That is why developers should be very careful what applications they install on the corporate computer and what cloud services they use.

That sounds crazy, so I reviewed their privacy policy[0]. It looks like Kite now requires users to whitelist the directories it indexes and automatically purges files you remove from the local index.

The Privacy Policy says that:

> When you use our services, we may collect [...] Any source code files on your computer's hard drive that you have explicitly allowed our services to access. To learn how to control access to your source code files, please visit our FAQ.

The FAQ[1] says

> Kite only uploads files that:

>

> 1. Have a .py file extension,

> 2. Are children of a whitelisted directory,

> 3. And are not ignored by a .kiteignore file.

That doesn't seem like "any source code file on your computer" to me - unless it whitelists root by default, which would be a hella dark pattern.

Also, removing a file from the local index should remove it from the server as well [2]

[0] https://kite.com/privacy [1] http://help.kite.com/category/30-security-privacy [2] http://help.kite.com/article/10-how-do-i-delete-files-from-k...

I was actually questioning myself when I realised what had happened -- I thought, "perhaps I just messed up". But after I saw this story about their other dark patterns, I'm convinced they just deceived me.

https://web.archive.org/web/20161231231542/https://kite.com/...

Seems similar enough to current version.

Easy to see very intelligent and circumspect people interpreting "where enabled" to mean "when I ask for autocomplete" and "your code" to mean "that specific snippet" because who the hell would actually think it's cool to just carte blanche upload other people's workspaces?

Maybe you are thinking only for your self. What about the majority of the users of minimap/(other hacked plugins) who doesnt know this is going on, and they are not aware that some files need to be deleted from someone elses server.

ps. i know "hacked" is not the proper term here ,but you get the idea.

[0] https://github.com/atom-minimap/minimap/commit/16c11d82b889c...

I have zero faith this page actually works though. A few months ago I deleted all of my data and I checked back today and it has reappeared. (I uninstalled the client and deleted my login token back then too, so as far as I can see it's their issue.)

I have sent them a stern email to delete my data. If you want your data deleted too, I would recommend doing the same rather than trusting their web interface. None of the emails on their website seem to work, though. Emailing the CEO does work eventually, but I don't want to start a witch hunt. My email is in my profile if you want his email.

anybody has a list of infected packages so others can quickly remove with `apm uninstall ...`?

Now that doesn't make it any less shady though...

My assumption from that dialog box would be that at most, the code I currently have open in my editor would be uploaded. Not all the source code on my computer.

Edit to add: oh, wait, I misunderstood. It grabs all the code on your computer? That's crazy. I just meant it's not totally unreasonable to grab the whole git repo you're working in, say.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cloud-to-butt-plus...

Even without that, basic contract law in many places requires a degree of mutual understanding for the contract to be valid in the first place. You can't just bury a surprising term with a huge effect deep inside a long legalese document and expect it to actually stand up in court, and if you're doing something dubious and relying on that as your defence then you might be in for some disappointment.

Maybe even corporate espionage.

Copyright infringement is not theft. These are two completely different issues. When data is copied it is not taken away from the owner like when physical goods are stolen. Secondary damages may or may not occur, but they are not the same as depriving someone of a good. As an analogy, I wouldn't steal a car, but I surely would copy a car if I could do so by simply pressing a button...

Legally, the word "theft" isn't only used when one party loses anything; a victim of identity theft doesn't lose their identity, yet we don't call it "identity infringement". I'm not familiar enough with US law to know for sure, but it wouldn't surprise me if the word "theft" is used somewhere for obtaining sensitive information without permission.

It's one thing to infringe on the copyright of a public work

Another, very different thing is to copy something that's not public and might be considered IP or a trade secret

This happens to be the one under which Kite would fall (since they're infringing copyright for "commercial advantage").

But that's about as unlikely as the code containing trade secrets.

Plus:

- For copyright infringement, they'd need to actually redistribute the code. Using it for machine learning and distributing short snippets wouldn't be copyright infringement.

- For that trade secret stuff you'd need to prove intent.

IANAL, but I don't think so. In MAI v. Peak[1], the court determined that even loading a program from disk to RAM was a copy, and therefore infringing without a license. Congress has since then added a specific exception for "Machine maintenance and repair", but that's it. Copying from a remote machine and storing it in their disks should certainly qualify.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Comp....

Unpublished code, is itself a trade secret. Even just the processes, procedures, organisation, tooling, library use, etc in the code provides a competitive advantage. i.e. The 'metadata' is also a trade secret.

The only intent you'd need to prove is that the accused is using the trade secret to the 'economic benefit of anyone other than the owner'.

It seems obvious that Kite is training a proprietary ML algorithm, with trade secrets, for their own economic benefit.

Obviously this would a be a terrible thing to do and no one should.

It didn't ask? Sounds like malware, and meets the definition of theft. Inviting someone into your house does not give them permission to steal things in your home, and leave with them.