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

Zoom still don't understand GDPR

threatspike.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 267 posts

Re: Zoom still don't understand GDPR

#161

Post by laurent92 »

matsemann wrote: post #159
laurent92 wrote: post #128

Why do you guys not use https://whereby.com (formerly appear.in), it’s free for 4 people, in-browser only, no-login, WebRTC, allows sharing the screen alongside faces. But they made the 5+ rooms $9 per month, which is way too expensive. There are not enough competitors for WebRTC conf tools, it should be quite simple and $4-5 a month (WebRTC doesn’t incur data costs on the servers since the data is peer-to-peer).

I don't get your argument about the pricing. If you're 5+ people you can split that cost. If it's for professional use, a few dollars is a blip.

We’re 2 in our startup. - Fastmail costs $50 per person per year, - Gapps would be $60, - Whereby asks for $90 per user.

It’s just a feeling that this is wrong for what they contribute, but you’re right, if we share one account for a team, that would be a lower cost.

Maybe I was “anchored” by their previous pricing $4, which I thought I’d subscribe as soon as I’d have income, even though I didn’t need the paid features. But at $9, it’s a second psychological step. It feels like they stuff with features, where all we ask is often the WebRTC part.

Re: Zoom still don't understand GDPR

#162

Post by grenoire »

andrewnicolalde wrote: post #153
grenoire wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the rule was: If you can see it plaintext on the screen, it's not safe.

Could you elaborate on that? Of course no computer is completely secure against all forms of attack, but I’ve found statements like these to not contribute very much towards solving any practical security problems.

The moment that a string of text appears on your screen, it is passed through between many different functions (and even pieces of hardware, with textures being stored on the GPU VRAM) and has unencrypted copies laying all around in memory as the application is running.

Any part of the space in which these copies exist being compromised will mean that your encryption is useless in the end.

Re: Zoom still don't understand GDPR

#163

Post by zulln »

laurent92 wrote: post #128

Why do you guys not use https://whereby.com (formerly appear.in), it’s free for 4 people, in-browser only, no-login, WebRTC, allows sharing the screen alongside faces. But they made the 5+ rooms $9 per month, which is way too expensive. There are not enough competitors for WebRTC conf tools, it should be quite simple and $4-5 a month (WebRTC doesn’t incur data costs on the servers since the data is peer-to-peer).

I used appear.in a few years ago between friends, it was really nice. Now however, having to pay $60 when you are 12+ people is a bit much when I can do it for free with Zoom.

If it was for professional use $60 would not have mattered much, but that is not the case here.

(Our university offers some kind of paid plan on Zoom for all students so it will be hard to beat regardless, but that is not true for everyone)

Re: Zoom still don't understand GDPR

#166

Post by aembleton »

morpheuskafka wrote: post #96

This is what we need app sandboxing for. No reason third-party apps should be able to read the browser's cookie database.

One of the great things about Flatpak [1] is being able to restrict permissions for each application. Flatseal [2] is a useful GUI for controlling it. Zoom is available as a Flatpak [3]

1. https://www.flatpak.org/

2. https://flathub.org/apps/details/com.github.tchx84.Flatseal

3. https://flathub.org/apps/details/us.zoom.Zoom

Re: Zoom still don't understand GDPR

#167

Post by m463 »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #5

I love how when you go to enter a Zoom meeting, they bury the no-install, run-in-browser link in small type in a footer. And then, if you manage to see the link and use the browser, they withhold "Gallery View", forcing you to deal with the extremely annoying "Active Speaker View".

every teleconferencing app does this.

Teams will not show you a browser link until you download the web client.

webex will actively download a .exe (on my mac?) before showing the browser link.

When I see stuff like this, I think "market opportunity" but the status quo must be pretty profitable.

Re: Zoom still don't understand GDPR

#168

Post by stunt »

andrewnicolalde wrote: post #88
asciident wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you call Cisco and Dell principally Indian companies?

Why not, if that’s where a majority of the teams making engineering decisions are?

That's not fair. You should look where their vision, policy , and standards are set. Engineering decisions respect those principals.

Re: Zoom still don't understand GDPR

#169

Post by foldr »

iso947 wrote: post #148
andrewnicolalde wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps. I'm American but live in the UK, and I have observed how people in the UK use "don't" as opposed to "doesn't" when the thing being referred to is an organisation, I suppose with the idea of it being an organisation comprised of many people (i.e. "they don't") as opposed to an inanimate non-human entity ("it doesn't"). Still incorrect to my understanding of how English works.

Perhaps it’s built into a different perception of what a company is. In America, I get the feeling people think more of companies (large companies) as human beings with rights (but no responsibilities), and that’s far less than the general view in the UK where the view is often they are parasites with valueless shareholders. I wonder if a company with a well known single owner (amazon/bezos, spacex/musk) is also thou…

No, it's just that American English in general is much less free with the use of plural agreement with collective singular nouns. So e.g. "My team are" is much less acceptable in American English than in British English.
Post reply on HN