4 ms·

Errr what? Their development team is entirely based out of China. Please, spare me the rubbish about anti-China rhetoric. This has nothing to do with the Chin

by atonse 7y ago

Errr what? Their development team is entirely based out of China. Please, spare me the rubbish about anti-China rhetoric. This has nothing to do with the Chinese people or culture. I clarified that this is for local _government_ clients. It absolutely matters, whether you get offended or not. I also mentioned that my company is a Zoom customer and this move generally has me happy. We had the same conversation about Russian owned antivirus companies months ago as well. I understand there is legitimate concern about anti-Asian rhetoric. I just wanted to clarify that it's not where I'm coming from. As someone who introduced Keybase to these clients, these questions are going to come to me. And I want to have an answer for my government clients for this legitimate concern.

oefrha 7y ago
This “development team entirely based out of China” bullshit is so easily debunked it’s not even funny. A simple glance at the list of open positions could tell you it’s false. https://zoom.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/Zoom https://zoom.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/Zoom
- richardwhiuk 7y ago
  Unless they've made a major shift, it's definitely true: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/26/zoom-key-profit-driver-ahead-of-ipo-engineers-in-china.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/26/zoom-key-profit-driver-ahead...
  - oefrha 7y ago
    It’s pretty hard to argue with someone who can’t see the difference between largely and entirely.
    - samatman 7y ago
      If you have reason to be concerned about the CCP undermining your communications infrastructure, it's a distinction without a difference. Like yes, you're correct, the person you're replying to is wrong. But the reason they brought it up remains valid with the correction.
      - oefrha 7y ago
        If someone first makes a false accusation, then post a “correction” only to double down on a lesser yet still false accusation, I’d say it’s reason enough to conclude that they’re arguing in bad faith and attempting to slander. You don’t need to spread false information to make a possibly valid point. People also increasingly use this sort of “yeah, they play fast and loose with facts but they have a point so cheers” to defend garbage journalism and I’m not a fan at all.
        atonse 7y ago
        If you're getting hung up about the difference of me saying "entirely" and "largely" – yeah ok you're right. Mathematically, for the word "entirely" to be true, it would have to be every single breathing soul at zoom that ever touches any tech. I actually did mis-read from an older article that all their development is done in China (the language is that their R&D and tech teams are concentrated in China). Hence I said entirely. But yes let's go with largely. This is an argument about who has jurisdiction to force the altering of parts of their tech stack. Entirely vs Largely: Does that do _anything_ to alter my concerns? Nope.
        seppin 7y ago
        > If someone first makes a false accusation, then post a “correction” only to double down on a lesser yet still false accusation, I’d say it’s reason enough to conclude that they’re arguing in bad faith and attempting to slander. You aren't listening to what he's saying: "If you have reason to be concerned about the CCP undermining your communications infrastructure, it's a distinction without a difference. The reason they brought it up remains valid with the correction."
        PikachuEXE 7y ago
        For me I just stop responding to anyone focusing on minor details and missing the point Anything related to China CCP has large enough security concern chance. This is due to political motive to have control of information flow on everything they can. Any team in China can be enforced to provide one or more means to obtain more data or can't operate smoothly. (See Google) This is not "anti-China", more like "anti anti-privacy" (what's the opposite of privacy?). Same goes for any US company that does anti-privacy things like Google.
dang 7y ago
If you want to clarify that that's not where you're coming from, aggressive swipes like "please spare me the rubbish" have to go. It's against the HN guidelines to post like that, so please edit it out in the future. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

by atonse 7y ago

oefrha 7y ago

This “development team entirely based out of China” bullshit is so easily debunked it’s not even funny. A simple glance at the list of open positions could tell you it’s false. https://zoom.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/Zoom https://zoom.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/Zoom

richardwhiuk 7y ago
Unless they've made a major shift, it's definitely true: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/26/zoom-key-profit-driver-ahead-of-ipo-engineers-in-china.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/26/zoom-key-profit-driver-ahead...
- oefrha 7y ago
  It’s pretty hard to argue with someone who can’t see the difference between largely and entirely.
  - samatman 7y ago
    If you have reason to be concerned about the CCP undermining your communications infrastructure, it's a distinction without a difference. Like yes, you're correct, the person you're replying to is wrong. But the reason they brought it up remains valid with the correction.
    - oefrha 7y ago
      If someone first makes a false accusation, then post a “correction” only to double down on a lesser yet still false accusation, I’d say it’s reason enough to conclude that they’re arguing in bad faith and attempting to slander. You don’t need to spread false information to make a possibly valid point. People also increasingly use this sort of “yeah, they play fast and loose with facts but they have a point so cheers” to defend garbage journalism and I’m not a fan at all.
      - atonse 7y ago
        If you're getting hung up about the difference of me saying "entirely" and "largely" – yeah ok you're right. Mathematically, for the word "entirely" to be true, it would have to be every single breathing soul at zoom that ever touches any tech. I actually did mis-read from an older article that all their development is done in China (the language is that their R&D and tech teams are concentrated in China). Hence I said entirely. But yes let's go with largely. This is an argument about who has jurisdiction to force the altering of parts of their tech stack. Entirely vs Largely: Does that do _anything_ to alter my concerns? Nope.
      - seppin 7y ago
        > If someone first makes a false accusation, then post a “correction” only to double down on a lesser yet still false accusation, I’d say it’s reason enough to conclude that they’re arguing in bad faith and attempting to slander. You aren't listening to what he's saying: "If you have reason to be concerned about the CCP undermining your communications infrastructure, it's a distinction without a difference. The reason they brought it up remains valid with the correction."
        PikachuEXE 7y ago
        For me I just stop responding to anyone focusing on minor details and missing the point Anything related to China CCP has large enough security concern chance. This is due to political motive to have control of information flow on everything they can. Any team in China can be enforced to provide one or more means to obtain more data or can't operate smoothly. (See Google) This is not "anti-China", more like "anti anti-privacy" (what's the opposite of privacy?). Same goes for any US company that does anti-privacy things like Google.

dang 7y ago

If you want to clarify that that's not where you're coming from, aggressive swipes like "please spare me the rubbish" have to go. It's against the HN guidelines to post like that, so please edit it out in the future. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html