Zoom lied to users about end-to-end encryption for years, FTC says
1–10 of 438 posts
Re: Zoom lied to users about end-to-end encryption for years, FTC says
#2"[S]ince at least 2016, Zoom misled users by touting that it offered 'end-to-end, 256-bit encryption' to secure users' communications, when in fact it provided a lower level of security," the FTC said today in the announcement of its complaint against Zoom and the tentative settlement. Despite promising end-to-end encryption, the FTC said that "Zoom maintained the cryptographic keys that could allow Zoom to access the content of its customers' meetings, and secured its Zoom Meetings, in part, with a lower level of encryption than promised."
That's the concept of E2Z2EE (End2Zoom2End Encryption)
Re: Zoom lied to users about end-to-end encryption for years, FTC says
#3"[S]ince at least 2016, Zoom misled users by touting that it offered 'end-to-end, 256-bit encryption' to secure users' communications, when in fact it provided a lower level of security," the FTC said today in the announcement of its complaint against Zoom and the tentative settlement. Despite promising end-to-end encryption, the FTC said that "Zoom maintained the cryptographic keys that could allow Zoom to access th…
Customers or users? There’s a huge difference between the 2, and this excerpt uses the 2 words like if those were interchangeable.
Re: Zoom lied to users about end-to-end encryption for years, FTC says
#4No! Corporations lie?!
At least their feet will held to the fire!
/s
Tbh though, they will only be held to account, if another big player wants to cripple them and take their market.
Re: Zoom lied to users about end-to-end encryption for years, FTC says
#5So 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?
Re: Zoom lied to users about end-to-end encryption for years, FTC says
#6"[S]ince at least 2016, Zoom misled users by touting that it offered 'end-to-end, 256-bit encryption' to secure users' communications, when in fact it provided a lower level of security," the FTC said today in the announcement of its complaint against Zoom and the tentative settlement. Despite promising end-to-end encryption, the FTC said that "Zoom maintained the cryptographic keys that could allow Zoom to access th…
Customers or users? There’s a huge difference between the 2, and this excerpt uses the 2 words like if those were interchangeable.
What's the difference? Aren't they the same group of people in this context?
Re: Zoom lied to users about end-to-end encryption for years, FTC says
#7Re: Zoom lied to users about end-to-end encryption for years, FTC says
#8If 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.
Re: Zoom lied to users about end-to-end encryption for years, FTC says
#9So 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?
In a world where US and EU are willing to ban Signal because it doesn't allow a 'master key', Zoom is the BFF of governments and regulators.
Re: Zoom lied to users about end-to-end encryption for years, FTC says
#10"[S]ince at least 2016, Zoom misled users by touting that it offered 'end-to-end, 256-bit encryption' to secure users' communications, when in fact it provided a lower level of security," the FTC said today in the announcement of its complaint against Zoom and the tentative settlement. Despite promising end-to-end encryption, the FTC said that "Zoom maintained the cryptographic keys that could allow Zoom to access th…
Customers or users? There’s a huge difference between the 2, and this excerpt uses the 2 words like if those were interchangeable.
I think a better distinction is 'paying customers' and 'non-paying customers'. Customers being a subset of users after all makes it a bit ambiguous.
Not that it should matter in the context of the feature being described.