Quoting: "The Guardian notes, while Amazon and Google allow customers to opt out of some uses of their recordings, Apple doesn’t offer a similar privacy protecting option, outside of disabling Siri entirely. That’s a particularly bad look, given that Apple has built so much of its reputation on selling itself as the privacy company that defends your data in ways that Google and Amazon don’t. Implicitly telling customers that, effectively, “the only way to have peace of mind that a random stranger won’t listen in on their accidentally triggered Siri recordings is to stop using Siri entirely” is a bit of a mixed message from the company that supposedly puts privacy at a premium."
Things are not always as black and white, good guys vs. evil others, as they are sometimes portrayed here.
Amazon Echo speakers send your conversations to people to listen to. - no one bats an eye and the story is gone in a day. Google home speakers send your conversations to people to listen to. - no one cares and the story is gone in a day. Bixby sends your conversations to people to listen to. - the story gets buried. Siri sends your conversations to people to listen to. - people will lose their shit for the next month.
Ask Siri the latitude of almost any capital city (Tokyo, Madrid, London, Berlin, etc.) and it fails to answer the request, instead providing general interest knowledge about the city. This is after 8 or 9 years in development and improvement.
Siri is a complete dead end. Thinking you can improve your ‘process’ (who calls it that way?) in this way is really incredible. One reason for not wanting to have a Tesla Model 3 is that “your data are belong to us (Tesla)”, which is of course completely unacceptable (Tesla searches your info to see if your to blame in case of an accident ...). This kind of corporate attitude has to change, users shouldn't have to sell their soul to be able to use the very expensive stuff they buy.
Ask Siri the latitude of almost any capital city (Tokyo, Madrid, London, Berlin, etc.) and it fails to answer the request, instead providing general interest knowledge about the city. This is after 8 or 9 years in development and improvement.
"featuring private discussions between doctors and patients, business deals, seemingly criminal dealings, sexual encounters" - hopefully not in the same conversation.
Quoting: "The Guardian notes, while Amazon and Google allow customers to opt out of some uses of their recordings, Apple doesn’t offer a similar privacy protecting option, outside of disabling Siri entirely. That’s a particularly bad look, given that Apple has built so much of its reputation on selling itself as the privacy company that defends your data in ways that Google and Amazon don’t. Implicitly telling customers that, effectively, “the only way to have peace of mind that a random stranger won’t listen in on their accidentally triggered Siri recordings is to stop using Siri entirely” is a bit of a mixed message from the company that supposedly puts privacy at a premium."
Things are not always as black and white, good guys vs. evil others, as they are sometimes portrayed here.
All I know is Google would have to get better to suck.
“ A 'whistleblower' has taken issue with Apple's lack of disclosure that it has contractors listening to anonymized Siri queries -- but the company has said all along that it does.”
So what percentage of Siri users are aware that humans may listen to their conversations? No-one reads software license agreements.
Just as willful ignorance is not a valid legal defense, suggesting that Apple hasn’t adequately notified users because users don’t read software license agreements is not a valid argument.
When you read the pertinent section of Apple's ToS would you understand that Apple is sending possibly identifiable voice recordings to a third party? Of course you didn't, and even knowing you as little a I do as I could wager you would never expected they do this. The ToS told you nothing about it in essence
So I'm not even "suggesting that Apple hasn't adequately notified users". That's too mild. I'll come right out and say they have not, anymore than Google or Amazon or Microsoft or almost any other company gathering our data.
These user agreements are written as broadly and undetailed as their legal teams will allow., as legal cover for the company and not for your benefit. The user-facing disclosures are intended to obfuscate rather than fully inform as to what rights you are surrendering and what you are permitting a company to do. If you complain they can point to some ill-defined passage in the pages long agreement and say "hey lookie here, we told ya".
YOU, Radarthekat, long-term and supposedly well informed Apple user that you are did not anticipate that tucked away in that agreement you were giving Apple your OK to hand over private voice recordings of yours to an outside party. YOU were not adequately notified as the end user unless adequately means Apple's butt was legally covered enough to make you happy.
