371–380 of 557 posts
This is the same company that said that it "won't encrypt free calls so it can work more with law enforcement"[1]. I'd stay away. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23399924
This blog post specifically says that it's a walk-back of the policy announced in your link.
> All Zoom users will continue to use AES 256 GCM transport encryption as the default encryption, one of the strongest encryption standards in use today. I’m glad that Zoom is finally implementing E2E encryption, but I hate that they have been (and still are) advertising “full encryption” and using jargon like “AES 256 GCM” to deceive users into thinking they’re using anything more than SSL.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It does imply avoiding a "middleman" No, it only implies avoiding a central server (and not even for every aspect of the service), you still run through routers, ISPs, NSA etc. If you are certain that there's no middleman, you don't need encryption. N.B. Maybe someone defines it in another way today, but when the term became popular, with Napster, it really meant simply not having a central server for certain funct…
The central server is the "middleman" as I am using that term. Routers are not middlemen under the meaning I am using. I am referring to peer-to-peer without any supernode forwarding traffic. No central server. There may be a "rendezvous server" involved in allowing two nodes to discover how to connect to one another, however that server does not route traffic. I never implied a need for encryption associated with pe…
Which I think it's pretty much how you defined it too in your (last) comment, so I'm not sure what we're debating.
The important thing was that no one reading these comments get the impression that the multitude of systems that describe themselves as "peer-to-peer" are for sure using "encryption that a middle man cannot decrypt".
---
> The parent comment asked about avoiding a middleman
Middle man in cryptography is anyone intercepting a message
---
> I have no idea what "end-to-end encryption" means, nor do I seek to know
Well, I don't mean to be rude, but then there's not much you can say in a discussion about encryption...
---
Look, the important thing was to underscore that the https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23554823 comment was (apparently) wrong, I don't have any interest in winning a battle, I appreciate your enthusiasm, you probably currently don't know everything about cryptography or networking and there's nothing wrong with that, no one is born expert and no one knows everything there is to know. I have to go to sleep, bye
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a difference between US based software (e.g. servers located in the US), vs a CEO that's from the US (or China in this case). If the argument is that Zoom the company has routes traffic to China etc then fine I can get behind that. But if the argument is the CEO is from China I find that problematic. I mean it's not like internment of Japanese Americans is ok if it's limited to only first gen. EDIT: Also sou…
> Also sounds like you're saying that it's ok to avoid doing business with someone based on national origin, which I also find problematic. Sure, it can be problematic. I've seen articles about how Russian people in the software industry are having a very hard time because of what Putin's regime does. It's not fair for the people who have nothing to do with Putin and no exposure to him. But what is the alternative? P…
I mean overall you really don’t find it an issue to blankedly judge an entire class of people based on what some people within that population does or could do?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes they will. You need to be thinking about LGBTQ people in many non-Western countries.
They are the 1%. 99% of people consider "privacy" a good value in abstract but will not lift a finger to protect their own privacy. It's virtue signalling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are the 1%. 99% of people consider "privacy" a good value in abstract but will not lift a finger to protect their own privacy. It's virtue signalling.
I absolutely hate the term virtue signalling. It's always reductive and dismissive. If I am willing to go a LITTLE out of my way to protect my privacy, but not a LOT out of my way, am I "just virtue signalling"? If I continue to use a privacy-less platform (e.g. zoom/instagram/facebook) but just exercise caution with what I say using that medium, is that also "just virtue signalling"? I agree, evidence shows most peo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anybody that trusts zoom with anything even slightly sensitive these days is completely nuts. Yes, we know its easy to use.
99% of people do not care about privacy. They won't switch programs because a nation state might spy on them.
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…
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…
You mean to imply that a business would just lie to customers? Come on, the market wouldn't permit that to happen! They'd lose all their customers! /s Edit: on a less sarcastic note, I'd be less critical of Zoom if their software were open source.
And they can be changed without you knowing it. Do you have a Fingerprint that what you get is what they share?