5 ms·

I'm not sure I agree with Zoom's strategy here. Adtech can get away with compromising user's privacy because users aren't customers, they're eyeballs for advert

I'm not sure I agree with Zoom's strategy here. Adtech can get away with compromising user's privacy because users aren't customers, they're eyeballs for advertisers. Zoom by contrast does primarily B2B sales, and calls do need to have some semblance of privacy. If a Western-based multinational corporation competes with a China-based company, Zoom suddenly looks a lot scarier. People sometimes say nothing came of the Snowden revelations. I think they're wrong. When the NSA mentioned connections between datacenters were tapped, I believe FAANG immediately end-to-end encrypted links between datacenters, because otherwise your business secrets depend on how cozy you are with the government. I'd even say it may have played a role in Google Fiber. I don't know about Google laying its own fiber because it wants to be nice or because it wants to roll in the mud with Comcast. But if Google was suspicious that ISPs could get Google data by tapping end users, then it makes sense to keep up the pressure, and less sense after getting everybody to use HTTPS. Timing seems to work out. Might be a load of conspiracy hogwash, but it fits the laws of power.

KerrickStaley 6y ago
> When the NSA mentioned connections between datacenters were tapped, I believe FAANG immediately end-to-end encrypted links between datacenters... This is correct, at least for Google. I worked at Google when the Snowden leaks happened and there was an immediate company-wide push to encrypt all server-to-server traffic.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  ... but wouldn't all DC to DC traffic be over an encrypted site-to-site VPN anyway?
  - ciguy 6y ago
    Google and Amazon have their own dedicated fiber between DC sites, but there was evidence that the NSA was still tapping it at some points. So they added encryption between the sites as an extra safeguard.
    - anewdirection 6y ago
      Not quite, they allowed NSA explicitly, and now they have their own decryption keys. Whereever did you get the idea google hid data from the nsa?
      - ciguy 6y ago
        From people I know working Data Center Ops at Google. They were super pissed about the NSA tapping at the time and steps were definitely taken to further encrypt their data in transit. Of course executives at Google may have handed over a set of keys to the NSA after this was done. If I had to bet I would say that the NSA has more than one way to get whatever data they want from any of the top tech companies. Either via stealing, insiders or coercion they have many options.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
jdm2212 6y ago
Zoom's strategy is to follow local laws as much as possible. For US-based users, they follow US laws. For China-based users, they follow Chinese laws. International calls probably have to be compliant with both countries' laws. You may disagree with Chinese law, and maybe if you were Zoom's CEO you'd cease offering Zoom in China, but then you'd just be ceding the Chinese market to some Chinese videoconferencing solution that would do the exact same odious stuff and possibly use the Chinese market as a springboard to challenge Zoom in other countries. So the net effect would be that the world would be no better off, and Zoom would be worse off. Google was able to lock the NSA out because the NSA didn't have any legal power to intercept traffic between data centers. The Chinese government in contrast has the power to do pretty much whatever it wants with Chinese internet traffic.
- jobigoud 6y ago
  The argument that if they don't do it another one will do it is constantly used to justify unethical things. It just shows that money is more important than compromising one's values.
  - chii 6y ago
    I'm gonna play the devils advocate, and say that money _is_ more important than morals. And it's because americans have a lot of money (collectively) that they can enjoy having high morals. So i don't disagree that zoom is lacking in morals, but i also have to agree with what they did - for it is the only course of action that leads to them "winning" economically.
    - twodave 6y ago
      Not picking a side on Zoom, but the idea that people in poorer countries can’t restrain their impulses to a high degree is preposterous bordering on insulting. The US doesn’t censor based on a moral compass, either. They censor based on an idea of (extremely) basic decency that actually permits a lot of immorality.
    - reaperducer 6y ago

KerrickStaley 6y ago

> When the NSA mentioned connections between datacenters were tapped, I believe FAANG immediately end-to-end encrypted links between datacenters... This is correct, at least for Google. I worked at Google when the Snowden leaks happened and there was an immediate company-wide push to encrypt all server-to-server traffic.

koheripbal 6y ago
... but wouldn't all DC to DC traffic be over an encrypted site-to-site VPN anyway?
- ciguy 6y ago
  Google and Amazon have their own dedicated fiber between DC sites, but there was evidence that the NSA was still tapping it at some points. So they added encryption between the sites as an extra safeguard.
  - anewdirection 6y ago
    Not quite, they allowed NSA explicitly, and now they have their own decryption keys. Whereever did you get the idea google hid data from the nsa?
    - ciguy 6y ago
      From people I know working Data Center Ops at Google. They were super pissed about the NSA tapping at the time and steps were definitely taken to further encrypt their data in transit. Of course executives at Google may have handed over a set of keys to the NSA after this was done. If I had to bet I would say that the NSA has more than one way to get whatever data they want from any of the top tech companies. Either via stealing, insiders or coercion they have many options.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]

jdm2212 6y ago

Zoom's strategy is to follow local laws as much as possible. For US-based users, they follow US laws. For China-based users, they follow Chinese laws. International calls probably have to be compliant with both countries' laws. You may disagree with Chinese law, and maybe if you were Zoom's CEO you'd cease offering Zoom in China, but then you'd just be ceding the Chinese market to some Chinese videoconferencing solution that would do the exact same odious stuff and possibly use the Chinese market as a springboard to challenge Zoom in other countries. So the net effect would be that the world would be no better off, and Zoom would be worse off. Google was able to lock the NSA out because the NSA didn't have any legal power to intercept traffic between data centers. The Chinese government in contrast has the power to do pretty much whatever it wants with Chinese internet traffic.

jobigoud 6y ago
The argument that if they don't do it another one will do it is constantly used to justify unethical things. It just shows that money is more important than compromising one's values.
- chii 6y ago
  I'm gonna play the devils advocate, and say that money _is_ more important than morals. And it's because americans have a lot of money (collectively) that they can enjoy having high morals. So i don't disagree that zoom is lacking in morals, but i also have to agree with what they did - for it is the only course of action that leads to them "winning" economically.
  - twodave 6y ago
    Not picking a side on Zoom, but the idea that people in poorer countries can’t restrain their impulses to a high degree is preposterous bordering on insulting. The US doesn’t censor based on a moral compass, either. They censor based on an idea of (extremely) basic decency that actually permits a lot of immorality.
  - reaperducer 6y ago