SpaceX bans Zoom over privacy concerns • Hacker News Board

Re: SpaceX bans Zoom over privacy concerns

#171

Post by modeless » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 5:01 AM UTC

jachee wrote: post #155

modeless wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iCloud isn't some separate entity from iMessage. It's all Apple. And you have no option to use a different cloud backup provider. You can decide not to give your keys to Apple, but you can't decide for all your friends to not give their keys to Apple, and the result is the same: Apple can read your messages. And the marketing is so misleading that hardly anyone knows that Apple can read most iMessages.

Got any sources for that? Sounds a lot like FUD.

"If you have iCloud Backup turned on, your backup includes a copy of the key protecting your Messages. This ensures you can recover your Messages if you lose access to iCloud Keychain and your trusted devices."

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303

Re: SpaceX bans Zoom over privacy concerns

#172

Post by randoglando » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 5:03 AM UTC

kiwijamo wrote: post #129

parthdesai wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My company uses Google meets and it works flawlessly with more than 100 people in a call. Automatic integration with GSuite and Chrome box are an added bonus.

Does it have the advanced features present in Zoom? At my $WORKPLACE we use the Spotlight feature so to ensure everyone is watching the right person (fairly important as we have lots of Deaf people and they all need to be watching the person signing) and Breakouts to set up discussion groups. While we don't have 100+ participants, we do have up to 25 active participants with lots of turn-taking (and not e.g. 100 watc…

I believe Hangouts pioneered that feature (way back when).

Re: SpaceX bans Zoom over privacy concerns

#173

Post by gonesilent » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 5:03 AM UTC

Robotbeat wrote: post #22

gonesilent wrote: post #18

Spacex is a targeted environment. It's smart for them to not use such a service. Many years back it was getting hardware shipments intercepted and bugged. A company was spun out of just dealing with the amount of attempts to root Elons devices.

Which company?

Spikes Security.

Re: SpaceX bans Zoom over privacy concerns

#174

Post by tbrock » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 5:11 AM UTC

allover wrote: post #49

nilkn wrote: post #41

Zoom is such a bizarre product. For huge video calls, it tends to perform as well or better than everything else out there. Yet at the same time it literally seems like straight-up malware and seems to violate your trust and privacy left and right every step of the way, even in the installer (!).

To be fair it does perform better than everything else, which is why people are so forgiving of it, but it still doesn't excuse their ineptitude on privacy and security.

Really? I think hangouts performs much better. Zoom performs like crap, why no hardware video encoding?

Re: SpaceX bans Zoom over privacy concerns

#175

Post by yellow_postit » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 5:12 AM UTC

ajmurmann wrote: post #145

grahamburger wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience Google's Hangout Meetings have been at least as good or better quality and the interface is far superior in my opinion. For example it works in the browser without any plugins (even in Firefox.)

I haven't used Hangouts on a professional setting in a while. Does it finally support tile view? Another feature I find really valuable is allowing two windows. One for participant view and a separate one for shared screen.

Nope. Have to resort to chrome extension to get the tile view.

Re: SpaceX bans Zoom over privacy concerns

#176

Post by fao_ » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 5:12 AM UTC

intopieces wrote: post #67

paulryanrogers wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. It's unlikely they stumbled onto an industry standard phrase like that alone, then innocently used it without knowing the generally accepted meaning. This is deceptive advertising.

Not defending zoom here -- they done fucked up -- but there is a huge disconnect between the marketing folks and the technical folks. It's possible that E2E Encryption was something they planned on implementing but haven't, and the marketing department either didn't get the memo or didn't understand and still kept the wording.

Why would you trust a company where communication is so poor, though?

Re: SpaceX bans Zoom over privacy concerns

#177

Post by rasz » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 5:13 AM UTC

Remember the movie Antitrust, where Bill Gates type character played by Tim Robbins records everyones computer screens to steal secrets? Thats Zoom for you, minus the murders.

Re: SpaceX bans Zoom over privacy concerns

#178

Post by fulafel » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 5:15 AM UTC

gowld wrote: post #122

hunter2_ wrote: post #4

The fact that they show end users (no pun intended) an "end-to-end encrypted" badge on the meeting window itself, and elsewhere explain how a Zoom server (not Zoom client) is what constitutes an "end" despite the whole rest of the electronic communication industry using "end-to-end" to refer exclusively to user agents, is bonkers.

E2E changed meaning since, for example, HIPAA.

Nope.

Re: SpaceX bans Zoom over privacy concerns

#179

Post by PakG1 » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 5:16 AM UTC

tyre wrote: post #120

intopieces wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not defending zoom here -- they done fucked up -- but there is a huge disconnect between the marketing folks and the technical folks. It's possible that E2E Encryption was something they planned on implementing but haven't, and the marketing department either didn't get the memo or didn't understand and still kept the wording.

If marketing misuses a term on the website because they didn't understand what it meant, that's their fault. If they listed a feature that hasn't yet shipped, that's their fault. It's natural that there is a divide and marketing isn't expected to understand every engineering thing (nor the other way around.) If your job is to write words, though, you are responsible for the words you right.

you are responsible for the words you right.

Wait, did you do that on purpose? :)

Re: SpaceX bans Zoom over privacy concerns

#180

Post by thr0w__4w4y » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 5:17 AM UTC

saagarjha wrote: post #111

jsjddbbwj wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please elaborate

IDA Pro is an reverse engineering tool sold by Hex Rays, which, for the last decade or two has been the the go-to software for security research, with very few actual competitors in the area (though this has been changing recently, depending on who you ask and what your needs are). It is fairly infamous for its exorbitant price (many thousands of dollars) and the company's extreme willingness to go after "pirates" (a…

Let me just add (in addition to what you wrote, all of which I've experienced) that I literally (using the term correctly here) had to /beg/ them to take my money ($7500, I think).

Very long story, but long story short, I needed the tool urgently (this was pre-Ghidra), like hours & days mattered. I am a small company, they were "skeptical" of me and my intentions, they demanded all sorts of paperwork and IDs, etc. It was seriously as though it was a dark comedy nightmare.

Everything you wrote is true. So many people fellate IDA given the chance; I don't know what they're smoking. The product is clunky and ugly (but it mostly works), but as you said, it's got very little competition. I and a few of my colleagues (and many here on HN) could probably do a better job, but I don't want to live in that world.

Man, I think I got pretty far afield there, but your comment resonated with me. Thank you.