7 ms·

I'm surprised they're even allowed to use Zoom for a national cabinet meeting. Wouldn't the Gov have its own video chatting software that is self hosted?

L-four 7y ago
Yeah, but you have take your computer to the IT team.
Zenst 7y ago
Number 10 has had Video Conferencing since 1998 (I set it up with college and received first call from there), was H320 via ISDN2 affair and had dedicated black box encryption unit GCHQ supplied and dealt with. DOH (Department of Health) also had dedicated VC rooms as did all the regional officers and MCU bridging for multi point conferencing was outsourced when needed. All main DOH sites could do upto 384 with bonded ISDN line (UK ISDN was 64k per channel and seperate D channel, no bit stealing going on here). That without a doubt all changed many times and somewhat supprised they are using Zoom, and would of thought at least would of contracted to run their own private server connected via VPN. Very supprised and when American politicians all loved their blackberry's, they had their own dedicated servers they controlled access to, supplied by RIM. But the DOH and all the other government departments are entities unto themselves, and I'm not that up on anything the last couple of decades, but suspect that there isn't any common solution to enable what they need to do for remote working in isolation. I'm sure much will change after this. Also fairly sure GCHQ probably bashing their heads on the table. But I can see how they got to where they are, knowing aspects of government workings and departmental fencing, still - does kinda make you go WTF still.
- harry8 7y ago
  >Also fairly sure GCHQ probably bashing their heads on the table. Not nearly hard enough. Not even close to hard enough. They need help with that, possibly with heavy machinery.
  - girvo 7y ago
    A hydraulic press could be useful here, I think.
  - simonh 7y ago
    There is absolutely now way GCHQ signed off on this.
    - harry8 7y ago
      And yet they are powerless. Back to recording private conversations like the Stasi then. What a wonderful institution. They're useful how, exactly? Not smacking their heads into the table nearly hard enough. Not even close.
      - ben_w 7y ago
        That hyperbole might be an improvement. Literally copying the literal Stasi approach to spying (not the rest, just spying) would simultaneously improve the quality of the data and reduce the negative side effects relative to the UK’s Investigatory Powers Act 2016.
      - simonh 7y ago
        By definition, in their line of work if you knew exactly how useful and effective they were they would not be doing their job properly. They report to the UK government, not to you and not to me even though I am a UK citizen (as you may be, I don't know). They have worked for governments lead by or including all three main political parties in the UK and they all decided they were useful enough to them to keep, in pursuing their goals on behalf of the people who elected them. That's good enough for me.
        harry8 7y ago
        But we do know how effective they aren't. And we do know that they have placed themselves above the law. If that doesn't concern you it really should. The macho pose that comes out everytime someone suggests they should be subject to, you know, the law and behave better than Stalin's henchmen is very worrying. So who is the politician who will is effective enough to provide true oversight and rein them in when required. Name that politician. Any party. Do you see the problem now?
- cs02rm0 7y ago
  They'll undoubtedly have new iterations of that, based on the same premise that they install and own the kit at each end. I suspect Zoom just happens to be the choice this particular group has settled on. While across government people have been scrabbling to just make something work now that security's previous modus operandi is being trumped by the need to let people work from home. Government even more than the private sector have been slow to allow for home working. I'm hopeful this will change that.
- whazor 7y ago
  I think video chatting with normal citizens would be quite difficult if you expect them to install VPN's and special video conference software that probably only works with gov.uk accounts. Grabbing a random laptop, connecting to the internet and using zoom sounds a lot easier.
  - ben_w 7y ago
    The link shared by @verytrivial to Boris Johnson’s twitter account isn’t showing “normal citizens”, it is showing the executive branch of the UK, plus an account identified only as “iPhone” who has their camera and microphone switched off.
    - tadhgf 7y ago
      Dominic Cummings?
  - tomcooks 7y ago
    In 2020 open source conferencing software requires ZERO software apart from any recent browser or login. e.g. https://meet.jit.si/hellozoomhowareyou https://meet.jit.si/hellozoomhowareyou
jorvi 7y ago
In general (moreso focused on the EU than the Brits) I've never understood why the EU doesn't pump a billion a year, or a billion worth of dev hours a year into open source. That's an absolutely tiny, almost infitismal amount of EU budget (and even tinier for most member states their budget) and it would allow them to get out of the noose of closed source corporate support contracts and being beholden to foreign companies. Imagine how much a billion a year would accomplish spread over projects like LibreOffice, Matrix/Riot, an EU Linux distro, etc.
- hartem_ 7y ago
  Maybe because it wouldn’t solve the problem? Building a great product requires so much more than just the money needed to do it. If money was the only thing required, no startup would probably exist and everything would be built by either governments or large corporations.
  - _ph_ 7y ago
    Well the idea would of course be to use the budget to invest into suitable European startups. To create a market, where startups could operate and innovate.
- Leherenn 7y ago
  It's not billions, but the EU is funding some open source software. https://hexus.net/tech/news/software/125747-14-open-source-projects-get-eu-funding-bug-bounty-payments/ https://hexus.net/tech/news/software/125747-14-open-source-p... I think France is also funding/developing Matrix.
  - input_sh 7y ago
    FOSSA focuses on security audits, not development per se. There's also EU Public License (EUPL). One notable example of software that uses it is Pi-hole. One more interesting thing I can think of is Joinup, whose idea is to share solutions between administrations in the EU: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/ https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/
- 7y ago
shermheadryder 7y ago
You can self-host the video/audio parts of Zoom https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/201363093-Deploying-the-Meeting-Connector https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/201363093-Deployin...

