"Such as" and "may include" are practical terms of art in legal documents and are written that way for clarity in matters of law.

These terms are still absolutely bogus, of course.

> [Human or automated review] [a]ccess 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).

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.

Self-replying since the sibling is getting buried.

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?

I think one of the fundamental problems here is that the line has become blurred between "Company can access user's data" and "Company's application can access user's data."

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.

The corpo jargon has gotten to you! "Access" doesn't mean "the app accesses a file on your computer." It means the company has access to your data. You would be forgiven for thinking this, as I assume it was their intent that you be confused.

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.

I'd disagree and say the ToS is written broadly enough that opening a file on your computer is covered.

I... yes? I'm sure their ToS covers opening a file. That page is not talking about filesystem access, however.

I left a comment in response to a person mocking a use case regarding thumbnail creation, not the content in the page.

Can you explain how showing my content to a human employed by an Adobe subsidiary helps with thumbnail preview generation?

Locally, on my machine.

Well, considering how GitHub's ToS was defended as "but they need it to host your code" and was what ended up as their justification for feeding all of your code into Copilot, I don't think that argument aged well.

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.

I didn't make an argument. I was just pointing out even creating a thumbnail requires accessing your data.

The quote is,

> 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.