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

521–530 of 557 posts

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

#521

Post by pwdisswordfish2 »

g-b-r wrote: post #513
pwdisswordfish2 wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because the peer-to-peer software known to you may suck does not mean that the concept of peer-to-peer is obsolete. Nevermind Wireguard and other known examples of peer-to-peer software that does not suck, consider that there is software you do not know about. The idea that "peer-to-peer" is Napster plus some list of crappy, widely known software fiddling around with DHTs and dreaming about "the next big thing"…

I don't know what's going on here, I never said that any peer-to-peer software sucks or that the concept is obsolete, in fact I much prefer it if a system is distributed/peer-to-peer. All I said and cared to stress, to avoid that someone reading this make mistaken assumptions about p2p software (although probably few of this site's users would run the risk), is that ^^^they don't, as you claimed in https://news.ycomb…

I mean the term as it is being used by Zoom and others, not just the acronym. What I commented is that I am not interested in the term "end-to-end encryption". To me, at this point, it does not mean anything. It is no more meaningful than "cloud computing", "big data" or "AI". I prefer to read source code, not marketing copy. I want to know what something "does" not what it "is". The former is factual the later is potentially subjective. IMO, it is irrelevant what you or I know or do not know. No one really cares. Focus on the comment, not trying to make assumptions about the user who submitted it.

https://web.archive.org/web/20051029045942/http://www.unc.ed...

Example comment: "Peer-to-peer is a viable design for videoconferencing for small groups. If one is concerned about a "middle man" then it is worth investigating a peer-to-peer design."

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

#522

Post by kennywinker »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #445
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 problem is that the action condemned by the "virtue signaling" label is real, widespread, and destrucive. Always someone obnoxiously coming out of nowhere with some usually inconsequential moral high ground. I think where we will disagree is how destructive and common it is, and how much it needs to be called out. I personally think it's one of the worst traits of modern social media discourse. Maybe some people…

I guess my point is that the term "virtue signalling" is used to undermine someone's belief that something is an actual virtue.

If I say "don't be racist" and you call me a virtue signaller, you are implying that I don't actually care if you're racist, I just want social points for being "good". The problem is you don't know if I care or not. I might care deeply. I might dedicate my life to being anti-racist, but you can just label it virtue signalling and move on? that's an intellectually dishonest maneuver.

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

#523

Post by kennywinker »

ImprobableTruth wrote: post #420
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…

In what way is there a difference between virtue signaling and performative?

The difference I'm hoping to draw out is that virtue signalling implies the person doesn't actually care, just wants to be seen as virtuous.

Buying CFL lightbulbs is performative climate action.

Buying CFL lightbulbs is virtue signalling climate action.

One of them is about the action - buying bulbs isn't effective, the other is about the person - if you buy bulbs you are fake. Perhaps "performative" fails at making this distinction clear enough, but I'd like a way to imply that someone is all-talk-no-action, without undermining their actual belief in something.

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

#524

Post by manfredo »

berkes wrote: post #506
deathgrips wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wat…

Most users care about privacy in the sense that they don't want random people to see their communications. Most people don't care about privacy in the sense that they are concerned about the service provider divulging their communications.

Gmail does not use end to end encryption. Yet it's overwhelmingly popular, and perceived to be secure. Google has a huge incentive to keep Gmail secure, and that's enough for most people.

With respect to Zoom, I am fully convinced that if the PRC (or the USA for that matter) wants Zoom to compromise a given account they'll do it. But that's irrelevant to the overwhelming majority of people. Sure, companies like Google and Microsoft should not use Zoom nor should activists or other people that might attract the ire of governments that have leverage over Zoom. But that is a substantial minority of use cases.

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

#525

Post by dang »

rootsudo wrote: post #11
fsflover wrote: post #6

"To make this possible, Free/Basic users seeking access to E2EE will participate in a one-time process that will prompt the user for additional pieces of information, such as verifying a phone number via a text message. Many leading companies perform similar steps on account creation to reduce the mass creation of abusive accounts." Perfect instrument to collect more personal data.

