Zoom lied to users about end-to-end encryption for years, FTC says

Post by kryogen1c » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 4:47 PM UTC

vorpalhex wrote: post #254

kryogen1c wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't understand why people trust them or still use their product if they are at all concerned about security. I've been a Zoom apologist from the beginning, and this is the money shot for me. What exactly do you mean by "security"? You're concerned zoom servers are recording your video - on purpose or because theyre compromised? thats too much data to dragnet (even for the NSA), so you think the servers are reco…

Therapists, lawyers, courts including closed door courts, confidential internal meetings for publically traded companies, doctors appointments, exchanging passwords/etc. Even my mom just telling me about a medical situation she's having. All of those have legal requirements for privacy, and many of them used Zoom because it was supposed to meet those requirements. Zoom lied and failed to meet those requirements. Ther…

Post by golemotron » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 4:51 PM UTC

Post by wsinks » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 4:56 PM UTC

bborud wrote: post #259

wsinks wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi there! I'm in the video meeting space, and always looking to find that blend between usable and secure. I'm curious - is there a video service out there you would recommend if you're conscious about security? Your third paragraph makes me think your opinion will be that no large company can be trusted, because they become a target for nation-state regulatory bodies.

Yes, although there are degrees and differences in culture. For instance in the telco world you have a much more direct dependence on regulators because you need a stack of expensive and hard to acquire licenses to operate a network in most parts of the world. Some worse than others. In that environment there is a very high degree of compliance with regulators because they have to be given explicit permission to oper…

Post by jkepler » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 5:07 PM UTC

mysterydip wrote: post #74

Spearchucker wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once can't just delegate responsibility like that. Any company should enage in some form of due dilligence before procuring software. If there are expecations of privacy then those should be proven by the company procuring the software, not the vendor.

How would you verify e2e encryption on a proprietary protocol? Not every company that cares about privacy has crypto experts on staff. They should have a reasonable expectation that the vendor is telling the truth.

Post by wolco2 » Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 5:15 PM UTC

acoard wrote: post #246

desilentio wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I didn't think in terms of degrees of untrustworthiness. What I miss is an open-source alternative. Doesn't Microsoft let the NSA tap into Skype calls?

>Doesn't Microsoft let the NSA tap into Skype calls? Yes, but it seems like Skype was doing that prior to being acquired (though Microsoft seems to have accelerated things). From some quick Googling to refresh on PRISM – >• In July last year, nine months after Microsoft bought Skype, the NSA boasted that a new capability had tripled the amount of Skype video calls being collected through Prism; >• Microsoft helped th…