3 ms·
> But we also recognize and respect the view of others that say they don’t want to have an extra process installed on their local machine. So that’s why we made
by smaili 7y ago
> But we also recognize and respect the view of others that say they don’t want to have an extra process installed on their local machine. So that’s why we made the decision to remove that component — despite the fact that it’s going to require an extra click from Safari.
Am I reading this correctly, their CIO believes it's the "extra process" that people are concerned about -- not the webcam vulnerability?
- Bluestrike2 7y agoAmusingly enough, they never actually describe that part as a vulnerability in their blog post. It's a "concern" about a "seamless join process." The word only gets used with regards to the DOS vulnerability, which is only part of the problem. I get the need to at least try and spin things, but it's kind of obvious in this example. And given how people tend to get antsy when they start thinking about possibly being spied on through their webcams, downplaying it is probably counterproductive.