> And this differs from Google's and Facebook's usage policies how?
This article has nothing to do with Google and Facebook. It doesn't even mention them.
I think the article's purpose is to dispute the claim that the terms aren't as "straightforward" as Microsoft would have us think, as evidenced by the sarcastic closing line, "So much for clearly understandable and straightforward terms of service."
In part, it is quite convincing. Phrases like "or as necessary" and "we collect voice input, as well as your name and nickname" is a little unsettling to me.
> This article has nothing to do with Google and Facebook. It doesn't even mention them.
Agreed. My point was not that the article critiques either of those organizations, simply that this move by Microsoft is quite comparable. To the point of being indistinguishable, IMHO.
> I think the article's purpose is to dispute the claim that the terms aren't as "straightforward" as Microsoft would have us think, as evidenced by the sarcastic closing line, "So much for clearly understandable and straightforward terms of service."
I recommend detailed reading of the ToC's the various Google and/or Facebook offerings which you are interested in as well then. Perhaps they are less shrouded in "legalese", but I submit their implications are no less disturbing.
This article has nothing to do with Google and Facebook. It doesn't even mention them.
I think the article's purpose is to dispute the claim that the terms aren't as "straightforward" as Microsoft would have us think, as evidenced by the sarcastic closing line, "So much for clearly understandable and straightforward terms of service."
In part, it is quite convincing. Phrases like "or as necessary" and "we collect voice input, as well as your name and nickname" is a little unsettling to me.