4 ms·
A company this prominent is unlikely to be that incompetent. Malice is more probable at this point, Hanlon's razor notwithstanding.
by loup-vaillant 7y ago
A company this prominent is unlikely to be that incompetent. Malice is more probable at this point, Hanlon's razor notwithstanding.
- diggan 7y agoEh, haven't large companies leaked private details from their customers time and time again, in basic ways like forgetting that they have backups on S3 buckets with zero protection? Being incompetent has nothing to do with the size or prominence of the company. Big/prominent companies fuck up/are sloppy all the time.
- welfare 7y agoThis is not a fuck up or negligence, Zoom deliberately used "end-to-end" with a completely different meaning than the rest of the world. I can't describe this as anything else than malicious and fraudulent. Their intention was to deceive users that the communication was encrypted, when in reality it wasn't.
- diggan 7y agoI guess you don't have experience working in a company with a marketing team that feel they can buzzword things in without checking with IT teams then. I'm in no way saying it's impossible that Zoom did say E2E encryption while knowing that's not true, but I could imagine a scenario where a security person says "Yeah, we're encrypting connections to our backend" and a marketing person researching E2E and then saying to themselves "Yeah, sounds like we're doing E2E, let's write that", because this stuff happens all the time in the industry. > Their intention was to deceive users You sound so sure about their intentions, do you have any actual proof of this that others are missing? Again, I'm not saying it's impossible that their intention was to deceive users, but as an engineer, I always favor proof over guessing.