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

Zoom executive charged with disrupting meetings commemorating Tiananmen Square

justice.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 242 posts

Re: Zoom executive charged with disrupting meetings commemorating Tiananmen Square

#221

Post by webmaven »

spoonjim wrote: post #79
fma wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> video conferencing is one of the most challenging software products to deliver The smartest software engineers are in FAAGM, or so I've been told? > Second, F, A, A, G, and M do provide rock solid video conferencing. If they have solid products, then how did a no name company beat them? FWIW I'll have to disagree with you on 'solid products'. My wife runs a learning center that went virtual. I evaluated very produc…

A no name company beat them because they provide video conferencing to support their other businesses (except M). Apple hands out free FaceTime to move Apple devices, they don’t care about the video conferencing market itself. Also, the Microsoft competitor isn’t Skype, it’s Teams.

> Also, the Microsoft competitor isn’t Skype, it’s Teams.

How so?

Re: Zoom executive charged with disrupting meetings commemorating Tiananmen Square

#222

Post by jariel »

rixed wrote: post #159
jariel wrote: post #14

The real issue is how such a fundamentally important thing - video communications - isn't rock solid and a commodity by now such that any of FAANG, Verizon/AT&T and a host of others don't provide it as easy as anything else. Imagine if you thought CCP were reading your emails? Would your company/school/government use that service? I don't think so. Having supply chain problems for ASICS is one thing. But 'video confe…

At this stage "nailing it down" means creating a good protocol that can be standardised upon. This is what the tech world cannot do any longer since it became driven by market forces. Market is not the right process for building good standards, the closest it can grow is monopoles. Committees are admittedly not the panacea either. Unfortunately we can't go back to the scale of the small tribe where it's easier for th…

An industry standard is not needed for any single entity to do it well.

Re: Zoom executive charged with disrupting meetings commemorating Tiananmen Square

#223

Post by goatinaboat »

nonfamous wrote: post #219
goatinaboat wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of this CCP poison inside Zoom must be a huge gift to Microsoft Teams. Teams has its own bizarre self-inflicted limitations. For example a limit of only 9 people on screen at once whose positions constantly and randomly change. Having used all of them if you have decent sized screens e.g. 28" or better and are presenting to a group or 20-30 people and want to be able to gauge feedback from faces as you would do i…

Teams now supports 49 people onscreen.

Teams now supports 49 people onscreen.

Thanks for the tip, I'll check for a new version, but I am running the Microsoft Autoupdater and as of earlier this week, it was still doing the 9-people-only thing and randomly shuffling around.

Re: Zoom executive charged with disrupting meetings commemorating Tiananmen Square

#224

Post by dehrmann »

ComodoHacker wrote: post #179
dehrmann wrote: post #22

> Jin’s co-conspirators created fake email accounts and Company-1 accounts in the names of others, including PRC political dissidents, to fabricate evidence that the hosts of and participants in the meetings to commemorate the Tiananmen Square massacre were supporting terrorist organizations, inciting violence or distributing child pornography. The fabricated evidence falsely asserted that the meetings included discu…

Framing was a mean, the goal was to disrupt meetings. Complaint-bombing has become a popular technique to silence opinions on public platforms.

But framing was also the alleged crime: conspiracy to commit interstate harassment. If Zoom had disabled the user accounts or the meeting (which I'd argue are also "disrupting meetings"), there might not have been a crime.

Re: Zoom executive charged with disrupting meetings commemorating Tiananmen Square

#225

Post by m-p-3 »

sneak wrote: post #77
generalizations wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's been mentioned on hn before, but it sure seems like we should look twice at anyone who gets charged with child pornography - could be someone getting framed.

Forget the charge - we should strive to presume the innocence of anyone charged with anything. Bringing charges is not evidence.

And being charged publicly is basically a mandatory social sentence, even if you end up being acquitted.

