| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] > | MT and Confidentiality Agreements Thread poster: TranslationB (X)
|
|---|
John Fossey 
Canada
Local time: 07:15
Member (2008)
French to English
+ ...
The fact is that the whole issue of computing is moving into the cloud, where future computers may well be thin clients with almost all the software hosted elsewhere. What happens to NDAs then? Give it just a few years and it will be a major issue.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 13:15
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| Same old arguments | Dec 31, 2011 |
Aurora Humarán wrote: Samuel Murray wrote:
I suppose Mr Cabanellas always delivers his translations in person, never entrusting it to a courier service, the post office, or even his e-mail provider's ISP. Because none are authorised by his clients. With all due respect, yours is the same old argument I have read in many fora...
I thought twice before deciding to use that same old argument, precisely because it is an old argument. But so is Mr Cabanella's argument -- it is an "old argument" that seems water-tight to those who are eager to believe that it is water-tight.
It is understood that we will deliver to the same e-mail address the client used. That means that the client is establishing the way of delivery (not us).
That is one possible explanation, yes, but it is simply one explanation (that is based on solid logic but not on solid client confirmation, in fact).
Why is using a specific third-party delivery service not breach of confidentiality? You say it is because the client had authorised that particular service by using that service himself. I say it is because the terms of service of that service is broadly compatible with the level of confidentiality required by the client anyway.
One can use your argument to say that if a client sends files to a Gmail address (and does not prohibit you from replying from within Gmail), then it implies authorisation for the use of Google Translate, since both are governed by the same terms of service. In fact, GTT's terms of service is stricter and more confidentiality-friendly than that of Gmail.
However, we are not allowed to do any other thing. We cannot upload the document to an FTP (even when they promise 101% encryption and blah blah blah)... etc.
By that reasoning we can't store the client's documents in a bank safe either.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 13:15
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Dominique Pivard wrote: Samuel Murray wrote:
If you want to use GTT and ensure confidentiality, you have to (A) create a blank TM and (B) use it every time you upload a file. Just curious: what are the advantages of the GTT compared to Wordfast Anywhere?
AFAIK WFA does not offer MT. This thread is about online MT, so if you want to compare GTT with WFA, you'd have to do it on its online MT capabilities and not on anything else. I'm sure WFA is miles ahead of GTT when it comes to other features, but those features are not under discussion here.
| | | | John Fossey
Canada
Local time: 07:15
Member (2008)
French to English
+ ...
| Backups unreasonable? | Dec 31, 2011 |
Samuel Murray wrote: However, we are not allowed to do any other thing. We cannot upload the document to an FTP (even when they promise 101% encryption and blah blah blah)... etc. By that reasoning we can't store the client's documents in a bank safe either.
Or any third party high security backup service?
At some point the standard of "reasonableness" has to come into play - as the courts would say, what a reasonable person would do under the circumstances.
| | |
|
|
|
LEXpert
United States
Local time: 06:15
Member (2008)
Croatian to English
+ ...
| @ Samuel - WFA can use MT | Dec 31, 2011 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
AFAIK WFA does not offer MT.
Actually, it does if you select it in the setup dialog.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 13:15
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| WFA can use third-party MT but does not offer its own MT | Dec 31, 2011 |
Rudolf Vedo CT wrote: Samuel Murray wrote: Dominique Pivard wrote: Samuel Murray wrote:
If you want to use GTT and ensure confidentiality... Just curious: what are the advantages of the GTT compared to Wordfast Anywhere? AFAIK WFA does not offer MT. Actually, [WFA] does [offer MT] if you select it in the setup dialog.
The way WFA "offers" MT is the same way any other CAT tool offers it, namely as an embedded service by a third party. Users of WFA can use WorldLingo (33 languages, free), Microsoft Translator (35 languages, not free) and Google Translate (54 languages, not free). Google Translate claims ownership of the content you upload, and using Google Translate via WFA won't change that.
Even if a client allows you to use WFA (or even requests it), that would not mean that the client also allows you to use Google Translate, although you can use Google Translate from within WFA.
| | | | | On using on line MT | Dec 31, 2011 |
Samuel Murray wrote: Aurora Humarán wrote: Samuel Murray wrote:
I suppose Mr Cabanellas always delivers his translations in person, never entrusting it to a courier service, the post office, or even his e-mail provider's ISP. Because none are authorised by his clients. With all due respect, yours is the same old argument I have read in many fora... I thought twice before deciding to use that same old argument, precisely because it is an old argument. But so is Mr Cabanella's argument -- it is an "old argument" that seems water-tight to those who are eager to believe that it is water-tight. It is understood that we will deliver to the same e-mail address the client used. That means that the client is establishing the way of delivery (not us). That is one possible explanation, yes, but it is simply one explanation (that is based on solid logic but not on solid client confirmation, in fact). Why is using a specific third-party delivery service not breach of confidentiality? You say it is because the client had authorised that particular service by using that service himself. I say it is because the terms of service of that service is broadly compatible with the level of confidentiality required by the client anyway. One can use your argument to say that if a client sends files to a Gmail address (and does not prohibit you from replying from within Gmail), then it implies authorisation for the use of Google Translate, since both are governed by the same terms of service. In fact, GTT's terms of service is stricter and more confidentiality-friendly than that of Gmail. However, we are not allowed to do any other thing. We cannot upload the document to an FTP (even when they promise 101% encryption and blah blah blah)... etc. By that reasoning we can't store the client's documents in a bank safe either.
