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

Post by fsflover » Wed, Jun 17, 2020, 6:48 PM UTC

gonehome wrote: post #100

damanamathos wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think their concern is paedophile rings using large group E2EE for live child abuse with completely anonymous accounts.

Yeah - I'm pretty sure this is the real concern and verifying a phone number is reasonable trade-off. I know this argument is often quickly dismissed on HN since people see child abuse or 'going dark' as an easy excuse for the government to leverage to get more control (and it has been used for this), but that doesn't mean the problem isn't serious or doesn't exist. See this: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/…

Post by fsflover » Wed, Jun 17, 2020, 6:49 PM UTC

Aunche wrote: post #103

fsflover wrote: post #6

"To make this possible, Free/Basic users seeking access to E2EE will participate in a one-time process that will prompt the user for additional pieces of information, such as verifying a phone number via a text message. Many leading companies perform similar steps on account creation to reduce the mass creation of abusive accounts." Perfect instrument to collect more personal data.

Is there any E2EE app that doesn't require verification? Whatsapp does. Even Signal requires a phone number.

Post by EGreg » Wed, Jun 17, 2020, 6:51 PM UTC

reaperducer wrote: post #200

hypewatch wrote: post #93

I find this story arch with Zoom amusing: 1. Pre-COVID Zoom claims it has E2E encryption for everyone. 2. During COVID Zoom grows in popularity, which prompts journalists to learn that the claims that Zoom has E2E encryption are inaccurate. 3. Zoom admits that it never had true E2E encryption, but announces they will develop it and it will only be available for paying customers. 4. Zoom gets another wave of criticism…

Another way of looking at it is that Zoom is learning from its mistakes and making improvements that the market demands. I'm no Zoom fan (I'd even use BlueJeans first), but people on HN are always so eager to crucify a company for its past. If it made mistakes, get out the tar and feathers! If it doesn't fix those mistakes, get out more tar and feathers! If it fixes the mistakes, even more tar and feathers!

Post by edmundsauto » Wed, Jun 17, 2020, 6:52 PM UTC

shaggyfrog wrote: post #106

topher200 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This blog post specifically says that it's a walk-back of the policy announced in your link.

Why trust any company that put out the initial policy in the first place? Have they had a fundamental turnover in management, indicating a new pro-privacy culture? Did they move their development out from under the thumb of the CCP? No and no? So what’s changed? If they weren’t trustworthy before, they certainly aren’t now.

Post by boogies » Wed, Jun 17, 2020, 6:53 PM UTC

reaperducer wrote: post #200

hypewatch wrote: post #93

I find this story arch with Zoom amusing: 1. Pre-COVID Zoom claims it has E2E encryption for everyone. 2. During COVID Zoom grows in popularity, which prompts journalists to learn that the claims that Zoom has E2E encryption are inaccurate. 3. Zoom admits that it never had true E2E encryption, but announces they will develop it and it will only be available for paying customers. 4. Zoom gets another wave of criticism…

Another way of looking at it is that Zoom is learning from its mistakes and making improvements that the market demands. I'm no Zoom fan (I'd even use BlueJeans first), but people on HN are always so eager to crucify a company for its past. If it made mistakes, get out the tar and feathers! If it doesn't fix those mistakes, get out more tar and feathers! If it fixes the mistakes, even more tar and feathers!