Re: Zoom executive charged with disrupting meetings commemorating Tiananmen Square

#226

Post by tehjoker »

rayiner wrote: post #216
tehjoker wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Charges filed means they've pissed off someone powerful, no more no less. It's up to you to evaluate the evidence based on what's publicly known. Generally when the government doesn't show its evidence, it should be treated with extreme skepticism.

The DOJ press release had a link right at the bottom to the 47 page indictment “showing the evidence.” https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1347146/downl...

I don't mean necessarily in this case, but I did mean in general. However, simply pointing out a section heading isn't enough (and I didn't see anything on page 47). What do you think of the evidence they presented?

Additionally, grand juries are well known to simply be tools of the prosecution with >90% of grand jury presentations voting to indict, in part because the prosecutor can present whatever narrative they want, in secret, without any checks other than their conscience without a counter narrative.

Re: Zoom executive charged with disrupting meetings commemorating Tiananmen Square

#227

Post by tehjoker »

nyokodo wrote: post #168
rixed wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, the parent was not comparing those governments from a democracy standpoint, but was comparing their actions. Surely the Chinese government is currently more oppressive to its own population than the USG is, but it is also doubtlessly less oppressive to foreign populations, which may suggests that they differ in circumstances more than in essence and maybe why the parent equated them?

Tibetans might beg to differ on the CCP being less oppressive to foreign populations.

https://medium.com/race-class-history/tibet-the-dalai-lama-f...

Re: Zoom executive charged with disrupting meetings commemorating Tiananmen Square

#228

Post by tehjoker »

Aarostotle wrote: post #123
tehjoker wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think companies operating under the influence of the USG are better you've got another thing coming. EDIT: I like that whenever I post something negative about the USG in an anti-China thread, I go to -4 then bounce up later. It could be people are really that nationalistic. Who knows.

No, it’s just apples and oranges. The USA is a flawed constitutional republic that runs on a messy democratic process. It’s ugly sometimes, but it’s fundamentally good. The PRC is something else.

The US is an anti-majoritarian country of the elites that has enough advertising to convince people that they feel free while the elites control every aspect of their lives. While there are levels to this, it would be a huge mistake to regard this place as fundamentally good outside of a few sentences snipped from the declaration of independence.

Re: Zoom executive charged with disrupting meetings commemorating Tiananmen Square

#229

Post by ashtonkem »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #148
indolering wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have brown friends who get searched every time they are pulled over or go through airport security. I have had friends who were told to STFU and take a frequenting ticket or spend the night in jail (and thus risk losing their minimum wage job). I even had a friend who was led to a cop car by the FBI but (thankfully) he refused to get in because there was a mysterious baggie in the back (which was surreptitiously sp…

Since we're cherrypicking, I was reading over https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_roulette#Notable_incid... and found this gem: On July 24, 1973, Dallas Police Officer Darrell L. Cain fatally shot Santos Rodriguez, a 12-year-old Mexican-American child, while interrogating him and his brother about a burglary. Cain shot Rodriguez while conducting Russian roulette on the brothers in an attempt to force a confession f…

Only a cop would get away with serving half of their sentence (and not a day more than the minimum) after shooting a child in the head on purpose.

Re: Zoom executive charged with disrupting meetings commemorating Tiananmen Square

#230

Post by ashtonkem »

Buttons840 wrote: post #163
sillysaurusx wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since we're cherrypicking, I was reading over https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_roulette#Notable_incid... and found this gem: On July 24, 1973, Dallas Police Officer Darrell L. Cain fatally shot Santos Rodriguez, a 12-year-old Mexican-American child, while interrogating him and his brother about a burglary. Cain shot Rodriguez while conducting Russian roulette on the brothers in an attempt to force a confession f…

The officer was charged and convicted and spent 2.5 (two and a half) years in jail. I'm 100% serious.

Half of what the sentence was, and the minimum legal jail time for that crime.
Post reply on HN