In brief, I have academic background in the field of languages. When it comes to legal matters, lawyers are the only ones with authoritative voices.
Wishing you all a great 2012!
Au
| | | | | Google Translate and ownership of content | Dec 31, 2011 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
Google Translate claims ownership of the content you upload
I'm not sure about this. At least, this is not what I understand from the Google Translate Terms of Service:
https://code.google.com/apis/language/translate/v2/terms.html
Submission of Content and Data Confidentiality.
Google does not claim any ownership in any of the content, including any test, data, information, images, photographs, music, sound, video or other material, that you upload, transmit in the API. By submitting, posting or displaying content to or from the API through your API Client, you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to translate and otherwise use such content in accordance with the applicable Google privacy policies, for the sole purpose of providing you with the API and to ensure the functioning of Google products and services. We will not share the content you upload with any other third party. In addition, we provide SSL connection for secure connectivity to the API.
Samuel Murray wrote:
using Google Translate via WFA won't change that
Ok, but if we are comparing GTT and WFA as CAT tools, I guess GT doesn't affect the comparison in any way: either 1) the translator enables GT in GTT/WFA (I assume GTT supports GT), and whatever the GT TOS are, they apply in the same way to both tools, or 2) he/she disables it, and GTT/WFA should be compared on their own merits. The only difference may be that in 1), the translator doesn't have to pay for GT if used with GTT (not sure, since I don't know GTT), whereas he/she would have to pay for GT if used with WFA. But even for very heavy GT use, a single translator won't end up paying more than 5-10 USD a month, which will be regarded as negligible by most people (evcen if paid very low rates, the benefits derived from the use of GT should more than offset the cost).
[Edited at 2011-12-31 20:44 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| Microsoft Translator is still free in practice | Dec 31, 2011 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
Users of WFA can use WorldLingo (33 languages, free), Microsoft Translator (35 languages, not free)
Well, Microsoft Translator is still free in practice for most freelance translators, because the monthly threshold above which you have to pay for the service is set at a very high level. At least, I'm confident I won't reach it even if I enable Microsoft Translator for everything I translate in my most busy month 
| | | |
Samuel Murray wrote:
AFAIK WFA does not offer MT. This thread is about online MT, so if you want to compare GTT with WFA, you'd have to do it on its online MT capabilities and not on anything else. I'm sure WFA is miles ahead of GTT when it comes to other features, but those features are not under discussion here.
Well, as already noted, WFA does offer MT, in fact from three different sources, whereas I assume GTT only offers GT. I'm not sure WFA is "miles ahead" of GTT, because I don't know GTT at all. This is why I asked about it in the first place. On paper, GTT and WFA look very similar: both are free, both are online tools (and most likely written with very similar code, because WFA uses the Google Web Toolkit, https://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/ ). In WFA, privacy is an opt-out (by default, nothing is public), whereas it is an opt-in in GTT (as explained by Samuel). What other differences are there?
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 13:15
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Dominique Pivard wrote:
I'm not sure WFA is "miles ahead" of GTT, because I don't know GTT at all. This is why I asked about it in the first place.
After reading your posts and some of the other posts here again, it occurs to me that you seem to regard GTT as a CAT tool. Well, perhaps my minimum standards of what makes a tool a CAT tool have increased somewhat, but I think that one can only call GTT a CAT tool if one considers it a work in progress (i.e. version 0.01 of what one hopes would eventually become version 1.0).
I really think of GTT as nothing more than a shell for GT with added features that make it easier for Google to harvest validated segment-level translations. However, to be fair, GTT does have some features that one might consider CAT tool material, e.g. automatic glossary look-up and TM fuzzy matching (though both are exceptionally primitive in GTT).
GTT's filters aren't very good, either. Upload a DOCX file and you'll get tag soup. Worse, GTT will have attempted to pre-translate the tag soup using GT, and the result will be unusable because GT can't handle tags within words and is lousy at non-punctuation characters too close to words.
GTT supports multiple TMs and multiple glossaries, but can't prioritise them or penalise them. Automatic glossary look-up is primitive, with lots of useless matches (if your glossaries are comprehensive).
The source text and target text are in two different fonts, and some of the tags are encoded as placeables in the target field but appear as raw tags in the source text. Whoever dreamed up that system did so probably as a kludge.
You can switch between vertical or horizontal segment pairing views, but scrolling is a pain either way. Ctrl+F brings up a find/replace dialog but I have never been able to get it to work.
