231–240 of 301 posts
I looked into adding Zoom to our Slack workspace this morning, and was beside myself with the set of permissions they requested — reading the contents of every channel and private chat they're included in? For a slash command? That's a hard no. Turned me off the service entirely.
It's only available in the paid version, but slack's video conferencing works pretty well.
Another question, why ppl who so care about security keep relying marketing stuff rather than using open-source solution?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not just "deceptive" nor "unlikely", it's blatant false advertising.
This bothers me so much - as I have personally recommended zoom to many people and customers. People that have likely seen that I spend an unusual amount of time focused on computer security, backups, and care in communications. If I remember correctly, zoom used to have on the front page - use this it's encrypted, and 'even used by us govt something-something' - so I assumed it was completely secure. I actually refu…
I've never heard of the Zoom app until about three weeks ago and now I'm reading something about it here on HN almost every day. Why is this company and their app suddenly so popular and so critiqued? I thought the world was Skype, FaceTime, WebEx, that whole cluster of technologies and related applications. Why are the Zoom folks suddenly on the front page everywher?
There is a good overview of the options in an article recently posted here - see under "Videoconferencing":
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The quality send to suffer when there are a large number of participants. Which is the reason zoom gets used so much.
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.
Last time I used meet it tended to turn my laptop into a fireball, even with just one or two other participants.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Fraudulent", at least as far as I know, is reserved for "intentional deception". It could be that Zoom is indeed doing this intentionally, but without proof of it being intentional, I don't think we should assume so. insert Hanlons razor quote here
A company this prominent is unlikely to be that incompetent. Malice is more probable at this point, Hanlon's razor notwithstanding.
Being incompetent has nothing to do with the size or prominence of the company. Big/prominent companies fuck up/are sloppy all the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using their definition, one would wonder what non-end-to-end encryption would look like.
Encryption at rest but not in transit.
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 (!).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
The problem with Zoom isn't, that it doesn't have end-to-end encryption. If you consider the problem, it is extremely difficult to solve, as in contrast to a 1:1 video call, the server somehow has to to multiplex the streams and thus at least some access to them. With a trustworthy provider, this isn't a big issue. A trustworthy provider will have a clear policy which ensures that only the multiplexer has access to t…
FaceTime seems to do it well enough. It's limited to ~30 people per call though.