101–110 of 438 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like a class action lawsuit? I think there have to be evidence of damage done in that case.
You can sue directly, no? The damage should be easy, you thought you bought something and weren't delivered it, so just refund all costs.
if security is that much important to you, your company may be you, your company should build a communication platform for itself right!? you, people should believe or trust no one! thats the number one rule for [e2e, or else] security I think.
So will they get fined more than Snapchat for lying about ephemeral messaging or will this be the usual American "slap on the wrist" thing we usually see to protect the investors?
>"Today, the Federal Trade Commission has voted to propose a settlement with Zoom that follows an unfortunate FTC formula," FTC Democratic Commissioner Rohit Chopra said. "The settlement provides no help for affected users. It does nothing for small businesses that relied on Zoom's data protection claims. And it does not require Zoom to pay a dime. The Commission must change course."
Under the settlement, "Zoom is not required to offer redress, refunds, or even notice to its customers that material claims regarding the security of its services were false," Democratic Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter said. "This failure of the proposed settlement does a disservice to Zoom's customers, and substantially limits the deterrence value of the case."
If Zoom made clear to users that connections were not secured to the same standards as competitors, and that potentially hundreds of employees could be silently listening in on any call, I think that would have prevented them becoming a leader in video conference tech. So the right fine here is their entire market cap. That would put them back at square one, which is where an honest competitor would be right now.
FaceTime is the big E2E service. Most anything else allows dial in, and is not E2E. Zoom’s sin is bad marketing copy.
If Zoom made clear to users that connections were not secured to the same standards as competitors, and that potentially hundreds of employees could be silently listening in on any call, I think that would have prevented them becoming a leader in video conference tech. So the right fine here is their entire market cap. That would put them back at square one, which is where an honest competitor would be right now.
Some reports say the whole video conferencing market, being very optimistic, will reach $50B in 2026 (considering Covid-19 - https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/video-conferenc... ) But Zoom, alone, already has a marketcap of $117.534B ( https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/ZM/ ) I really think there is an unsustainable distortion happening.
Yes, soon any website can have their own videoconferencing using web technology like WebRTC. And implementation will be as simple as running "npm install".
> But Zoom, alone, already has a marketcap of $117.534B
Yes. Zoom having a market cap that's more than half of Intel? Come on now ...
All they had to do was say "encrypted" instead of explicitly saying "end-to-end encrypted" when it very clearly wasn't end-to-end. The former still could've been a bit weaselly and misleading (many non-technical users would probably have assumed "encrypted" implied total confidentiality), but what they actually did was so much worse. I hope they get hit hard on that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Skype was better before the MS aquisition... and it used to be P2P. It'd be nice if the pre-MS source would leak somehow.
I think you may be viewing history through slightly rose-tinted glasses there - I used pre-MS Skype a lot and it was never anywhere near as reliable as Zoom is and didn't support group video chat at all. And the fact that it was P2P meant that some features that everyone would expect to work these days (offline messages, mobile support) were simply not possible at all.
Pretty scandalous stuff. But to be fair it seems pretty likely that any or all of the major players (Apple, Google, MS, Facebook, AWS, etc) to be maintaining some sort of back-door access to the channels they control for spying purposes. I suppose the risk with Zoom is leaks due to incompetence rather than leaks due to government intervention.
Incompetence? That Zoom team has been working on video communication for many many years over in China.
https://www.acquired.fm/episodes/the-zoom-ipo-with-santi-sub...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much actual reputational damage could they have possibly endured? I haven't noticed any fewer people using Zoom. It's a consent order. They're willingly agreeing to it in order to avoid other costs (like fines and a lengthy trial). There's no "forced to" involved.
> I haven't noticed any fewer people using Zoom. I think this probably varies a lot between social groups; I know of many people (including non-technical) who were motivated to explore alternatives after reading news articles about Zoom's behaviour. A bunch of non-technical friends subsequently started to use meet.jit.si for meeting up, playing board games, etc, for example.
What other popular group video meeting tools are e2e? I know of none. I remember reading a while back that Zoom claimed a few times they were e2e-encrypted, but what they meant was transport encryption.
If you want my popular products then nobody can answer because you'd know of them already. So I'll generalize to what group video tools are e2ee: -> Jami (according to their website, I only ever used their chat and regular one-on-one calls) -> Wire (client and server open source, but not community-lead development) -> WhatsApp (if you trust Facebook, proprietary back-end) And if you consider open source & on-premises…
Some notes:
- Wire has published a detailed whitepaper on e2ee. https://wire-docs.wire.com/download/Wire+Security+Whitepaper...
- Jami (formerly GNU Ring) has an interesting post about having e2e here: https://security.stackexchange.com/a/162603/243716
- Jitsi e2e is testable, but they note that it's not completely finished. Key exchange has to be done manually.
- https://github.com/bigbluebutton/bigbluebutton/issues/9893 suggests BigBlueButton don't have e2e yet
- Wikipedia claims "no encryption protocol" for OpenMeetings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenMeetings
---
So that leaves Wire and Jami. Thanks for the info!