The ToS is not for your benefit or buyer friendly. It is just to protect these companies from being sued over something you technically agreed to by using their product. Of course this is not an Apple-exclusive. Google is no better, nor is MS, Samsung, Whirlpool, the loyalty card at Walgreens, or the Disqus service you agree to simply to comment on a lot of web articles. ToS agreements are useless for describing what companies are seizing as rights when offering you a product or service. Read them? Why? They are not attempting to be clear and revealing.to the end user. If we all knew everything that was being done "cause you agreed" it could undo years of PR work the companies put in implying otherwise.
Perhaps the key issue for this whistleblower, as it is for me, is that outside contractors, not Apple employees, are doing the manual review. Big difference in my book.
Perhaps the key issue for this whistleblower, as it is for me, is that outside contractors, not Apple employees, are doing the manual review. Big difference in my book.
Agreed. Keeping it all in-house and protected is a far cry from sending it off to various outside contractors whose employees may not feel as obligated to secure it. It still would not relieve these companies of what I see as an obligation to be more transparent if they want our money and cooperation. Stop crafting creative ToS wording that allows almost anything while implying to the reader it isn't.
Now with Apple discovered to be doing just as Google does (please no longer, bring it in house), sharing potentially identifiable data with outside 3rd parties even if not directly tied to a User ID and legally "anonymized", is it equally as evil or alternatively as much a non-story as perceived when it was other companies in the spotlight?
“ A 'whistleblower' has taken issue with Apple's lack of disclosure that it has contractors listening to anonymized Siri queries -- but the company has said all along that it does.”
So what percentage of Siri users are aware that humans may listen to their conversations? No-one reads software license agreements.
Just as willful ignorance is not a valid legal defense, suggesting that Apple hasn’t adequately notified users because users don’t read software license agreements is not a valid argument.
When you read the pertinent section of Apple's ToS would you understand that Apple is sending possibly identifiable voice recordings to a third party? Of course you didn't, and even knowing you as little a I do as I could wager you would never expected they do this. The ToS told you nothing about it in essence
So I'm not even "suggesting that Apple hasn't adequately notified users". That's too mild. I'll come right out and say they have not, anymore than Google or Amazon or Microsoft or almost any other company gathering our data.
These user agreements are written as broadly and undetailed as their legal teams will allow., as legal cover for the company and not for your benefit. The user-facing disclosures are intended to obfuscate rather than fully inform as to what rights you are surrendering and what you are permitting a company to do. If you complain they can point to some ill-defined passage in the pages long agreement and say "hey lookie here, we told ya".
YOU, Radarthekat, long-term and supposedly well informed Apple user that you are did not anticipate that tucked away in that agreement you were giving Apple your OK to hand over private voice recordings of yours to an outside party. YOU were not adequately notified as the end user unless adequately means Apple's butt was legally covered enough to make you happy.
The ToS is not for your benefit or buyer friendly. It is just to protect these companies from being sued over something you technically agreed to by using their product. Of course this is not an Apple-exclusive. Google is no better, nor is MS, Samsung, Whirlpool, the loyalty card at Walgreens, or the Disqus service you agree to simply to comment on a lot of web articles. ToS agreements are useless for describing what companies are seizing as rights when offering you a product or service. Read them? Why? They are not attempting to be clear and revealing.to the end user. If we all knew everything that was being done "cause you agreed" it could undo years of PR work the companies put in implying otherwise.
Considering neither Google nor Amazon added it to the terms of service until after it was discovered, and Apple has been doing informing the users since iOS 6 and then again on a privacy-centric page intended and written for public consumption, I'd say, yes, they have, much, much more than Google or Amazon or Microsoft.
Whether or not that's sufficient for any given user is in the air.
I don't know who the author of the article is but in the very last paragraph he says that with both Google and Facebook the voice snippets were directly connected to a user account. In the case of Facebook it may have been in fact I believe they were even given first names. the As for Google and voice transcription it was handled exactly as it is with Apple as far as I've seen written: Anonymized and not connected to an identifiable account.
Unless the author has additional information otherwise that assertion should be corrected as it would be misleading readers if left as is.
If I recall the earlier article correctly, this isn't the case. The other tech companies included customer ID or IP address along with the data whereas Apple only included a randomly generated ID.
You should read again. The means of identification would be the same as it is for Apple: Something heard in the voice snippet, not anything supplied by either Google or Apple.
