5 ms·

> 99.9% of people don't understand what end-to-end encryption is and why it is needed, because they think their calls are secure, when in fact they aren't. It i

> 99.9% of people don't understand what end-to-end encryption is and why it is needed, because they think their calls are secure, when in fact they aren't. It is actually our responsibility to make end-to-end encryption mainstream and to educate people. I'm an academic and a long-time Hacker News reader. It seems that the tech community has collectively decided that all internet communication -- of whatever sort -- should be secure, all the time. My first thought, is an outsider, is that this is unnecessarily anal-retentive. But upon reflection, I'm very grateful for this. The more anal-retentive that developers have to be, the less I have to be. If HN is so up in arms about this, it's a very good sign for Internet security overall. What is it that you'd educate me about? That someone could have snooped in on my departmental meeting? Before Covid-19, these meetings were held in in an open room, in an unlocked building where people walk in and out all day. Anyone with the desire to snoop would have had no difficulty. From what I understand, enough pressure is being placed on Zoom that they are cleaning up their act. From where I sit as an outsider, the system seems to mostly be working. I'm not angry at Zoom, but I'm very happy that others are.

CamperBob2 7y ago
What is it that you'd educate me about? That someone could have snooped in on my departmental meeting? Before Covid-19, these meetings were held in in an open room, in an unlocked building where people walk in and out all day. Anyone with the desire to snoop would have had no difficulty. I think the argument would be that you could secure those meetings if your management felt it was necessary. Many large companies have badge readers, cameras, and the like at various places in their buildings. If they need to hold a secure meeting, they can hold it in a secure area. With Zoom, there's no such thing as a secure area. Your company is basically forced to hold meetings in a wiretapped room.
rhizome 7y ago
If you have an office where random people can walk in off the street and out again unfettered, that's probably an even greater vulnerability to your company than anything Zoom is doing. It's like having a car company and saying, "I don't know why anybody would want seatbelts in their car, our cars explode when hit at over 5mph."
- impendia 7y ago
  >If you have an office where random people can walk in off the street and out again unfettered, that's probably an even greater vulnerability to your company than anything Zoom is doing. This is my point, in reverse. I work in a university. Thousands of students come each day, to attend class, to show up to professors' office hours, to attend special events. Having physical security in the building would be a huge pain, extremely impractical. I have never heard anyone call for it. Are there problems? Yes, but they are either minor or very rare. For example, sales reps for publishers will walk in and go to professors' offices door to door. A nuisance to be sure, but not that common. Occasionally there are more serious problems. For example, in 1978, a Stanford professor was murdered by a disgruntled former grad student [1]. If this sort of thing was even remotely common, I expect you'd see some building security. But it's not. In the analog world, on average people are just not all that concerned about security. I'm not terribly convinced that they should be. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Streleski https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Streleski
  - rhizome 7y ago
    Universities are kind of a special case, I wouldn't generalize on them.

CamperBob2 7y ago

What is it that you'd educate me about? That someone could have snooped in on my departmental meeting? Before Covid-19, these meetings were held in in an open room, in an unlocked building where people walk in and out all day. Anyone with the desire to snoop would have had no difficulty. I think the argument would be that you could secure those meetings if your management felt it was necessary. Many large companies have badge readers, cameras, and the like at various places in their buildings. If they need to hold a secure meeting, they can hold it in a secure area. With Zoom, there's no such thing as a secure area. Your company is basically forced to hold meetings in a wiretapped room.

rhizome 7y ago

If you have an office where random people can walk in off the street and out again unfettered, that's probably an even greater vulnerability to your company than anything Zoom is doing. It's like having a car company and saying, "I don't know why anybody would want seatbelts in their car, our cars explode when hit at over 5mph."

impendia 7y ago
>If you have an office where random people can walk in off the street and out again unfettered, that's probably an even greater vulnerability to your company than anything Zoom is doing. This is my point, in reverse. I work in a university. Thousands of students come each day, to attend class, to show up to professors' office hours, to attend special events. Having physical security in the building would be a huge pain, extremely impractical. I have never heard anyone call for it. Are there problems? Yes, but they are either minor or very rare. For example, sales reps for publishers will walk in and go to professors' offices door to door. A nuisance to be sure, but not that common. Occasionally there are more serious problems. For example, in 1978, a Stanford professor was murdered by a disgruntled former grad student [1]. If this sort of thing was even remotely common, I expect you'd see some building security. But it's not. In the analog world, on average people are just not all that concerned about security. I'm not terribly convinced that they should be. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Streleski https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Streleski
- rhizome 7y ago
  Universities are kind of a special case, I wouldn't generalize on them.