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

Zoom closes account of U.S.-based Chinese activist after Tiananmen event

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 562 posts

Re: Zoom closes account of U.S.-based Chinese activist after Tiananmen event

#551

Post by kd913 »

stronglikedan wrote: post #529
_b3dj wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The government of Taiwan banned official use of Zoom due to security concerns, as have New York State schools, the U.S. Senate, and the German ministry of foreign affairs. This is good enough reason to not use it. Also I stopped using zoom and trying to avoiding it as much as possible after the very first vulnerability scandal[0] came about [0] https://medium.com/bugbountywriteup/zoom-zero-day-4-million-...

Is there a non-Zoom client that can connect to Zoom meetings? My company implemented RingCentral about a year ago, which appears to just use a rebranded Zoom architecture for the online meeting component. They're not going to get rid of it anytime soon.

I may be wrong, but Firefox 76 made some hooplah over supporting zoom in browser.

Re: Zoom closes account of U.S.-based Chinese activist after Tiananmen event

#552

Post by [deleted] »

jedberg wrote: post #421
pvg wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really much of a comparison if you pick things like 'the security mechanism breaks in some way' and no similar failure modes of the 'no security' variant. It's a serious usability problem if an insecure interaction gives you bogus information or if all your accounts are compromised because you use the same password everywhere.

But that’s the point. Security introduces new failure modes that make usability worse. Again I’m not saying it’s bad, quite the opposite. I’m just saying we have to acknowledge it’s always a trade off.

[deleted]

Re: Zoom closes account of U.S.-based Chinese activist after Tiananmen event

#553

Post by strogonoff »

jedberg wrote: post #421
pvg wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really much of a comparison if you pick things like 'the security mechanism breaks in some way' and no similar failure modes of the 'no security' variant. It's a serious usability problem if an insecure interaction gives you bogus information or if all your accounts are compromised because you use the same password everywhere.

But that’s the point. Security introduces new failure modes that make usability worse. Again I’m not saying it’s bad, quite the opposite. I’m just saying we have to acknowledge it’s always a trade off.

Generalizing your point, introducing or expanding on any feature or functionality always implies proportional degradation of some other feature via new failure modes. (“Security feature” being a special case.)

First, does that always hold true?

Second—if we pretend it’s an axiom—careful and competent approach may allow to shift such degradation to aspects orthogonal to usability (instead of being perceivable by end user, failure modes could cause overhead, say, to maintenance or engineering teams).

Re: Zoom closes account of U.S.-based Chinese activist after Tiananmen event

#554

Post by mstade »

nix23 wrote: post #506
mstade wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jitsi is great! If they can figure out a good webinar solution it could be an absolute killer. As it stands, it's (in my opinion) really just useful for small scale interactive meetings at this point, not 100+ participant events. It's really great as a face-to-face solution though, where Zoom and many others are actually kind of overkill.

I cant imagine being productive with 100+ peoples in a video-conference (not even real ones), are you making raves/partys over Jitsy?

I should've made it clear when I say "events" I mean more webinar style events. 100+ participant meetings where everyone is an equal participant isn't useful, but that sort of thing isn't uncommon if you're holding all hands calls or annual shareholder meetings etc.

Re: Zoom closes account of U.S.-based Chinese activist after Tiananmen event

#555

Post by nix23 »

mstade wrote: post #554
nix23 wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cant imagine being productive with 100+ peoples in a video-conference (not even real ones), are you making raves/partys over Jitsy?

I should've made it clear when I say "events" I mean more webinar style events. 100+ participant meetings where everyone is an equal participant isn't useful, but that sort of thing isn't uncommon if you're holding all hands calls or annual shareholder meetings etc.

Yeah but then a streaming solution with a separate voting/chat/messaging solution is the way to go.

Re: Zoom closes account of U.S.-based Chinese activist after Tiananmen event

#556

Post by feanaro »

chrisseaton wrote: post #528
feanaro wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would I necessarily assume my end-to-end encrypted calls with a trusted party are being surveilled?

