6 ms·

I think it's fine to have cameras in a shop or in a bank or whatever the virtual equivalent becomes because they serve a clear security purpose. The problem wi

I think it's fine to have cameras in a shop or in a bank or whatever the virtual equivalent becomes because they serve a clear security purpose. The problem with not end to end encrypting private communications is during a lockdown people now have nowhere they can go for a private conversation. If you invite someone over to your house for drinks or for dinner you feel you can talk freely because the government doesn't have cameras in your house, that would be an invasion of privacy. Where is the virtual equivalent of that once zoom is not longer private? Remember your freedom will be taken an inch at a time. Not all at once.

shafyy 6y ago
You know that Zoom is not the only video chat software, right?
- partyboat1586 6y ago
  Exactly, which makes it worse. Real bad actors will just switch meanwhile normal people get surveillance.
  - shafyy 6y ago
    True, and I don't support Zooms decision. You said: > Where is the virtual equivalent of that once zoom is not longer private? What I meant by my comment is that there are good alternatives that are E2E and free, like FaceTime (ok you need an iPhone or Mac), WhatsApp, Signal etc. So people can just use that if they don't want to pay for Zoom (again, I don't think they're making the right decision either).
    - partyboat1586 6y ago
      People will choose convenience over privacy when they can't see the threat. Zoom is convenient for video calls because it allows you to see all the people in the call on one screen, you can schedule meetings, the connection quality is good, it supports screen sharing and it's fully cross platform. You already disqualified Facetime because realistically some of your friends and family have Android and Windows. WhatsApp connection quality is flaky, same with Skype. Does signal support group class? If it does maybe it could replace Zoom. Maybe. But all these options existed before lockdown and people still settled on Zoom because it's more convenient. Either some massive scandal has to happen to make the public more privacy conscious or there needs to be e2e encryption by default, as a standard. With or without invisible state surveilled cameras shouldn't factor in to which dining table I buy.
      - shafyy 6y ago
        > People will choose convenience over privacy when they can't see the threat. Agree. > WhatsApp connection quality is flaky Disagree. Might be anecdotal, but at least in Europe, most my friends use WhatsApp for personal video calls and not Zoom. Genrally agree with you that we need E2E as default (as we need SSL as a default).
    - amachefe 6y ago
      >that are E2E and free, like FaceTime (ok you need an iPhone or Mac), WhatsApp, Signal etc. So people can just use that if they don't want to pay for Zoom (again, I don't think they're making the right decision either). https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/1268199863054811136 https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/1268199863054811136 2) None of the major players offer E2E by default (Google Meet, Microsoft Teams, Cisco WebEx, BlueJeans). WebEx has an E2E option for enterprise users only, and it requires you to run the PKI and won't work with outsiders. Any E2E shipping in Zoom will be groundbreaking.
      - holigot 6y ago
        You're totatlly wrong! Cisco does offer E2EE even for free accounts... You can choose, if you want to use E2EE or not (via website). Make a free account and test it.
      - shafyy 6y ago
        I'm referring to personal use (i.e., friends and family) as to per the parent comment's argument.
jka 6y ago
I'm not completely sure what the answers are here yet, but I do agree that it can be very psychologically reassuring to know that the only people involved in a conversation are the genuine invitees. That said, abusive people do exist and are a legitimate problem, given the damage they can cause. Their abuse may be overt (threats, violence, noise, etc), or it can be subtle (for example, manipulation over long periods of time). Some of that abuse may come from prior anger and frustration outside their control, and perhaps it's good to allow people to let that out -- as long as it doesn't end up harming other people in the process. Would the situation be improved if the service provider could only step into the meeting when explicitly requested by participant(s)? To follow your analogy, that could be seen as the equivalent of someone experiencing a medical emergency during dinner at your house and requiring outside assistance. All these options would be gamed and misused, as they are during existing use cases in real life. Some people over-react, many people under-react, and society itself changes so it's important to build in flexibility for transparent and accountable change.
- partyboat1586 6y ago
  If you somehow accidentally invited an abusive person to dinner and they started acting abusive you would ask them to leave. Then when they don't leave you call the police. Really a stretch to imagine that happening more than once a lifetime. In video calls you don't even have to do that, you can just kick them from the call. You don't need Zoom to step in you just kick them. I really don't understand what you are getting at with the abusive people thing. What sort of situation are you imagining exactly?
  - jka 6y ago
    Yep, kicking the participant would be a good option in many cases. To answer your question: phishing scams could be one example. I'm sure there are many others.
    - partyboat1586 6y ago
      Phishing is already handled by email. Don't click the zoom meeting link in the email from a Nigerian Prince and you will be fine. In general I don't see this being a problem with Zoom but rather a problem with clicking links from dodgy sources, zoom meeting links just happen to be one of many. If there are others please list them because I'm struggling to understand the overarching thing you are getting at and examples would help with that.

