A communication service should use an openly specified protocol allowing independent client and server implementations, otherwise it's hostile to internet freedom. I believe that we should not recommend and should avoid using a service that does not meet this requirement, no matter what features it offers, including E2EE.
Zoom to bring end-to-end encryption to all users, including non-paying
431–440 of 557 posts
Re: Zoom to bring end-to-end encryption to all users, including non-paying
#432Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes they will. You need to be thinking about LGBTQ people in many non-Western countries.
They are the 1%. 99% of people consider "privacy" a good value in abstract but will not lift a finger to protect their own privacy. It's virtue signalling.
Other comments aside, this isn't even using the term "virtue signaling" correctly.
They're are plenty of things that people agree with in the abstract, but don't do enough to make a difference. Probably everyone agrees that the environment should be cleaner. If I agree with that, but "don't lift a finger" to make it better, how am a virtue signaling? It's the opposite.
"Virtue signaling" involves doing some token thing to get the kudos. Smugly saying you only use DDG for web searches. Putting a Tor sticker on your laptop. Etc.
Re: Zoom to bring end-to-end encryption to all users, including non-paying
#433Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/stop-saying-virtue-signalling
That article gives such a bad argument that I feel I have now become more pro using the term than before. All of the arguments have huge exceptions or contradict each other. Signaling being a term used by some niche fields. We have that happen all the time. It’s how language evolves. The article says to use show off instead of virtue signaling. Right after the next argument is assuming the person is disingenuous. Whi…
I think a good way to put this is:
Saying 'stop saying "virtue signalling"'
is
virtue signalling
Re: Zoom to bring end-to-end encryption to all users, including non-paying
#434Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think any of them do, but more relevant to security none of them has auditable source code. Jitsi Meet (the easiest to use out of the services I've tried, namely Zoom and Google Meet) has experimental E2EE. But if you want real security you probably want something more like GNU Jami, which is not grandma-friendly easy to use and is a native application only.
The beauty of Jitsi is that you can run the software yourself (especially with the free Google Cloud credit) and then the E2E is hardly relevant because it's still server-to-client encrypted and you own the server...
Good point. Are there any use cases for E2E when the server isn't potentially adversarial to any clients?
Separately: affordable servers likely are accessible to infrastructure providers (whether a VPS, or bare metal at a colo, etc.) so it's tough to say that "my own server" is usable exclusively by me and therefore not adversarial. Plus, maybe people want to use my server and consider me adversarial for whatever reason; they should use their own server instead, but might not have the skills.
Re: Zoom to bring end-to-end encryption to all users, including non-paying
#435Aside from whatever the Zoom news story of the day is, it's completely unsurprising that they're eating WebEx's lunch. I just tried scheduling a meeting and it was outrageously bad. The bright green "Start" and "Schedule Meeting" buttons just pop up an error. The correct button to progress is the dark grey (as if disabled) "Next" button. It prompts me to create a "personal conference number", whatever that is. This e…
Ugh. And Google Meet us even worse. My kids' schools use it, for supposed privacy reasons. Audio is absolutely terrible. Echoey as hell. UI is a disaster. You have to install a third party Chrome extension just to get grid view, which keeps breaking.
My work uses Zoom, and it's night and day and smooth everything is.
Re: Zoom to bring end-to-end encryption to all users, including non-paying
#436Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would they use Jitsi if it was fully managed for them and free?
How many people want to deal with an inferior product? I used Jitsi for over a year. There’s no deal breaker. But so many little or medium issues with how inferior it is to Zoom. It’s a hard ask (outside specific vocal minorities online)
Governments deal with inferior products all the time. At least in this case, there's a good reason to do so. The security of court systems would surely be higher priority than "my grandma couldn't install Jitsi" if they were pushed to choose.
Re: Zoom to bring end-to-end encryption to all users, including non-paying
#437Anyone used this site to purchase traffic?
https://andwebtraffic.org
Re: Zoom to bring end-to-end encryption to all users, including non-paying
#438Haha no one is riding the wave like zoom!
Re: Zoom to bring end-to-end encryption to all users, including non-paying
#439Earlier quoted context omitted.
The alternative is to not discriminate based on national origin? Which is a protected class by the way. Nationality is also very different from national origin. Eric is an American citizen as far as I aware. You can point to the requirement to be bore in the US to run for presidency, but 1) that’s an edge case and 2) where is the line? Is it ok to discriminate again foreign born Americans but not against native born?…
> The alternative is to not discriminate based on national origin? It absolutely is not a protected class. There are no protected classes when I am deciding whom I trust with my personal data . I can discriminate for any reason, including national origin. > I mean overall you really don’t find it an issue to blankedly judge an entire class of people based on what some people within that population does or could do? I…
Yes you're free to make personal choices based on whatever factor you like. You can decide based on vendor's national origin, race, sex whatever. I just don't think it's right on those factors alone.
You listed 2 things. First is where he's from, the second is the politics of the country. You are then basing your judgement (at least in this comment) purely on those factors. The implication here is you wouldn't trust your data to anyone that was born, grew up and has family and / or employees in China. I mean most of the large tech companies have some employees in China. How is this not judging an entire class (or group if you'd like) of people?
As far as security clearance, they are at least in theory assessed based on established facts about a particular person. e.g. being born in China doesn't automatically disqualify you as far as I'm aware. If you know otherwise or can point to examples, I'm open to being corrected.
I mean if it's been established that Eric has connections to the CPP then that's a different matter and we can look at that. My objection is with "Eric is a Chinese-American billionaire businessman so we shouldn't trust him".
Re: Zoom to bring end-to-end encryption to all users, including non-paying
#440What does Zoom do that other free services (google hangouts) do not do?
Breakout rooms, for instance?
Better video quality?
Dual-screen mode?
Or simply the superior video and audio quality compared to Meet.
I wish I could move away from Zoom, but I've yet to find something similarly useable for my use case (remote trainings).