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

Zoom to bring end-to-end encryption to all users, including non-paying

blog.zoom.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 557 posts

Re: Zoom to bring end-to-end encryption to all users, including non-paying

#351

Post by smt88 »

yibg wrote: post #203
smt88 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of HN users who won't (or wouldn't, in an ideal world) use any US-based software because of NSA interference. The issue is national origin, not ethnicity. Japanese Americans were thrown into camps for the same reason, but we're not talking about jailing anyone here. We're talking about avoiding a specific product. Another difference is that Japanese Americans were put into camps regardless of how man…

There is a difference between US based software (e.g. servers located in the US), vs a CEO that's from the US (or China in this case). If the argument is that Zoom the company has routes traffic to China etc then fine I can get behind that. But if the argument is the CEO is from China I find that problematic. I mean it's not like internment of Japanese Americans is ok if it's limited to only first gen. EDIT: Also sou…

> Also sounds like you're saying that it's ok to avoid doing business with someone based on national origin, which I also find problematic.

Sure, it can be problematic. I've seen articles about how Russian people in the software industry are having a very hard time because of what Putin's regime does. It's not fair for the people who have nothing to do with Putin and no exposure to him.

But what is the alternative? Putin and Kim have assassinated dissidents in Western countries. Do we assume people can't be coerced just because they left the borders of the authoritarian country?

Should the US government also remove its nationality restrictions for security clearances?

Re: Zoom to bring end-to-end encryption to all users, including non-paying

#352

Post by anonymousab »

justicezyx wrote: post #165
anonymousab wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CCP can and will exert pressure on family members to get expats and former citizens to do what they want. They're not the only country to do so, not by a long shot, but they are particularly brazen about it. Though I think the CEO is less relevant than the critical amount of developers Zoom relies on that are directly living under and subject to CCP malfeasance.

> The CCP can and will exert pressure on family members to get expats and former citizens to do what they want. Could you give a few such cases?

I'm not at a desktop at the moment so I had to just Google for some examples. I was thinking of stuff like this:

https://www.businessinsider.com/china-uses-family-members-to...

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that China is unique in doing this. They are simply much more openly aggressive and nonchalant about it.

EDIT: I also think it was both reasonable and correct for you to ask for examples. Superpowers do enough sketchy things that we don't need to be muddying the waters with made up claims.

Re: Zoom to bring end-to-end encryption to all users, including non-paying

#353

Post by Jeaye »

Zoom is a closed-source application. Even if it implements perfect E2EE, you still need to trust the Zoom client itself. I don't see any reason why someone would trust the closed-source Zoom client, which means that E2EE basically means we're back to square one.

Re: Zoom to bring end-to-end encryption to all users, including non-paying

#355

Post by nopzor »

neodymiumphish wrote: post #251
lukifer wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a business model perspective, if Zoom embraced open-source, what would be their moat/value-add, compared to users downloading/forking from GitHub? Not being snarky: I'm genuinely curious what the "good citizen" (but still profitable) OS/FOSS model would look like, whether at equivalent revenue or reduced revenue.

Seems to work fine for 8x8, who maintain Jitsi.

8x8 is valued at about 1/10 of what zoom is worth, and has seen a declining valuation over the last 1 year.

most of 8x8 revenue comes from sources and products unrelated to jitsi.

so, i don't think you can say that it seems to work fine for them compared to zoom.

Re: Zoom to bring end-to-end encryption to all users, including non-paying

#356

Post by nopzor »

yellowapple wrote: post #292
lukifer wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a business model perspective, if Zoom embraced open-source, what would be their moat/value-add, compared to users downloading/forking from GitHub? Not being snarky: I'm genuinely curious what the "good citizen" (but still profitable) OS/FOSS model would look like, whether at equivalent revenue or reduced revenue.

Enterprise support is the usual answer, and it'd probably work pretty well for Zoom given how many enterprises are already willing to pay Zoom for said support.

i don't think it'd work particularly well. people pay for zoom not because of 'enterprise support', but because they want features that they need (eg. meetings not automatically ending after 40 minutes).

Re: Zoom to bring end-to-end encryption to all users, including non-paying

#357

Post by amiga_500 »

hellcow wrote: post #190
DelTaco wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just curious - what other product that works better do you recommend? Webex, Skype, Hangouts/Meet, Teams all pale in comparison when it comes to quality and ease-of-use.

Honestly, Meet has had huge updates in the past month or so that make it much better than Zoom. The image quality no longer looks like crap with more than 2 people in the room.

So one month. Not long.

Re: Zoom to bring end-to-end encryption to all users, including non-paying

#358

Post by nopzor »

inetknght wrote: post #205
lukifer wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a business model perspective, if Zoom embraced open-source, what would be their moat/value-add, compared to users downloading/forking from GitHub? Not being snarky: I'm genuinely curious what the "good citizen" (but still profitable) OS/FOSS model would look like, whether at equivalent revenue or reduced revenue.

> From a business model perspective, if Zoom embraced open-source, what would be their moat/value-add, compared to users downloading/forking from GitHub? Not being snarky: I'm genuinely curious what the "good citizen" (but still profitable) OS/FOSS model would look like, whether at equivalent revenue or reduced revenue. The idea that a business needs a moat to be profitable is a problem endemic to business. The value…

problem endemic to business? that doesn't make a lot of sense.

it would be very dangerous for the primary value add to be in hosting services. any hyperscale cloud provider could offer the service and undercut zoom (based on superior unit economics and market reach)

Re: Zoom to bring end-to-end encryption to all users, including non-paying

#359

Post by pwdisswordfish2 »

g-b-r wrote: post #342
pwdisswordfish2 wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's right. It is certainly possible to use peer-to-peer to send unencrypted packets. Peer-to-peer does not imply encryption. It does imply avoiding a "middleman". Thus, to send encrypted packets without using a middleman, peer-to-peer is a viable method.

> It does imply avoiding a "middleman" No, it only implies avoiding a central server (and not even for every aspect of the service), you still run through routers, ISPs, NSA etc. If you are certain that there's no middleman, you don't need encryption. N.B. Maybe someone defines it in another way today, but when the term became popular, with Napster, it really meant simply not having a central server for certain funct…

The central server is the "middleman" as I am using that term. Routers are not middlemen under the meaning I am using. I am referring to peer-to-peer without any supernode forwarding traffic. No central server. There may be a "rendezvous server" involved in allowing two nodes to discover how to connect to one another, however that server does not route traffic.

I never implied a need for encryption associated with peer-to-peer. The parent comment asked about avoiding a middleman.

I have no idea what "end-to-end encryption" means, nor do I seek to know. I do not wish to be part of that debate. The record of how that term is being applied speaks for itself.

I do know of the term "end-to-end" as in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_to_end_principle One can find this concept in many of the early RFCs.

To me, "peer-to-peer" (with no central server) is in the spirit of end-to-end. This is why for example, people will sometimes say, "The internet was originally peer-to-peer."

Re: Zoom to bring end-to-end encryption to all users, including non-paying

#360

Post by deathgrips »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #340
btown wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm actually more alarmed than I was before the announcement, because it indicates that there wasn't sufficient pressure for them not to do this. Watch them put the key in a predictable memory location, then have a subtle vulnerability elsewhere that lets them exfiltrate the client-generated key at any time. Anyone with views that might be dangerous to reveal to state actors should be very, very wary.

Anybody that trusts zoom with anything even slightly sensitive these days is completely nuts. Yes, we know its easy to use.

99% of people do not care about privacy. They won't switch programs because a nation state might spy on them.
Post reply on HN