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

Zoom Acquires Keybase

keybase.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

681–690 of 751 posts

Re: Zoom Acquires Keybase

#681

Post by spurgu »

_urga wrote: post #667
munificent wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why not look at the problem the other way around? Because no one ever buys or hires a conscience. If you thought a conscience was worth having one, that implies you would already have one and thus wouldn't need to outsource it in the first place. Ethics always rolls downhill. If Al Capone goes out and hires Mr. Rogers, the power imbalance between them means Mr. Rogers is going to get dirtier than Capone will get cl…

Thanks for this! Besides upvotes, HN should have a hall of fame for comments this good. It reminds me of 1 Corinthians 15:33 quoting the Greek poet Menander: Do not be misled: “Bad company corrupts good character.”

How does good character develop in the first place then..?

Re: Zoom Acquires Keybase

#682

Post by Flenser »

bkanber wrote: post #513
ithkuil wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why not look at the problem the other way around? I don't have much respect for zoom's security practices, while I do have much respect for the keybase team. Perhaps this is Zoom's way of admitting that there is no way they can just solve the problem internally by keeping doing what they're doing and they need to get some fresh blood and build upon good practices designed outside their current culture.

I agree. I'd bet all the cash in my wallet that this was Zoom doing a talent acquisition, to bring a team of crypto experts on board.

You are probably right but I wouldn't discount the keybase server/client IP and user base completely. If Zoom could use keybase for identity verification and adding participants to a call via social graph connections of everyone on the call that could radically improve the UX of onboarding and securing a meeting to only approved participants.

Re: Zoom Acquires Keybase

#684

Post by xref »

somebodyiknew wrote: post #515
fernandotakai wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

microsoft too. people here still talk about "Embrace, extend, and extinguish" every time there's any good microsoft news.

It's far easier falling back on tired memes and muscle memory, than rewiring biases.

Muscle memory exists for a reason.

“Stove is hot, be careful before touching it.”

“Microsoft sexually discriminated in executive hires because ‘women will get pregnant and quit’, stifled completion in multiple categories, expected free overtime or you’d be stack-ranked out of a job. Be careful before trusting.”

Re: Zoom Acquires Keybase

#686

Post by _pmf_ »

gonehome wrote: post #349

For years people have been begging Keybase to allow them to pay them for the service and Chris Coyne always refused. Now they've lost their independence and they're owned by a communication company that has [edit: the majority of] its dev team in China. I use Keybase to talk to my friend in China since it's one of the few services they don't block. This is a pretty disappointing outcome.

> and Chris Coyne always refused

Well, now he has a thousandfold outcome compared to breadcrumbs that devs would throw at him. I.e. the system worked.

Re: Zoom Acquires Keybase

#687

Post by bythckr »

gonehome wrote: post #349

For years people have been begging Keybase to allow them to pay them for the service and Chris Coyne always refused. Now they've lost their independence and they're owned by a communication company that has [edit: the majority of] its dev team in China. I use Keybase to talk to my friend in China since it's one of the few services they don't block. This is a pretty disappointing outcome.

> I use Keybase to talk to my friend in China since it's one of the few services they don't block.

I think the vital question is why was keybase not blocked?

Maybe it was owned by someone high-up in China. That is why maybe Chris Coyne refused funding. It was free to just to onboard maximum number of users. Seems like "users" where the products that bought value to keybase.

Re: Zoom Acquires Keybase

#688

Post by dreamszl »

bythckr wrote: post #687
gonehome wrote: post #349

For years people have been begging Keybase to allow them to pay them for the service and Chris Coyne always refused. Now they've lost their independence and they're owned by a communication company that has [edit: the majority of] its dev team in China. I use Keybase to talk to my friend in China since it's one of the few services they don't block. This is a pretty disappointing outcome.

> I use Keybase to talk to my friend in China since it's one of the few services they don't block. I think the vital question is why was keybase not blocked? Maybe it was owned by someone high-up in China. That is why maybe Chris Coyne refused funding. It was free to just to onboard maximum number of users. Seems like "users" where the products that bought value to keybase.

You really have imagination.

Re: Zoom Acquires Keybase

#690

Post by marcus_holmes »

rhizome wrote: post #656
wpietri wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The power depends on the board structure and the ownership. But even if a founder owns 51% of the company, and so in theory can do anything, they still have an obligation to do right by the minority shareholders. This is generally known as fiduciary duty, and is a complex area of law. Here's a short summary: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fiduciary-responsibi... In a case like this, a founder can't just give…

> they still have an obligation to do right by the minority shareholders Fiduciary duty is extremely rare to be the subject of a suit against a, let's say, CEO. It's a complex area of law because it isn't actually a law, nor specified anywhere, and not a requirement for corporate existence. So, it's a set of court decisions that future cases are built upon, but in general a house of cards in that it could be invalida…

C-level executives are appointed and removed by the board. The board is appointed and removed by the shareholders. Yes, technically, executives are not required to act in the shareholders interests by law. But they are often appointed with the specific instruction to act in the shareholders' best interests, and can be removed from office for not doing that.

From my experience being a CEO and reporting to a board, trying to act in anything other than the shareholder's best interests would be... problematic, shall we say. I would need to be very convincing that what I was doing was in the best long-term interests of the organisation. Or have a board who agreed with the "not maximising shareholder value" goal.

It's only technically a myth that the only purpose of executives is to maximise profit for shareholders. That's definitely the most common instruction from the board, often implicit rather than explicit, and not doing that will get you into trouble in most situations. That trouble may not be a law suit, more probably just being summarily dismissed.

Post reply on HN