I was referring to a different, earlier article about these issues, specifically addressing this statement of yours "As for Google and voice transcription it was handled exactly as it is with Apple as far as I've seen written: Anonymized and not connected to an identifiable account. "
Specifically, Google wasn't complying with acceptable protocols for anonymizing data while Apple was. But you're right that in the most recent articles this distinction isn't brought up. Perhaps Google has caught up with Apple in their elimination of identifiers such as IP addresses.
I don't know who the author of the article is but in the very last paragraph he says that with both Google and Facebook the voice snippets were directly connected to a user account. In the case of Facebook it may have been in fact I believe they were even given first names. the As for Google and voice transcription it was handled exactly as it is with Apple as far as I've seen written: Anonymized and not connected to an identifiable account.
Unless the author has additional information otherwise that assertion should be corrected as it would be misleading readers if left as is.
If I recall the earlier article correctly, this isn't the case. The other tech companies included customer ID or IP address along with the data whereas Apple only included a randomly generated ID. Legally that is the difference between "personal data" and non-personal data. Apple is doing it correctly (and legally), the others are (or were) cutting some corners.
Now the whistleblower in this article mentions that location and phone numbers were included. If true, that's a major problem, because that defeats anonymity.
Location data & other information possibly tying the Siri recording to a user is a major problem which Apple needs to address.
“ A 'whistleblower' has taken issue with Apple's lack of disclosure that it has contractors listening to anonymized Siri queries -- but the company has said all along that it does.”
So what percentage of Siri users are aware that humans may listen to their conversations? No-one reads software license agreements.
Just as willful ignorance is not a valid legal defense, suggesting that Apple hasn’t adequately notified users because users don’t read software license agreements is not a valid argument.
When you read the pertinent section of Apple's ToS would you understand that Apple is sending possibly identifiable voice recordings to a third party? Of course you didn't, and even knowing you as little a I do as I could wager you would never expected they do this. The ToS told you nothing about it in essence
So I'm not even "suggesting that Apple hasn't adequately notified users". That's too mild. I'll come right out and say they have not, anymore than Google or Amazon or Microsoft or almost any other company gathering our data.
These user agreements are written as broadly and undetailed as their legal teams will allow., as legal cover for the company and not for your benefit. The user-facing disclosures are intended to obfuscate rather than fully inform as to what rights you are surrendering and what you are permitting a company to do. If you complain they can point to some ill-defined passage in the pages long agreement and say "hey lookie here, we told ya".
YOU, Radarthekat, long-term and supposedly well informed Apple user that you are did not anticipate that tucked away in that agreement you were giving Apple your OK to hand over private voice recordings of yours to an outside party. YOU were not adequately notified as the end user unless adequately means Apple's butt was legally covered enough to make you happy.
The ToS is not for your benefit or buyer friendly. It is just to protect these companies from being sued over something you technically agreed to by using their product. Of course this is not an Apple-exclusive. Google is no better, nor is MS, Samsung, Whirlpool, the loyalty card at Walgreens, or the Disqus service you agree to simply to comment on a lot of web articles. ToS agreements are useless for describing what companies are seizing as rights when offering you a product or service. Read them? Why? They are not attempting to be clear and revealing.to the end user. If we all knew everything that was being done "cause you agreed" it could undo years of PR work the companies put in implying otherwise.
Considering neither Google nor Amazon added it to the terms of service until after it was discovered, and Apple has been doing informing the users since iOS 6 and then again on a privacy-centric page intended and written for public consumption, I'd say, yes, they have, much, much more than Google or Amazon or Microsoft.
Whether or not that's sufficient for any given user is in the air.
Mike, I don't know if someone is feeding you talking points, and with this being the second factual error AFACT I suspect so as you are almost always a very good researcher, but Google has not changed it's privacy policy since January of this year. Nothing added since to the best of my knowledge. Assuming that's correct Google did NOT change it only "after it was discovered" a few days ago. https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en-US
IMO whoever your source is should be more careful to be as accurate as possible. Had you looked for yourself you would have seen the date on the policy and realized they had not changed it. They've disclosed that some user data might be subject to 3rd party processing in strict accordance with Google's privacy policies for a very long time. Pretty much the same boilerplate statement Apple uses in the Privacy Policy legal disclosures isn't it?
As for Amazon you could be right. I've not looked myself.
Now if I'm missing something I'll be the first to apologize. Just point me to what it is and where.
