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

531–540 of 557 posts

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

#531

Post by suizi »

aspenmayer wrote: post #512
suizi wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is creeping a little close to populist rhetoric. The crimes you've described are obviously awful but angry politics will only lead to knee-jerk solutions. In which ways do you think it is underfunded?

It's clearly underfunded in relation to the difficulty in prosecuting these cases. Banning E2EE is a way of lowering the bar of difficulty in prosecuting these cases. The crime is reprehensible, and worthy of enforcement due to the heinous nature of abuse. Curtailing abuse via violating human right to encrypt is not the way to end abuse. Thus, more funding is likely justified, if it leads to an end to abuse. This soc…

I see, so your main concern here is prosecution. It is indeed true that prosecution is understaffed and underfunded. I feel there are other problems at play too.

CPS should be able to spot children in abusive homes and respond to reports of unusual activity. They should be able to spot clearly unstable caretakers.

Counsellors and teachers should be able to spot unusual behaviour from children. Mental health services can help someone escape falling into such a situation in the first place by keeping them from falling into depression which leads them to rely on such a person.

Local police shouldn't dismiss leads so readily. This is the it is impossible for him or her to do such a thing mindset which prevails so frequently.

Parents shouldn't trust their relatives so readily and should keep an eye out. 90% of cases happen at home.

If they stopped showing off their crimes online, would the entire system come to a crawl? I'm worried by how much of a reliance there is on divining crimes off the internet.

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

#532

Post by dang »

ilikehurdles wrote: post #45
rootsudo wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I understand that on the surface seems "bad", you have to understand the CCP taps into people worldwide, and while I don't know his position per se, or finances -- or connection with China today. It doesn't paint a great picture, especially with espionage and CCP tactics. Look at previous German and USA interference w/ GE, Bosch, -- it's the same story. Except now it's highlight as "bad" to point out that conne…

I'm disgusted that in 2020, Americans continue to use the same racist, unfounded smears againts people based on their ethnicity just as they did when they were throwing Japanese-Americans into internment camps.

Please don't up the flamewar ante like that. It leads noplace good, just to the same nasty loops played louder.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#533

Post by imtringued »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #447
kennywinker wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely hate the term virtue signalling. It's always reductive and dismissive. If I am willing to go a LITTLE out of my way to protect my privacy, but not a LOT out of my way, am I "just virtue signalling"? If I continue to use a privacy-less platform (e.g. zoom/instagram/facebook) but just exercise caution with what I say using that medium, is that also "just virtue signalling"? I agree, evidence shows most peo…

Man you really hit the nail on the head with this. I’ve never been able to articulate why the term bothers me so much and you just absolutely nailed it. It’s like the derogatory “social justice warrior.” What? It’s bad to give a damn about people and advocate on their behalf? If having empathy means I’m “an SJW” then I’ll gladly wear that moniker.

Social justice warrior is an oxymoron. It's a way to call someone a hypocrite because those who are called SJW usually exhibit behavior that is exactly the opposite of what they claim to stand against. e.g. fight discrimination by using discrimination in a different context

https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin...

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

#534

Post by ai_ja_nai »

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% of people don't understand how modern world actually works, in which your data is the product.

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

#535

Post by antris »

okamiueru wrote: post #460
antris wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you go down that road, you can make this argument infinitely. Even if you verify your builds, you cannot know if the software you are using to check the build isn't compromised. Or if you check the software you use to check the build, you have to check the software doing that check and so on. Nothing makes software automatically super-crazy-secure. Absolute security doesn't exist.

You'd get close by doing all you mentioned, but also compiling and hosting the code and infrastructure yourself. Not often this is feasible.

You'd be still trusting the compiler. However many layers of checks you do, there's always something you need to trust.

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

#536

Post by someperson »

andrepd wrote: post #500
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.

I would very much like not to use it but I am forced by my employer, including to divulge sensitive info like my passport. Yes, you have read that right. I was forced to make a zoom call and hold my passport open to the camera. No, they wouldn't accept a scan and an email, or even a call through Jitsi. This is a major public institution with a 200+ strong IT department consuming millions of pounds a year. This is the…

The same issue is present if simply transit through Hong Kong International Airport.

The government of China border guards scan everybody's passport details.

It's unfortunate that a passport number is a form of ID.

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

#537

Post by kinkrtyavimoodh »

BrandoElFollito wrote: post #518
kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meet is a GSuite product, and the only video-conferencing app in GSuite. Google doesn't fuck with GSuite.

I have to remind this to myself when I see features available for free which are not ported to GSuite (parental control, google assistant for home users, reminders, inbox in the past (it took I think a year to port it)

And the reasons it takes time to port those features is because Google respects GSuite's privacy promises.

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

#538

Post by deathgrips »

kennywinker wrote: post #370
deathgrips wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I absolutely hate the term virtue signalling. It's always reductive and dismissive. If I am willing to go a LITTLE out of my way to protect my privacy, but not a LOT out of my way, am I "just virtue signalling"? If I continue to use a privacy-less platform (e.g. zoom/instagram/facebook) but just exercise caution with what I say using that medium, is that also "just virtue signalling"? I agree, evidence shows most peo…

I measure virtue by how much you are willing to lose for the sake of your values or because you want to help other people. If you aren't willing to give up anything, you're not virtuous no matter what you say. Actions matter.

If you say you care about privacy but do nothing to protect your privacy, you don't really care about privacy in any way that matters. Since you mildly inconvenience yourself for the sake of privacy, I can conclude based on this very limited evidence that you mildly care about privacy, which is a whole lot more than most people care about it.

Apple markets itself as privacy conscious because that makes Apple look like a trustworthy company. That's a rare and beneficial appearance that a company can maintain to get more business.

Not all gay people care about their privacy. Plenty live in states where they feel more free to open up to their friends, family, and neighbors.

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

#539

Post by deathgrips »

SamBam wrote: post #432
deathgrips wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thi…

I don't think people become more virtuous by saying a few words and doing nothing. If you say you care about the environment but do absolutely nothing about it, you don't care in any way that matters. It's just a social signal without any impact on the world. Buying a Tor sticker doesn't promote privacy. Buying and running a Tor node does.

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

#540

Post by deathgrips »

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…

I measure values by how much you are willing to give up. How much of a pain in the ass will you endure to get privacy? How much will you sacrifice to lessen your carbon footprint? Will you march in the streets and get tear gassed in order to protest for your social activist movement? Anyone can say they believe in anything. It's your actions that have an impact.
Post reply on HN