Because your software may be compromised. Because your hardware may be compromised. Because their software may be compromised. Because their hardware may be compromised. Because the cryptographic algorithm you're using may be compromised. Because your 'trusted party' may be compromised. Because there may be a camera in your room. Because there may be a camera in their room. Lots of threat vectors, lots of reasons to…

Yes, and we may all be disembodied brains living in vats inside a teapot. This is why I don't find such arguments very compelling for showing we should necessarily assume we are being surveilled. The same argument can be applied to situations that have nothing to do with the internet too.

Those are certainly possible ways in which the surveillance could still be happening, because nothing is certain. But the argument is necessarily probabilistic (in the Bayesian sense) and not binary. So yes, I have to take this into account to determine my final risk, but there is no point in necessarily assuming I am being surveilled because then I might never do anything at all.

Re: Zoom closes account of U.S.-based Chinese activist after Tiananmen event

#557

Post by mstade »

nix23 wrote: post #555
mstade wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I should've made it clear when I say "events" I mean more webinar style events. 100+ participant meetings where everyone is an equal participant isn't useful, but that sort of thing isn't uncommon if you're holding all hands calls or annual shareholder meetings etc.

Yeah but then a streaming solution with a separate voting/chat/messaging solution is the way to go.

Well, no – not if you still need audience participation with video and/or audio. Things like annual/quarterly meetings and such where people have a right to speak etc. It's really not that different from a typical video conference, just that the moderator has controls to mute/unmute people and participants can't unmute themselves. Polling/voting/chat features I reckon are secondary I reckon.

Re: Zoom closes account of U.S.-based Chinese activist after Tiananmen event

#559

Post by kelnos »

odshoifsdhfs wrote: post #287
kelnos wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can anticipate the counter-argument to this: "well, discrimination based on race and gender is illegal, so they can't do that". Which is true, but kinda misses the point: it amounts to a position that discrimination and censorship is ok as long as it doesn't run afoul of local laws. If local laws reflect the totality of ethical and moral positions, that would be fine, but I think we all know that laws tend to fall…

The thing is, imo, we need to stand up for our values. Segregation ended because people raised up. Sexual Harassment laws the same. But seems now, if it is a Tech company, people judge them differently. Wether Facebook or Twitter or Zoom, 'oh I can vote with my feet'. But if that was the case 30-40-60 years ago, we wouldn't have the 'progress' we see now. And while I am opposed to child porn, if it is legal, I am not…

> And as your point stands, you are ok with shutting and account based on child porn (Assuming in this context it was legal), but would you be also for someone being banned documenting Police brutality in the BLM protests?

No, and that's exactly the point I'm trying to make. Perhaps I'm doing a bad job of it.

> Both are(in hypothetical) sense legal, so the only thing we have here is your own morality doing that judgement. And different cultures/religions will have different views on all that, thus I believe as long as it is legal, private companies should never have the right to censor 3rd party speech if they provide a platform for that speech.

And that's where I think you and I fundamentally differ in our beliefs. I think, absent a law either way, companies may -- and perhaps should -- feel free to exercise their own judgment about what they're comfortable broadcasting from their platform.

And again, why is "the law" so revered here? The law (at least in the US) is filled with racist and racist-enabling garbage. Why do we hold it as some final word on morality? I don't think we should. Changing the law takes time, effort, and money. Companies refusing to broadcast certain types of speech can be a part of activism and lobbying in order to change laws. And if ultimately the will of society is that this refusal is wrong, there are remedies (legal and economic) for that, too.

I believe I do understand your point of view; I just don't agree with it.

Re: Zoom closes account of U.S.-based Chinese activist after Tiananmen event

#560

Post by ekianjo »

guilamu wrote: post #511
ekianjo wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am more worried about dictatorships recording everything than other regimes. Does not excuse recording at all, just an appreciation of the level of risk.

Thanks for your reply, but I fail to see how a dictatorship would do worst things with these recordings than a democracy, say like the USA, UK or France, where intelligence services operate outside the law as Snowden (and many others) have shown over the last decade. Also, I see that I'm being downvoted and I would be really interested to know why I'm wrong. I mean it, I love the level of discussion here and I really…

Intelligence services may operate outside of the Law in pretty much all countries but the difference is that democracies typically have a Rule of Law as to how the data can be used against you. Not a perfect safeguard but way better than dictatorships where power has a blank check to do anything to you, anytime.
Post reply on HN