L-four 7y ago

Yeah, but you have take your computer to the IT team.

Zenst 7y ago

Number 10 has had Video Conferencing since 1998 (I set it up with college and received first call from there), was H320 via ISDN2 affair and had dedicated black box encryption unit GCHQ supplied and dealt with. DOH (Department of Health) also had dedicated VC rooms as did all the regional officers and MCU bridging for multi point conferencing was outsourced when needed. All main DOH sites could do upto 384 with bonded ISDN line (UK ISDN was 64k per channel and seperate D channel, no bit stealing going on here). That without a doubt all changed many times and somewhat supprised they are using Zoom, and would of thought at least would of contracted to run their own private server connected via VPN. Very supprised and when American politicians all loved their blackberry's, they had their own dedicated servers they controlled access to, supplied by RIM. But the DOH and all the other government departments are entities unto themselves, and I'm not that up on anything the last couple of decades, but suspect that there isn't any common solution to enable what they need to do for remote working in isolation. I'm sure much will change after this. Also fairly sure GCHQ probably bashing their heads on the table. But I can see how they got to where they are, knowing aspects of government workings and departmental fencing, still - does kinda make you go WTF still.

harry8 7y ago
>Also fairly sure GCHQ probably bashing their heads on the table. Not nearly hard enough. Not even close to hard enough. They need help with that, possibly with heavy machinery.
- girvo 7y ago
  A hydraulic press could be useful here, I think.
- simonh 7y ago
  There is absolutely now way GCHQ signed off on this.
  - harry8 7y ago
    And yet they are powerless. Back to recording private conversations like the Stasi then. What a wonderful institution. They're useful how, exactly? Not smacking their heads into the table nearly hard enough. Not even close.
    - ben_w 7y ago
      That hyperbole might be an improvement. Literally copying the literal Stasi approach to spying (not the rest, just spying) would simultaneously improve the quality of the data and reduce the negative side effects relative to the UK’s Investigatory Powers Act 2016.
    - simonh 7y ago
      By definition, in their line of work if you knew exactly how useful and effective they were they would not be doing their job properly. They report to the UK government, not to you and not to me even though I am a UK citizen (as you may be, I don't know). They have worked for governments lead by or including all three main political parties in the UK and they all decided they were useful enough to them to keep, in pursuing their goals on behalf of the people who elected them. That's good enough for me.
      - harry8 7y ago
        But we do know how effective they aren't. And we do know that they have placed themselves above the law. If that doesn't concern you it really should. The macho pose that comes out everytime someone suggests they should be subject to, you know, the law and behave better than Stalin's henchmen is very worrying. So who is the politician who will is effective enough to provide true oversight and rein them in when required. Name that politician. Any party. Do you see the problem now?
cs02rm0 7y ago
They'll undoubtedly have new iterations of that, based on the same premise that they install and own the kit at each end. I suspect Zoom just happens to be the choice this particular group has settled on. While across government people have been scrabbling to just make something work now that security's previous modus operandi is being trumped by the need to let people work from home. Government even more than the private sector have been slow to allow for home working. I'm hopeful this will change that.
whazor 7y ago
I think video chatting with normal citizens would be quite difficult if you expect them to install VPN's and special video conference software that probably only works with gov.uk accounts. Grabbing a random laptop, connecting to the internet and using zoom sounds a lot easier.
- ben_w 7y ago
  The link shared by @verytrivial to Boris Johnson’s twitter account isn’t showing “normal citizens”, it is showing the executive branch of the UK, plus an account identified only as “iPhone” who has their camera and microphone switched off.
  - tadhgf 7y ago
    Dominic Cummings?
- tomcooks 7y ago
  In 2020 open source conferencing software requires ZERO software apart from any recent browser or login. e.g. https://meet.jit.si/hellozoomhowareyou https://meet.jit.si/hellozoomhowareyou

jorvi 7y ago

In general (moreso focused on the EU than the Brits) I've never understood why the EU doesn't pump a billion a year, or a billion worth of dev hours a year into open source. That's an absolutely tiny, almost infitismal amount of EU budget (and even tinier for most member states their budget) and it would allow them to get out of the noose of closed source corporate support contracts and being beholden to foreign companies. Imagine how much a billion a year would accomplish spread over projects like LibreOffice, Matrix/Riot, an EU Linux distro, etc.

hartem_ 7y ago
Maybe because it wouldn’t solve the problem? Building a great product requires so much more than just the money needed to do it. If money was the only thing required, no startup would probably exist and everything would be built by either governments or large corporations.
- _ph_ 7y ago
  Well the idea would of course be to use the budget to invest into suitable European startups. To create a market, where startups could operate and innovate.
Leherenn 7y ago
It's not billions, but the EU is funding some open source software. https://hexus.net/tech/news/software/125747-14-open-source-projects-get-eu-funding-bug-bounty-payments/ https://hexus.net/tech/news/software/125747-14-open-source-p... I think France is also funding/developing Matrix.
- input_sh 7y ago
  FOSSA focuses on security audits, not development per se. There's also EU Public License (EUPL). One notable example of software that uses it is Pi-hole. One more interesting thing I can think of is Joinup, whose idea is to share solutions between administrations in the EU: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/ https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/
7y ago

shermheadryder 7y ago

You can self-host the video/audio parts of Zoom https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/201363093-Deploying-the-Meeting-Connector https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/201363093-Deployin...