7 ms·

That's a significantly better explanation, and they're really between a rock and a hard place. They get to pick between headlines like the current one, and cla

That's a significantly better explanation, and they're really between a rock and a hard place. They get to pick between headlines like the current one, and claims that they support child porn rings (he isn't saying it explicitly, but everything I saw looks like that is the problem they're trying to fight).

kjaftaedi 6y ago
Personally I think the whole topic could just have been avoided by not saying anything at all. Zoom needs a business model and saying "if you want encryption you need to pay for it", to me sounds like a reasonable approach to making money. Once you start dragging other reasons into it, you need to start defending them.
- Thorrez 6y ago
  I think it's perfectly reasonable to have multiple reasons for doing something. Making money and deterring malicious users are both valid reasons. Some forums have paid fees for the purpose of deterring unwanted users (MetaFilter, Something Awful, Bitcoin Wiki in the past), so it's certainly a strategy with a precedent.
  - kjaftaedi 6y ago
    Yes, you can have as many reasons as you want, but the more you list them off to the public, the more time you have to spend defending them individually.. was the point that I was making.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  There is a damn good reason why good PR people often refuse to comment. People remember stupid responses, but forget that “Zoom declined to comment to this article” very quickly.
Thorrez 6y ago
> child porn rings (he isn't saying it explicitly Well he didn't use the word "rings" but he did says CSAM (Child Sexual Abuse Material).
partyboat1586 6y ago
The whole CSAM thing is terrible because it provides a great excuse for surveillance at any turn. Even though it's a tiny minority of people participating in the abuse because it is so bad people are willing to give up their own privacy for it. There are other ways to track these criminals and we should be using those. We know they are smart enough to stop using Zoom once its no longer encrypted. Meanwhile normal people will be left holding the bag of surveillance.
- Spivak 6y ago
  A few bad apples, right? And it’s technologists and privacy advocates that are shielding their behavior. I don’t think this argument really holds but I think it’s funny how quick we are to downplay our own “bad apples” and say that encryption is more important.
  - sukilot 6y ago
    Excuse me? I'm not actively shielding abusers who I have witnessed.
    - Spivak 6y ago
      But it's okay if you're passively shielding abusers? I mean that's the crux of the argument here. "Sure, we're the preferred tool for child abusers and sex trafficking but a few bad actors don't invalidate the need for private communications" is an argument I would accept as a technologist but doesn't seem to fly with the public. It doesn't mean that E2EE is DoA it just means that you can't just throw up your hands and say that doing something is impossible. Have the client check the FBI's CP database and refuse to send pictures that match. Sure it's open source and abusers could recompile it but they wont. In the same way that blocking the default curl useragent stops 99% of spam at my company. Would be attackers could change it, but they don't.
  - partyboat1586 6y ago
    No one is defending child sex offenders. Just find another way to catch them that doesn't involve invading private conversations. It's the first step down a really bad path that you only have to look once at China to see the results of.
dylan604 6y ago
What, like a child porn ring can't pay for the version to get E2EE?

kjaftaedi 6y ago

Personally I think the whole topic could just have been avoided by not saying anything at all. Zoom needs a business model and saying "if you want encryption you need to pay for it", to me sounds like a reasonable approach to making money. Once you start dragging other reasons into it, you need to start defending them.

Thorrez 6y ago
I think it's perfectly reasonable to have multiple reasons for doing something. Making money and deterring malicious users are both valid reasons. Some forums have paid fees for the purpose of deterring unwanted users (MetaFilter, Something Awful, Bitcoin Wiki in the past), so it's certainly a strategy with a precedent.
- kjaftaedi 6y ago
  Yes, you can have as many reasons as you want, but the more you list them off to the public, the more time you have to spend defending them individually.. was the point that I was making.
ashtonkem 6y ago
There is a damn good reason why good PR people often refuse to comment. People remember stupid responses, but forget that “Zoom declined to comment to this article” very quickly.

Thorrez 6y ago

> child porn rings (he isn't saying it explicitly Well he didn't use the word "rings" but he did says CSAM (Child Sexual Abuse Material).

partyboat1586 6y ago

The whole CSAM thing is terrible because it provides a great excuse for surveillance at any turn. Even though it's a tiny minority of people participating in the abuse because it is so bad people are willing to give up their own privacy for it. There are other ways to track these criminals and we should be using those. We know they are smart enough to stop using Zoom once its no longer encrypted. Meanwhile normal people will be left holding the bag of surveillance.

Spivak 6y ago
A few bad apples, right? And it’s technologists and privacy advocates that are shielding their behavior. I don’t think this argument really holds but I think it’s funny how quick we are to downplay our own “bad apples” and say that encryption is more important.
- sukilot 6y ago
  Excuse me? I'm not actively shielding abusers who I have witnessed.
  - Spivak 6y ago
    But it's okay if you're passively shielding abusers? I mean that's the crux of the argument here. "Sure, we're the preferred tool for child abusers and sex trafficking but a few bad actors don't invalidate the need for private communications" is an argument I would accept as a technologist but doesn't seem to fly with the public. It doesn't mean that E2EE is DoA it just means that you can't just throw up your hands and say that doing something is impossible. Have the client check the FBI's CP database and refuse to send pictures that match. Sure it's open source and abusers could recompile it but they wont. In the same way that blocking the default curl useragent stops 99% of spam at my company. Would be attackers could change it, but they don't.
- partyboat1586 6y ago
  No one is defending child sex offenders. Just find another way to catch them that doesn't involve invading private conversations. It's the first step down a really bad path that you only have to look once at China to see the results of.

dylan604 6y ago

What, like a child porn ring can't pay for the version to get E2EE?