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

501–510 of 557 posts

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

#501

Post by andrepd »

DelTaco wrote: post #181
SamWhited wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You forgot "5. Zoom gets praised for developing features in response to criticism that already existed in other products that work better." Jokes aside, with Zoom's track record, it's not worth using anymore regardless of what features they implement. Not having E2E encryption is no where near as much of a red flag as lying about it is to me.

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.

Jitsi worked fine for me every time.

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

#502

Post by gonehome »

baybal2 wrote: post #281
gonehome wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read the rest of my comment beyond the first line (particularly my blog link), you'd see that I agree with you when it comes to companies taking an ethical stand against authoritarian governments. What you're arguing is a strawman, we agree more than we disagree.

> If you read the rest of my comment beyond the first line (particularly my blog link), I read, and I think your argument is hollow, and, assuming your goodwill, you are not understanding the matter at all, and if not, I see an ill intent. I do not appreciate all what you say at all. Any argument against encryption must be quashed without exceptions, and second thoughts. It is only since the start of 21st century, th…

As you’ve responded here and elsewhere, calling an argument “hollow” is not a substantive disagreement.

It seems any argument that you don’t already agree with (basically only your exact position) is classified this way.

The rest of your comment is basically incoherent, and the parts that do make sense are obviously wrong. It’s also a willful misinterpretation of my position.

People were flayed before the 21st century. Acknowledging the issues with encryption is a critical requirement in making an effective defense of it. I am not arguing against encryption.

If this is an issue you actually care about (which it sounds like it is), learning how to build consensus and honestly consider the positions of others would be a valuable skill to develop.

As it stands you’re doing more harm to the pro-encryption position (which is also my position) with how you’re attempting to defend it.

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

#503

Post by prepperpotts »

deathgrips wrote: post #360
throwaway2048 wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is sad but also extremely true. At my company, Zoom was suddenly rolled out en masse to everyone, despite the fact that we are a technology company and should know better.

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

#504

Post by kayfox »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #372
surround wrote: post #127

> All Zoom users will continue to use AES 256 GCM transport encryption as the default encryption, one of the strongest encryption standards in use today. I’m glad that Zoom is finally implementing E2E encryption, but I hate that they have been (and still are) advertising “full encryption” and using jargon like “AES 256 GCM” to deceive users into thinking they’re using anything more than SSL.

Worse than that. Saying AESGCM doesn’t even mean they are using SSL or DH key exchange or etc. it just means they’re using symmetric for the data, that’s all. Nothing about how the key is securely transferred to each side and how the user can have any confidence they aren’t passing the key back to themselves anyhow.

They use TLS, they have been using TLS this whole time.

This E2E encryption is on top of TLS.

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

#505

Post by jeromegv »

dokem wrote: post #412
kennywinker wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like pro-virtue-signalling-as-a-term virtue signalling. We get it, you want all the other people who use the term virtue signalling to like you. ALWAYS dismissive and reductive. ALWAYS. It's not a good faith argument. If you think someone is all-talk-no-action, accuse them of being performative. If you think someone's cause is dumb, attack that. You can call ANYBODY advocating for a viewpoint a virtue sign…

The idea that you can't attack someone's behavior is ridiculous. If you want to consider what i'm doing virtue signaling then go right ahead I guess.

Yes. You calling other people for virtue signalling is a form of virtue signalling in itself.

Don’t you realize how ridiculous and useless this argument is?

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

#506

Post by berkes »

deathgrips wrote: post #360
throwaway2048 wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A majority cares little about privacy: maybe. 99%: where's your proof? Or is this part of the 73.6% of the made-up statistics?

The other thing that is wrong with this sentiment is that "privacy" is not a binary thing: you don't "have privacy" or "not have privacy". You don't "want it" or "not want it".

Privacy and the need for it, is heavily dependent on context. You want more privacy when watching porn than when watching some sports. You want more privacy when you are a minority than when you are part of the ruling class. And so on.

Edit: so a person wanting to escape religion and seeking online help on how to do so needs different privacy than three friends having an online beer. Everyone has moments and time where they need (some) privacy. So probably 99% (a made up statistic) has a need to replace software in some (rare) context, over privacy matters.

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

#507

Post by adrianmonk »

user982 wrote: post #234
adrianmonk wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing that has changed is that their userbase broadened. They were mostly focused on workplace meetings. If that's your focus, then most of your users are employees of some company whose contact information you have. Users with unverified identities are a corner case that you may not feel is worth trying to get right. Thanks to the pandemic, they have millions of new users who use Zoom for personal purposes (meet…

> One thing that has changed is that their userbase broadened. Their userbase changed in the two weeks since they announced their policy?

I agree they should be cluing in by now. I'm just saying it could be growing pains from shifting from a B2B business to a B2C business. That difference has huge effects on product design and on your mindset. Being slow to realign your mindset with reality isn't necessarily the same thing as being dishonest or disreputable.

But yeah, while feeling that you can't trust them because they don't know what they're doing is not the same as feeling that you can't trust them because they're in cahoots with someone (governments, etc.) against your interests, in the end they're both forms of feeling that you can't trust them.

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

#508

Post by tw04 »

g-b-r wrote: post #305
tw04 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I don't consider that the same thing at all. They're censoring searches coming from china to google.cn (hosted in China). They didn't really have a choice, the servers are in China, the users are in China. What they aren't doing is actively blocking users from China getting to www.google.com, and they aren't censoring searches Chinese users do on www.google.com because those resources aren't hosted in China a…

they didn't have a choice not to use servers in China?

They actually didn't. Their options were filtered servers in China or no services in China at all. We can collectively be upset at their decision but they ARE beholden to their shareholders as a public company. Abandoning the Chinese market entirely is something they could've tried, but their major shareholders made it pretty clear there would be a change of leadership if they tried.

Unless you've got a magic bullet to give Wall Street a conscience, that wasn't going to happen.

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

#509

Post by quotemstr »

hypewatch wrote: post #93

I find this story arch with Zoom amusing: 1. Pre-COVID Zoom claims it has E2E encryption for everyone. 2. During COVID Zoom grows in popularity, which prompts journalists to learn that the claims that Zoom has E2E encryption are inaccurate. 3. Zoom admits that it never had true E2E encryption, but announces they will develop it and it will only be available for paying customers. 4. Zoom gets another wave of criticism…

Without identity management, E2E is worthless because you don't know that today's E is the same as yesterday's. Zoom is probably still sucking up to various state security agencies but doing it via MITM instead of just tapping the server.

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

#510

Post by admax88q »

rootsudo wrote: post #42
admax88q wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah what the fuck, that was some weird casual racism you don't expect to see on HN.

I disagree it's "racism." It's how the CCP operates. We can say the same story for different super powers from previous times. People suspected German Ambassador to USA for being a bosch spy. Founder of a communications company isn't that far off. Huawei is a great example. Founders of a company control the companies direction.

Is the argument still that this man is a CCP agent because he comes from China? That's literally all the evidence that was provided in the parent post.

Do you not understand the racism behind assuming someone is a CCP agent based on nothing more than their race?

Post reply on HN