When you phone a call centre, they often tell you straight up that your call is being recorded “for the purposes of training” and ask for your consent.
First time Siri/Alexa/Cortana use should be no different.
“ A 'whistleblower' has taken issue with Apple's lack of disclosure that it has contractors listening to anonymized Siri queries -- but the company has said all along that it does.”
So what percentage of Siri users are aware that humans may listen to their conversations? No-one reads software license agreements.
Just as willful ignorance is not a valid legal defense, suggesting that Apple hasn’t adequately notified users because users don’t read software license agreements is not a valid argument.
When you read the pertinent section of Apple's ToS would you understand that Apple is sending possibly identifiable voice recordings to a third party? Of course you didn't, and even knowing you as little a I do as I could wager you would never expected they do this. The ToS told you nothing about it in essence
So I'm not even "suggesting that Apple hasn't adequately notified users". That's too mild. I'll come right out and say they have not, anymore than Google or Amazon or Microsoft or almost any other company gathering our data.
These user agreements are written as broadly and undetailed as their legal teams will allow., as legal cover for the company and not for your benefit. The user-facing disclosures are intended to obfuscate rather than fully inform as to what rights you are surrendering and what you are permitting a company to do. If you complain they can point to some ill-defined passage in the pages long agreement and say "hey lookie here, we told ya".
YOU, Radarthekat, long-term and supposedly well informed Apple user that you are did not anticipate that tucked away in that agreement you were giving Apple your OK to hand over private voice recordings of yours to an outside party. YOU were not adequately notified as the end user unless adequately means Apple's butt was legally covered enough to make you happy.
The ToS is not for your benefit or buyer friendly. It is just to protect these companies from being sued over something you technically agreed to by using their product. Of course this is not an Apple-exclusive. Google is no better, nor is MS, Samsung, Whirlpool, the loyalty card at Walgreens, or the Disqus service you agree to simply to comment on a lot of web articles. ToS agreements are useless for describing what companies are seizing as rights when offering you a product or service. Read them? Why? They are not attempting to be clear and revealing.to the end user. If we all knew everything that was being done "cause you agreed" it could undo years of PR work the companies put in implying otherwise.
Considering neither Google nor Amazon added it to the terms of service until after it was discovered, and Apple has been doing informing the users since iOS 6 and then again on a privacy-centric page intended and written for public consumption, I'd say, yes, they have, much, much more than Google or Amazon or Microsoft.
Whether or not that's sufficient for any given user is in the air.
Mike, I don't know if someone is feeding you talking points, and with this being the second factual error AFACT I suspect so as you are almost always a very good researcher, but Google has not changed it's privacy policy since January of this year. Nothing added since to the best of my knowledge. Assuming that's correct Google did NOT change it only "after it was discovered" a few days ago. https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en-US
IMO whoever your source is should be more careful to be as accurate as possible. Had you looked for yourself you would have seen the date on the policy and realized they had not changed it. They've disclosed that some user data might be subject to 3rd party processing in strict accordance with Google's privacy policies for a very long time. Pretty much the same boilerplate statement Apple uses in the Privacy Policy legal disclosures isn't it?
As for Amazon you could be right. I've not looked myself.
Now if I'm missing something I'll be the first to apologize. Just point me to what it is and where.
Considering this is what Google said to me during a phone call on Friday, I'm going to stick with what I've got.
I don't know who the author of the article is but in the very last paragraph he says that with both Google and Facebook the voice snippets were directly connected to a user account. In the case of Facebook it may have been in fact I believe they were even given first names. the As for Google and voice transcription it was handled exactly as it is with Apple as far as I've seen written: Anonymized and not connected to an identifiable account.
Unless the author has additional information otherwise that assertion should be corrected as it would be misleading readers if left as is.
If I recall the earlier article correctly, this isn't the case. The other tech companies included customer ID or IP address along with the data whereas Apple only included a randomly generated ID.
You should read again. The means of identification would be the same as it is for Apple: Something heard in the voice snippet, not anything supplied by either Google or Apple.
I was referring to a different, earlier article about these issues, specifically addressing this statement of yours "As for Google and voice transcription it was handled exactly as it is with Apple as far as I've seen written: Anonymized and not connected to an identifiable account. "
Specifically, Google wasn't complying with acceptable protocols for anonymizing data while Apple was.