GTT regards a match as 100% even if the case or end punctuation is different... but it does offer ICE matching also.
Oh, and for certain HTML files, GTT is a wysiwyg translation system.
[Edited at 2012-01-01 01:40 GMT]
| | | | | Advantages of GTT over WFA? | Jan 1, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
After reading your posts and some of the other posts here again, it occurs to me that you seem to regard GTT as a CAT tool. Well, perhaps my minimum standards of what makes a tool a CAT tool have increased somewhat, but I think that one can only call GTT a CAT tool if one considers it a work in progress (i.e. version 0.01 of what one hopes would eventually become version 1.0).
Thanks, Samuel, for explaining what GTT does. I didn't realize it was *that* rudimentary. Which brings me back to my initial question: what advantages are there in using GTT rather than WFA? Is this the "free" access to the GT API? Like all tools, WFA has its shortcomings and it's relatively new, so it can be regarded a work in progress. However, it is definitely usable for professional translators and has features not found in solutions that cost thousands (if not tens of thousands) or euros.
| | |
|
|
|
Susan Welsh
United States
Local time: 07:15
Russian to English
+ ...
| Is there any more clarity yet on GT API? | Feb 3, 2012 |
An article in the February issue of The ATA Chronicle (American Translators Association) raises (again) the charge that Google Translate violates NDA agreements--but the documentary footnote is to the GT Toolkit. I was about to write a letter to the author correcting him, as I was under the impression that GT and GTT were different in this respect (I don't know where I got that from). But then I re-read this thread. I am now thoroughly co... See more An article in the February issue of The ATA Chronicle (American Translators Association) raises (again) the charge that Google Translate violates NDA agreements--but the documentary footnote is to the GT Toolkit. I was about to write a letter to the author correcting him, as I was under the impression that GT and GTT were different in this respect (I don't know where I got that from). But then I re-read this thread. I am now thoroughly confused.
My GT API FAQ document (http://code.google.com/apis/language/translate/v2/faq.html)says:
"Data confidentiality
Does Google look or use the text I send for translation?
Google will not use any of your content for any purpose except to provide you with the service.
Will Google share the text I translate with others?
We will not share the content you translate with any other third party
Does the Google Translate API support secure connections?
Yes, we provide SSL connection support for secure connectivity to the Translate API.
Does Google claim ownership of the content I send for translation?
Google does not claim any ownership in any of the content that you transmit in the Translate API.
How does Google protect and ensure the security of the data I send for translation?
Please refer to the following presentation which describes the security measures in place for Google’s Cloud Services.
Does Google use my data for training purposes?
No, Google does not use the content you translate to train and improve our machine translation engine. In order to improve the quality of machine translation, Google needs parallel text - the content along with the human translation of that content."
Yet the Terms of Service, as others have quoted in this thread, say:
"Some of our APIs allow the submission of content, and except as expressly provided in these terms, Google does not acquire any ownership of any intellectual property rights that you or your end users hold in the content that you submit to our APIs through your API Client. By submitting, posting or displaying content to or from the APIs through your API Client, you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. However, Google will only use such content for the purpose of enabling Google to provide the APIs and only in accordance with the applicable Google privacy policies. You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such content in connection with the provision of those services. Before you submit content to our APIs through your API Client, ensure that you have the necessary rights (including the necessary rights from your end users) to grant us the license."
Has anybody really figured out how all this fits together?
Thanks!
Susan ▲ Collapse
| | | | | How do they know? | Jul 31, 2012 |
How do they KNOW you're using MT? BTW most MT is so bad as to be almost usless anyway.
| | | | Susan Welsh
United States
Local time: 07:15
Russian to English
+ ...
| How do they know? | Jul 31, 2012 |
You can tell, if you use GT yourself and compare the translations. Of course they will not be identical, since any translators with any brains will have heavily edited the GT. But they will be more similar than a translation that did not use GT.
Second point: MT is not so bad as to be useless in my language pairs. Sometimes it is extremely helpful, sometimes not.
Third point: Since this discussion began last year, I have recently become aware of a strange feature of GT ... See more You can tell, if you use GT yourself and compare the translations. Of course they will not be identical, since any translators with any brains will have heavily edited the GT. But they will be more similar than a translation that did not use GT.
Second point: MT is not so bad as to be useless in my language pairs. Sometimes it is extremely helpful, sometimes not.
Third point: Since this discussion began last year, I have recently become aware of a strange feature of GT that could, I think, be problematic with respect to confidentiality of clients. This is when a PROPER NOUN (person's name or company name) appears in the GT translation that was NOT IN THE SOURCE TEXT! This seems beyond weird, but I have had it happen three times now, in different documents.
Somehow Google's statistical database is assuming that you want this company name, because that is how it appears in the database, in combination with some of the other words or phrases that ARE in the source text.
I can only reach the conclusion that GT got smarter and smarter for a while, and is now getting stupider again.
Susan ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » MT and Confidentiality Agreements | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
| | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