Zoom is evil. Also, fun note - just noticed Eric Yuan posted that and also created Zoom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Yuan Eric S. Yuan (Chinese: 袁征; pinyin: Yuán Zhēng; born 1970) is a Chinese-American billionaire businessman, and the CEO and founder of Zoom Video Communications, of which he owns 22%. No wonder why they have to play party with CCP.

You started a wretched flamewar with this post. That was vandalism.

Nationalistic and ethnic flamewar will get you banned here. So will personal attacks and insinuated slurs.

People have been hounded off this site in the past by comments along these lines. That's shameful, and we want no more of it.

No, we're not defending communism or the communist party. We're trying to defend Hacker News against (a) mob behaviors and (b) self-immolation. Here are some recent comments about this, which include other links to plenty of past explanations.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

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

#526

Post by nopzor »

skinnymuch wrote: post #408
nopzor wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are the numbers different for you? 8x8 appears to have a market cap of $1.55B vs Zoom’s $67B. 40x difference.

you're right. i remembered the numbers wrong. i think it just proves my point even further though.

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

#527

Post by in15minutes »

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.

99% agree

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

#528

Post by suizi »

kennywinker wrote: post #522
hombre_fatal wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the action condemned by the "virtue signaling" label is real, widespread, and destrucive. Always someone obnoxiously coming out of nowhere with some usually inconsequential moral high ground. I think where we will disagree is how destructive and common it is, and how much it needs to be called out. I personally think it's one of the worst traits of modern social media discourse. Maybe some people…

I guess my point is that the term "virtue signalling" is used to undermine someone's belief that something is an actual virtue. If I say "don't be racist" and you call me a virtue signaller, you are implying that I don't actually care if you're racist, I just want social points for being "good". The problem is you don't know if I care or not. I might care deeply. I might dedicate my life to being anti-racist, but you…

Virtue signalling to me is to do something over the top with little practical utility, or which is even counter-productive, to show off one's apparent virtues.

It can be incomparably frustrating as it focuses on non-issues or minor issues and misses the bigger picture. I personally don't see it used outside of those contexts but it shouldn't be used to dismiss actual action like doing your part against climate change.

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

#529

Post by suizi »

gonehome wrote: post #100
damanamathos wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think their concern is paedophile rings using large group E2EE for live child abuse with completely anonymous accounts.

Yeah - I'm pretty sure this is the real concern and verifying a phone number is reasonable trade-off. I know this argument is often quickly dismissed on HN since people see child abuse or 'going dark' as an easy excuse for the government to leverage to get more control (and it has been used for this), but that doesn't mean the problem isn't serious or doesn't exist. See this: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/…

Are we talking about recirculation of existing content or new cases of abuse? How much of it is new? How much of it is duplicates? How much of it involves the platform facilitating crimes to produce it? One article noted something very alarming, that resources are diverted from more serious crimes to chase these ones.

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

#530

Post by suizi »

jchw wrote: post #276
baybal2 wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Indeed, E2EE will enable criminals to go undetected. And this is a real problem. This is not the problem. The argument is hollow. People need to take child protection laws out of political discourse, as it's now approaching silly.

If you think this strengthens the case against encryption laws, I suggest you rethink. There’s plenty of valid arguments against banning strong encryption and this isn’t one. You can’t simultaneously argue that E2EE keeps people’s conversations private to eavesdropping and then suggest that it doesn’t prevent eavesdropping for law enforcement purposes- at face value it does , and image hash databases to prevent the s…

Wiretap is a misnomer. Undermines security.

Put plainly, there will always be crimes you won't be able to catch. You prioritise resources on the most pressing ones and build up resources in the real world to tackle them in other ways. Dystopian lists on the client to control what you're allowed to say or think or report your thoughts back to the government still violates the principle E2EE is built upon.

There is no middle-ground. You either are secure or you are not. The genie is out of the bottle either way.

Post reply on HN