3 ms·

> This would be a large inconvenience and a disruption, but that doesn't justify one private company being considered critical infrastructure. Is "critical inf

> This would be a large inconvenience and a disruption, but that doesn't justify one private company being considered critical infrastructure. Is "critical infrastructure" some sort of official US Government designation? What automatically happens in response to this designation? Note that: * I only said teachers sometimes can't teach when it's down—a claim of fact, not any suggestion of how it should be handled. * The article's only extension of that is "Organizations that rely on video conferencing—and today, that’s most organizations—would be well served to put backup plans in place to minimize the disruption from future Zoom outages." > This view is generally antithetical to innovation. Even if everyone already knows how to use Microsoft Office, it can and should be replaced if better software comes along. I think you're suggesting calling Zoom "critical infrastructure" means it can't be replaced if a clearly superior video conferencing product is available? I disagree. In fact, it'd be reasonable to say this means it _should_ be replaced if Zoom can't give rock-solid reliability SLOs.

hooande 6y ago
You made a very compelling case about why it would be difficult for everyone to switch between software like the root comment describes. But the article goes a step further and says that Zoom specifically is of critical importance. I don't think this is true. Zoom is a brand, not a unique technology. If they suddenly made everyone pay $50/day, the world would switch to alternatives very quickly.
- scottlamb 6y ago
  I think it's a question of timescales, disruption, and definition. If Zoom were totally unreliable or became expensive, within a quarter almost no one would use it. In that sense I agree with you. But the next week would be a disaster, and that may be enough to call it "critical infrastructure", whatever that means.

hooande 6y ago

You made a very compelling case about why it would be difficult for everyone to switch between software like the root comment describes. But the article goes a step further and says that Zoom specifically is of critical importance. I don't think this is true. Zoom is a brand, not a unique technology. If they suddenly made everyone pay $50/day, the world would switch to alternatives very quickly.

scottlamb 6y ago
I think it's a question of timescales, disruption, and definition. If Zoom were totally unreliable or became expensive, within a quarter almost no one would use it. In that sense I agree with you. But the next week would be a disaster, and that may be enough to call it "critical infrastructure", whatever that means.