3 ms·
HN commenters didn't require cookie warnings: the EU & California governments did. Somewhat ironic for someone taking so much care to maintain an anonymous 'th
by gojomo 7y ago
HN commenters didn't require cookie warnings: the EU & California governments did.
Somewhat ironic for someone taking so much care to maintain an anonymous 'thoraway' account to give so little weight to other users' desire for robust privacy, that doesn't collapse via confusing docs/interfaces & transient accidents.
- thoraway1010 7y agoMy point is companies / policies made based on misleading headlines is often user unfriendly. If you think privacy is enhanced by all these cookie warnings (when YOU can control / clear etc your cookies) you are probably mistaken. If Zoom goes to full E2E encrypted chat (this means on-boarding is FAR more complicated than clicking a totally simple URL with some digits) they will likely loose a lot of their market. If they go to E2E encrypted chat and block users from downloading their own chat, even more market share lost.
- gojomo 7y agoNobody but bureaucrats think the cookie warnings are ay good. I advocate self-help, like using the Brave browser. But the issue here is not your nonsensical digression into cookie warnings. It is: Zoom's docs & UI are confusing ordinary, mass users into inadvertently revealing private chats. Zoom should fix that. I believe a simple baseline fix would be: offer 2 downloads, one clearly marked/named as "shared transcript - what all participants saw", another clearly marked/named as "personal transcript - what you saw".
- thoraway1010 7y agoThat's a great feature request - but the current zoom feature is simply not "private chat text is actually public".