That's yet another claim I've not seen. Where did you see that Google wasn't anonymizing data, stripping out the Google ID as Apple strips out the Apple ID, before submitting it for transcription by an outside contractor just as Apple does?
“ A 'whistleblower' has taken issue with Apple's lack of disclosure that it has contractors listening to anonymized Siri queries -- but the company has said all along that it does.”
So what percentage of Siri users are aware that humans may listen to their conversations? No-one reads software license agreements.
Just as willful ignorance is not a valid legal defense, suggesting that Apple hasn’t adequately notified users because users don’t read software license agreements is not a valid argument.
When you read the pertinent section of Apple's ToS would you understand that Apple is sending possibly identifiable voice recordings to a third party? Of course you didn't, and even knowing you as little a I do as I could wager you would never expected they do this. The ToS told you nothing about it in essence
So I'm not even "suggesting that Apple hasn't adequately notified users". That's too mild. I'll come right out and say they have not, anymore than Google or Amazon or Microsoft or almost any other company gathering our data.
These user agreements are written as broadly and undetailed as their legal teams will allow., as legal cover for the company and not for your benefit. The user-facing disclosures are intended to obfuscate rather than fully inform as to what rights you are surrendering and what you are permitting a company to do. If you complain they can point to some ill-defined passage in the pages long agreement and say "hey lookie here, we told ya".
YOU, Radarthekat, long-term and supposedly well informed Apple user that you are did not anticipate that tucked away in that agreement you were giving Apple your OK to hand over private voice recordings of yours to an outside party. YOU were not adequately notified as the end user unless adequately means Apple's butt was legally covered enough to make you happy.
The ToS is not for your benefit or buyer friendly. It is just to protect these companies from being sued over something you technically agreed to by using their product. Of course this is not an Apple-exclusive. Google is no better, nor is MS, Samsung, Whirlpool, the loyalty card at Walgreens, or the Disqus service you agree to simply to comment on a lot of web articles. ToS agreements are useless for describing what companies are seizing as rights when offering you a product or service. Read them? Why? They are not attempting to be clear and revealing.to the end user. If we all knew everything that was being done "cause you agreed" it could undo years of PR work the companies put in implying otherwise.
Considering neither Google nor Amazon added it to the terms of service until after it was discovered, and Apple has been doing informing the users since iOS 6 and then again on a privacy-centric page intended and written for public consumption, I'd say, yes, they have, much, much more than Google or Amazon or Microsoft.
Whether or not that's sufficient for any given user is in the air.
Mike, I don't know if someone is feeding you talking points, and with this being the second factual error AFACT I suspect so as you are almost always a very good researcher, but Google has not changed it's privacy policy since January of this year. Nothing added since to the best of my knowledge. Assuming that's correct Google did NOT change it only "after it was discovered" a few days ago. https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en-US
IMO whoever your source is should be more careful to be as accurate as possible. Had you looked for yourself you would have seen the date on the policy and realized they had not changed it. They've disclosed that some user data might be subject to 3rd party processing in strict accordance with Google's privacy policies for a very long time. Pretty much the same boilerplate statement Apple uses in the Privacy Policy legal disclosures isn't it?
As for Amazon you could be right. I've not looked myself.
Now if I'm missing something I'll be the first to apologize. Just point me to what it is and where.
Considering this is what Google said to me during a phone call on Friday, I'm going to stick with what I've got.
Where's the change found? Did you perhaps confuse a clarifying statement with an actual change in their privacy policy? I'm truly curious now.
Apple offered their own clarification yesterday just as Google released one a few days back but I don't see where terms were changed in the legal disclosures. At least not yet. Perhaps one or both will, and frankly it would be a great for both to be a little more transparent so I hope they do.
Comments
"The Guardian notes, while Amazon and Google allow customers to opt out of some uses of their recordings, Apple doesn’t offer a similar privacy protecting option, outside of disabling Siri entirely. That’s a particularly bad look, given that Apple has built so much of its reputation on selling itself as the privacy company that defends your data in ways that Google and Amazon don’t. Implicitly telling customers that, effectively, “the only way to have peace of mind that a random stranger won’t listen in on their accidentally triggered Siri recordings is to stop using Siri entirely” is a bit of a mixed message from the company that supposedly puts privacy at a premium."