shafyy 6y ago

You know that Zoom is not the only video chat software, right?

partyboat1586 6y ago
Exactly, which makes it worse. Real bad actors will just switch meanwhile normal people get surveillance.
- shafyy 6y ago
  True, and I don't support Zooms decision. You said: > Where is the virtual equivalent of that once zoom is not longer private? What I meant by my comment is that there are good alternatives that are E2E and free, like FaceTime (ok you need an iPhone or Mac), WhatsApp, Signal etc. So people can just use that if they don't want to pay for Zoom (again, I don't think they're making the right decision either).
  - partyboat1586 6y ago
    People will choose convenience over privacy when they can't see the threat. Zoom is convenient for video calls because it allows you to see all the people in the call on one screen, you can schedule meetings, the connection quality is good, it supports screen sharing and it's fully cross platform. You already disqualified Facetime because realistically some of your friends and family have Android and Windows. WhatsApp connection quality is flaky, same with Skype. Does signal support group class? If it does maybe it could replace Zoom. Maybe. But all these options existed before lockdown and people still settled on Zoom because it's more convenient. Either some massive scandal has to happen to make the public more privacy conscious or there needs to be e2e encryption by default, as a standard. With or without invisible state surveilled cameras shouldn't factor in to which dining table I buy.
    - shafyy 6y ago
      > People will choose convenience over privacy when they can't see the threat. Agree. > WhatsApp connection quality is flaky Disagree. Might be anecdotal, but at least in Europe, most my friends use WhatsApp for personal video calls and not Zoom. Genrally agree with you that we need E2E as default (as we need SSL as a default).
  - amachefe 6y ago
    >that are E2E and free, like FaceTime (ok you need an iPhone or Mac), WhatsApp, Signal etc. So people can just use that if they don't want to pay for Zoom (again, I don't think they're making the right decision either). https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/1268199863054811136 https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/1268199863054811136 2) None of the major players offer E2E by default (Google Meet, Microsoft Teams, Cisco WebEx, BlueJeans). WebEx has an E2E option for enterprise users only, and it requires you to run the PKI and won't work with outsiders. Any E2E shipping in Zoom will be groundbreaking.
    - holigot 6y ago
      You're totatlly wrong! Cisco does offer E2EE even for free accounts... You can choose, if you want to use E2EE or not (via website). Make a free account and test it.
    - shafyy 6y ago
      I'm referring to personal use (i.e., friends and family) as to per the parent comment's argument.

jka 6y ago

I'm not completely sure what the answers are here yet, but I do agree that it can be very psychologically reassuring to know that the only people involved in a conversation are the genuine invitees. That said, abusive people do exist and are a legitimate problem, given the damage they can cause. Their abuse may be overt (threats, violence, noise, etc), or it can be subtle (for example, manipulation over long periods of time). Some of that abuse may come from prior anger and frustration outside their control, and perhaps it's good to allow people to let that out -- as long as it doesn't end up harming other people in the process. Would the situation be improved if the service provider could only step into the meeting when explicitly requested by participant(s)? To follow your analogy, that could be seen as the equivalent of someone experiencing a medical emergency during dinner at your house and requiring outside assistance. All these options would be gamed and misused, as they are during existing use cases in real life. Some people over-react, many people under-react, and society itself changes so it's important to build in flexibility for transparent and accountable change.

partyboat1586 6y ago
If you somehow accidentally invited an abusive person to dinner and they started acting abusive you would ask them to leave. Then when they don't leave you call the police. Really a stretch to imagine that happening more than once a lifetime. In video calls you don't even have to do that, you can just kick them from the call. You don't need Zoom to step in you just kick them. I really don't understand what you are getting at with the abusive people thing. What sort of situation are you imagining exactly?
- jka 6y ago
  Yep, kicking the participant would be a good option in many cases. To answer your question: phishing scams could be one example. I'm sure there are many others.
  - partyboat1586 6y ago
    Phishing is already handled by email. Don't click the zoom meeting link in the email from a Nigerian Prince and you will be fine. In general I don't see this being a problem with Zoom but rather a problem with clicking links from dodgy sources, zoom meeting links just happen to be one of many. If there are others please list them because I'm struggling to understand the overarching thing you are getting at and examples would help with that.