Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Zoom sued for overstating, not disclosing privacy, security flaws

uk.reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 166 posts

Re: Zoom sued for overstating, not disclosing privacy, security flaws

#131

Post by SubiculumCode »

I am beginning to get concerned also. The University of California has contracts with Zoom, and so many of us have moved over to using Zoom for all our research lab meetings, especially since the pandemic. We all know that China has pushed research espionage, with several convictions that I know about. The possibility of intimate ties with China raises the specter that Zoom is pushing video, or transcripts of that video through China, and hence through Chinese spy agencies, which would be really concerning.

Note: I love the Chinese people, and my Chinese colleagues. I do NOT like the oppressive, and frankly, evil and callous crimes committed by the Chinese government. Downvotes or upvote the comment as you will, won't change their crimes or my opinion..

Re: Zoom sued for overstating, not disclosing privacy, security flaws

#132

Post by jedberg »

novok wrote: post #99
pastullo wrote: post #28

Am i the only one struggling to use Zoom properly since they introduced the latest security changes? The slack integration (write /zoom to start a meeting) was working ok-ish even though we always had problem with the meeting not starting unless the host of the meeting was logged in (gosh...why so complicated?) Now they added this waiting room, there is no sound notification to let you know that people are waiting. D…

I would think that meetings being company users only by default could side step a lot of these clunky security measures. You would only need them for external meetings. No zoom bombing or war dialing issues with that default permission set.

The issue is that everyone with a gmail address is in the same "company", because they use your domain to determine what company you're in.

Re: Zoom sued for overstating, not disclosing privacy, security flaws

#133

Post by jedberg »

hedora wrote: post #87
cat199 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes: if you hold an index fund which holds zoom, you are not a shareholder, the fund managers are.

That doesn’t mean you weren’t damaged financially by their misconduct. It probably doesn’t matter much for a small company like Zoom, but I imagine it would for MFAANG and friends.

Technically you weren't damaged, the fund was. If there is any settlement it would go to the fund, not you. Then you'd have to hope the fund passed down the settlement to you (or sue them for it).

Re: Zoom sued for overstating, not disclosing privacy, security flaws

#134

Post by SubiculumCode »

jjeaff wrote: post #122
qppo wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enforcing US IP protections isn't a partisan issue. I think it's crazy that people are trusting zoom for their critical communications (like design review meetings and screen sharing schematics/process diagrams!) when there's a non-zero chance that the CCP/PLA has the infrastructure to: cat '$COMPANY/zoom-chat.log' | grep '$TRADE_SECRET' | local_industry_boost.bash inb4 the whataboutism: yes, the US Government has (a…

Please share your grep binary that allows me to search countless hours of boring video for actionable content.

Zoom as audio transcripting tech included. So.... yeah Grep.

Re: Zoom sued for overstating, not disclosing privacy, security flaws

#135

Post by jedberg »

icelancer wrote: post #114
runawaybottle wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m more shocked that this massive tech industry has like one decent solution to remote video conferencing. Maybe we really have gone too far down the road of making bullshit apps, and stopped solving real problems. Shame on us.

MS Teams is pretty good, but it's Microsoft so people aren't using it as much. Which is understandable.

Teams and Hangouts have the same problem -- they are hard to set up.

Zoom "just works". My in-laws joined a Zoom conference without help. There is no way they would have figured out Hangouts or Teams.

Re: Zoom sued for overstating, not disclosing privacy, security flaws

#136

Post by midasz »

icelancer wrote: post #114
runawaybottle wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m more shocked that this massive tech industry has like one decent solution to remote video conferencing. Maybe we really have gone too far down the road of making bullshit apps, and stopped solving real problems. Shame on us.

MS Teams is pretty good, but it's Microsoft so people aren't using it as much. Which is understandable.

And it runs on Ubuntu! To be honest I'd rather not use software made or hosted on US/Chinese/Russian soil but I don't really have much choice at my workplace. If it didn't ran on Ubuntu I'd dual boot to windows just for meetings.

This would be a great time for some proper European alternatives.

Re: Zoom sued for overstating, not disclosing privacy, security flaws

#137

Post by TheAdamist »

catalogia wrote: post #74
ajphdiv wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shareholders don't sign user agreements.

I don't think there was an implication to the contrary. I read that comment as an explanation for why any lawsuit would come from the shareholders rather than the users.

Yes, that was the intention of my post, but not explicitly written, that shareholders could sue and users probably can't.

Re: Zoom sued for overstating, not disclosing privacy, security flaws

#138

Post by jedberg »

unlinked_dll wrote: post #102
arbitrage wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a purely functional standpoint, that is -- does this software do what I need it to do?, I have had absolutely no problems with zoom. What issues have come up for you?

I don't really want to go through the laundry list of issues I have because none are critical, just the software is very rough around the edges on Linux. It just feels less than flushed out, and I've had a million little problems and bugs that I've reported and never heard anything back (as a paying user!).

> on Linux

I think I found your problem. While Linux is big here on HN, all Linux users probably represent .001% of their paying customers.

In other words, it makes no business sense for them to do anything to retain you.

Re: Zoom sued for overstating, not disclosing privacy, security flaws

#139

Post by nickff »

catalogia wrote: post #81
zarimba wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't. The lawsuit is really being filed by lawyers hoping to get a windfall. They don't even need to have much of a case, at worst Zoom will pay their fees and more for the nuisance to go away. However, they do need to pretend for the court that this more than just a lawyer led money grab and that they actually represent the interest of a plaintiff. Enters Michael Drieu. If you read the complaint [1] you'll se…

> Enters Michael Drieu. If you read the complaint [1] you'll see Michael Drieu claim damages of ... $300. He's basically enabling a shakedown out of either malice or stupidity but not greed. Those are pretty strong statements for an 11 minute old account. Dang, you can go ahead and scold me for insinuations of shilling. I just can't help myself.

I have an older account, and agree with the parent. Shareholder lawsuits against companies simply transfer money from the company to the lawyers, and to shareholders who sold their stock between discovering the fraud and disclosing it. Shareholder lawsuits against executives would be a better way of policing fraud, but they are uncommon, likely because they are not as lucrative for lawyers.

Re: Zoom sued for overstating, not disclosing privacy, security flaws

#140

Post by garmaine »

grugagag wrote: post #130
jjeaff wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is no white knight. But it is not doing anything close to what the CCP does on a regular basis. When was the last time a Trump protestor or Obama protestor disappeared and was never heard from again? Or disappeared and show up again months later, 30 lbs lighter and apologetic about how wrong they were about the government?

In this sense yes, absolutely. China is known for doing grotesque humanitarian violations. In another sense such as starting a war to deflect from problems at home, theres one champ and that is our democratic country. Either one doesn’t mean the other is doing something legitimate and is waranted shielding from criticism

The US does not start wars to distract from problems at home. That’s conspiracy horse manure. Whether you want to believe it or not, every president that has ever started a conflict or US involvement in an existing conflict has felt the action justified on foreign policy reasons.

Those reasons might be something you object with, or even downright stupid in hindsight. But only in Hollywood is it ever a smoke screen for domestic issues.

Post reply on HN