Things are not always as black and white, good guys vs. evil others, as they are sometimes portrayed here.
Google home speakers send your conversations to people to listen to. - no one cares and the story is gone in a day.
Bixby sends your conversations to people to listen to. - the story gets buried.
Siri sends your conversations to people to listen to. - people will lose their shit for the next month.
Thinking you can improve your ‘process’ (who calls it that way?) in this way is really incredible.
One reason for not wanting to have a Tesla Model 3 is that “your data are belong to us (Tesla)”, which is of course completely unacceptable (Tesla searches your info to see if your to blame in case of an accident ...).
This kind of corporate attitude has to change, users shouldn't have to sell their soul to be able to use the very expensive stuff they buy.
So I'm not even "suggesting that Apple hasn't adequately notified users". That's too mild. I'll come right out and say they have not, anymore than Google or Amazon or Microsoft or almost any other company gathering our data.
These user agreements are written as broadly and undetailed as their legal teams will allow., as legal cover for the company and not for your benefit. The user-facing disclosures are intended to obfuscate rather than fully inform as to what rights you are surrendering and what you are permitting a company to do. If you complain they can point to some ill-defined passage in the pages long agreement and say "hey lookie here, we told ya".
YOU, Radarthekat, long-term and supposedly well informed Apple user that you are did not anticipate that tucked away in that agreement you were giving Apple your OK to hand over private voice recordings of yours to an outside party. YOU were not adequately notified as the end user unless adequately means Apple's butt was legally covered enough to make you happy.
The ToS is not for your benefit or buyer friendly. It is just to protect these companies from being sued over something you technically agreed to by using their product. Of course this is not an Apple-exclusive. Google is no better, nor is MS, Samsung, Whirlpool, the loyalty card at Walgreens, or the Disqus service you agree to simply to comment on a lot of web articles. ToS agreements are useless for describing what companies are seizing as rights when offering you a product or service. Read them? Why? They are not attempting to be clear and revealing.to the end user. If we all knew everything that was being done "cause you agreed" it could undo years of PR work the companies put in implying otherwise.
When the Amazon story concerning voice recordings hit the blogs it was roundly believed and Amazon excoriated as not caring about users.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/04/10/thousands-of-amazon-workers-are-listening-to-echo-conversations-report-says
Read what regulars had to say like @"apple ][" @macxpress ; @badmonk ;
I personally thought Google would not be doing the same kind of outsourcing and certainly Apple wouldn't. Then the Google story broke... I was wrong
While they were at least anonymizing it before outsourcing for transcription Google too was roundly criticised across dozens of articles for those recording sometimes containing enough information to be identifiable if someone were sufficiently driven to do so. Just look at what other regulars had to say, even those serving up apologies and forgiveness in this thread
https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/07/11/google-assistant-voice-recordings-reviewed-by-humans-include-private-conversations
Read what folks like @lolliver ; @MacPro ;; @rotateleftbyte ; and @AppleExposed ; ; wrote. They were not forgiving then and generally claiming Apple would do no such thing.
Now with Apple discovered to be doing just as Google does (please no longer, bring it in house), sharing potentially identifiable data with outside 3rd parties even if not directly tied to a User ID and legally "anonymized", is it equally as evil or alternatively as much a non-story as perceived when it was other companies in the spotlight?
Whether or not that's sufficient for any given user is in the air.
Specifically, Google wasn't complying with acceptable protocols for anonymizing data while Apple was. But you're right that in the most recent articles this distinction isn't brought up. Perhaps Google has caught up with Apple in their elimination of identifiers such as IP addresses.
https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en-US
IMO whoever your source is should be more careful to be as accurate as possible. Had you looked for yourself you would have seen the date on the policy and realized they had not changed it. They've disclosed that some user data might be subject to 3rd party processing in strict accordance with Google's privacy policies for a very long time. Pretty much the same boilerplate statement Apple uses in the Privacy Policy legal disclosures isn't it?
As for Amazon you could be right. I've not looked myself.
Now if I'm missing something I'll be the first to apologize. Just point me to what it is and where.
First time Siri/Alexa/Cortana use should be no different.
Apple offered their own clarification yesterday just as Google released one a few days back but I don't see where terms were changed in the legal disclosures. At least not yet. Perhaps one or both will, and frankly it would be a great for both to be a little more transparent so I hope they do.