8 ms·

This blog post specifically says that it's a walk-back of the policy announced in your link.

AlexandrB 6y ago
My read on this is that they found a way to backdoor all supposedly E2E-encrypted calls and legal compliance is no longer a problem for them. Perhaps I’m being too cynical.
- 0xy 6y ago
  It's E2EE properly, but just ignore that "CCPBot" user in your server that isn't visible anywhere.
mtgx 6y ago
If working with law enforcement was to important to them why did they backtrack so quickly. Seems suspicious at best.
shaggyfrog 6y ago
Why trust any company that put out the initial policy in the first place? Have they had a fundamental turnover in management, indicating a new pro-privacy culture? Did they move their development out from under the thumb of the CCP? No and no? So what’s changed? If they weren’t trustworthy before, they certainly aren’t now.
- adrianmonk 6y ago
  One thing that has changed is that their userbase broadened. They were mostly focused on workplace meetings. If that's your focus, then most of your users are employees of some company whose contact information you have. Users with unverified identities are a corner case that you may not feel is worth trying to get right. Thanks to the pandemic, they have millions of new users who use Zoom for personal purposes (meeting with friends and family, etc.). What once was a corner case isn't anymore. It might even be their most common type of user. I'm not arguing that Zoom can necessarily be trusted, but I can see a plausible reason how they could have gotten to where they are on this issue.
  - user982 6y ago
    > One thing that has changed is that their userbase broadened. Their userbase changed in the two weeks since they announced their policy?
    - adrianmonk 6y ago
      I agree they should be cluing in by now. I'm just saying it could be growing pains from shifting from a B2B business to a B2C business. That difference has huge effects on product design and on your mindset. Being slow to realign your mindset with reality isn't necessarily the same thing as being dishonest or disreputable. But yeah, while feeling that you can't trust them because they don't know what they're doing is not the same as feeling that you can't trust them because they're in cahoots with someone (governments, etc.) against your interests, in the end they're both forms of feeling that you can't trust them.
  - shaggyfrog 6y ago
    They have more users, but so what? They suddenly found (privacy) religion, so now they can be trusted? That certainly sounds like a leap of faith. A blind one. Stop looking at the empty words they say, and start looking at their very intentional and malignant actions over the last few months/years.
    - adrianmonk 6y ago
      I guess "broadened" could be interpreted two ways. I don't mean the numbers grew. I mean that userbase came to incorporate new, different types of users.
- edmundsauto 6y ago
  Maybe they listened to feedback and updated their priors? Why do you believe their real intention was revealed a week ago, and not today?
  - shaggyfrog 6y ago
    Updated their priors? Review their history. Their "real intentions" have been "revealed" multiple times over the past several months (or years). It's a litany of privacy-related blunders. This is pure PR; words to distract you from their many misdeeds. Trust, but verify, yes? Well, they're verifiably full of crapola. So why would you trust?
SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
Is it though? End to end encryption doesn’t mean they don’t pass the key back to themselves. It’s a bit of weaseling here. They say they’re offering E2E and that might be true, and it could also be true they are sticking with their original vision of cooperation with law enforcement because they “are aware criminals use the service”. There is no required mutual exclusion.
ddevault 6y ago
This wasn't the only problem with Zoom, and it was an egregious problem. Zoom has lost all presumption of good faith, and in fact earned the presumption of bad faith as far as I'm concerned.

My read on this is that they found a way to backdoor all supposedly E2E-encrypted calls and legal compliance is no longer a problem for them. Perhaps I’m being too cynical.

0xy 6y ago
It's E2EE properly, but just ignore that "CCPBot" user in your server that isn't visible anywhere.

mtgx 6y ago

If working with law enforcement was to important to them why did they backtrack so quickly. Seems suspicious at best.

shaggyfrog 6y ago

Why trust any company that put out the initial policy in the first place? Have they had a fundamental turnover in management, indicating a new pro-privacy culture? Did they move their development out from under the thumb of the CCP? No and no? So what’s changed? If they weren’t trustworthy before, they certainly aren’t now.

adrianmonk 6y ago
One thing that has changed is that their userbase broadened. They were mostly focused on workplace meetings. If that's your focus, then most of your users are employees of some company whose contact information you have. Users with unverified identities are a corner case that you may not feel is worth trying to get right. Thanks to the pandemic, they have millions of new users who use Zoom for personal purposes (meeting with friends and family, etc.). What once was a corner case isn't anymore. It might even be their most common type of user. I'm not arguing that Zoom can necessarily be trusted, but I can see a plausible reason how they could have gotten to where they are on this issue.
- user982 6y ago
  > One thing that has changed is that their userbase broadened. Their userbase changed in the two weeks since they announced their policy?
  - adrianmonk 6y ago
    I agree they should be cluing in by now. I'm just saying it could be growing pains from shifting from a B2B business to a B2C business. That difference has huge effects on product design and on your mindset. Being slow to realign your mindset with reality isn't necessarily the same thing as being dishonest or disreputable. But yeah, while feeling that you can't trust them because they don't know what they're doing is not the same as feeling that you can't trust them because they're in cahoots with someone (governments, etc.) against your interests, in the end they're both forms of feeling that you can't trust them.
- shaggyfrog 6y ago
  They have more users, but so what? They suddenly found (privacy) religion, so now they can be trusted? That certainly sounds like a leap of faith. A blind one. Stop looking at the empty words they say, and start looking at their very intentional and malignant actions over the last few months/years.
  - adrianmonk 6y ago
    I guess "broadened" could be interpreted two ways. I don't mean the numbers grew. I mean that userbase came to incorporate new, different types of users.
edmundsauto 6y ago
Maybe they listened to feedback and updated their priors? Why do you believe their real intention was revealed a week ago, and not today?
- shaggyfrog 6y ago
  Updated their priors? Review their history. Their "real intentions" have been "revealed" multiple times over the past several months (or years). It's a litany of privacy-related blunders. This is pure PR; words to distract you from their many misdeeds. Trust, but verify, yes? Well, they're verifiably full of crapola. So why would you trust?

SV_BubbleTime 6y ago

Is it though? End to end encryption doesn’t mean they don’t pass the key back to themselves. It’s a bit of weaseling here. They say they’re offering E2E and that might be true, and it could also be true they are sticking with their original vision of cooperation with law enforcement because they “are aware criminals use the service”. There is no required mutual exclusion.

ddevault 6y ago

This wasn't the only problem with Zoom, and it was an egregious problem. Zoom has lost all presumption of good faith, and in fact earned the presumption of bad faith as far as I'm concerned.