5 ms·

> Zoom has agreed to a requirement to establish and implement a comprehensive security program, a prohibition on privacy and security misrepresentations, and ot

> Zoom has agreed to a requirement to establish and implement a comprehensive security program, a prohibition on privacy and security misrepresentations, and other detailed and specific relief to protect its user base What a slap on the wrist. "You blatantly lied to your customers for years. How about you just continue to implement the thing that you were working on anyways." I don't think punishment is always the best solution but it seems that you should at least set some sort of example.

gmd63 6y ago
Punishment is the best solution. Incentives are what drive behavior, and learning that you can get away with lying will just lead to more getting away with lying.
- acbart 6y ago
  When it comes to training humans and animals, positive punishment is far less effective than most other training techniques like positive reinforcement. Don't Shoot the Dog[1]! [1] https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Shoot-Dog-Teaching-Training/dp/0553380397 https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Shoot-Dog-Teaching-Training/dp/0...
  - jvanderbot 6y ago
    Unfortunately, the positives are customer adoption, and customers have already adopted zoom. This is like continuing to feed the dog treats because it's what you're used to, regardless of the outcome of their actions. But more generally, it's not obvious that individual, "reptile-brain" incentives translate to large company leadership. I'd be hugely skeptical of applying positive psychology to international corporate leadership, but what do I know anyway.
    - unityByFreedom 6y ago
      Agree with your first paragraph, less so the second. People learn corporate leadership in steps, starting with a small group. The style of successful leadership doesn't change IMO, just the number of variables and possibility for greater success/failure.
  - airstrike 6y ago
    Well, corporations aren't humans, contrary to what some might try to argue.
    - ineedasername 6y ago
      "Corporations are people my friend" --Mitt Romney [0] So we should all remember that Zoom is probably depressed right now and could probably use some support from its friends. Maybe urge GCal to send it a nice note. [0] https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2011/08/11/139551684/romneys-corporations-are-people-getting-lots-of-mileage https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2011/08/11/13955...
    - Mary-Jane 6y ago
      True enough. But they are comprised entirely of people. To change their behavior you must appeal to thepeople running them.
      - dhimes 6y ago
        My gripe is the companies who failed to implement because they couldn't do security in a way that was easy to use and resulted in a good user experience, but chose to be honest. I hate the (1) cheat to win and vanquish your competitors (2) when you're caught, say you're sorry, (3) win anyway because your competitors are gone progression. It seems like the penalty for that should be existential or at least something painfully severe.
        sirspacey 6y ago
        Sincerely curious - what competitors do you believe were harmed here?
        dhimes 6y ago
        That's the point. It's the companies that are little known that get squashed. I don't know much about the space, but I tried Google and chose zoom instead because it was easier— and I pay for Google. I tried Jitsi. But what about the ones we haven't heard of, struggling to solve the problem that Zoom lied about solving, but because they're honest they never took that step forward. It's like RealPlayer. By the time the courts catch up, the game is over. Several people are on zoom instead of Google, for instance, even though I pay for Google. I don't know the other players in the space.
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    Actually intermittent reinforcement is much more effective. If it's offered every time, then when it is not offered it is less likely to trigger the desired behavior. Operant conditioning using intermittent reinforcement trains to not expect the reinforcement mechanism every time, so when it doesn't come, the desired behavior is still displayed: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/intermittent-reinforcement https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/intermittent...
  - darkerside 6y ago
    Wouldn't fees be considered negative punishment?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
macspoofing 6y ago
>What a slap on the wrist. "You blatantly lied to your customers for years. How about you just continue to implement the thing that you were working on anyways." Honestly - that's inline with the severity of the crime. >I don't think punishment is always the best solution but it seems that you should at least set some sort of example. I'm not a fan of regulatory bodies making examples of companies for minor infractions. And this is a very minor infraction.
- pasabagi 6y ago
  Is it minor? From my perspective, making security guarantees about a product is the same whether that product is software or hardware. If somebody guaranteed that their ferris wheel had x safety feature, then it turned out to be untrue, nobody would call that a minor infraction.
  - kevincox 6y ago
    I agree. I see false advertising as a serious crime. Obviously we should be utilizing critical thinking ourselves, but I think that we also need the threat of punishment. Because if we have that threat one critical thinker can report the problem and it will be solved for everyone. If there is no punishment then there is no incentive for companies to tell the truth.
    - xbar 6y ago
      Exactly. Zoom should pay. Not crippling amounts, but non-trivial ones.
    - throwaway936482 6y ago
      Especially if one is ideologically committed to light touch regulation / free market economics. This makes false advertising a particularly serious crime because it introduces a false information asymmetry between the customer and supplier that damages the effective functioning of the market.
raxxorrax 6y ago
Certainly with government access to messages. The minds in charge would never let such an opportunity slip. They are set in the cold war of terror and that won't change for the current generation. So it is still not a good idea to use Zoom.
- shyn3 6y ago
  Is that a reference to the Chinese government because it appears in Canada we are using Zoom as well. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-participating-in-ontarios-first-zoom-trial-showed-me-its-value-for/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-participatin...
joering2 6y ago
> What a slap on the wrist. Exactly. Any small startup owners would see jail time. Similar case in recent History is Trump non-profit (please no flamewars). There are tens of thousands of business-owners rotting in jail today because they embezzled half a million bucks or more - here with Trump charity you have case of at least $2 million stolen plus self-dealing and basically living your whole life/paying personal bills out of charity and what does the judge do? - "Here Mr. Trump is a $99 training seminar on "How not to steal" from your own charity. Go get you and your children watch this online class and report back when you done". Unbelievable.
saghm 6y ago
> a prohibition on privacy and security misrepresentations Why did they have to "agree" to that? Shouldn't that already not be allowed? Also, this sounds a bit like they're allowed to misrepresent other things...

gmd63 6y ago

Punishment is the best solution. Incentives are what drive behavior, and learning that you can get away with lying will just lead to more getting away with lying.

acbart 6y ago
When it comes to training humans and animals, positive punishment is far less effective than most other training techniques like positive reinforcement. Don't Shoot the Dog[1]! [1] https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Shoot-Dog-Teaching-Training/dp/0553380397 https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Shoot-Dog-Teaching-Training/dp/0...
- jvanderbot 6y ago
  Unfortunately, the positives are customer adoption, and customers have already adopted zoom. This is like continuing to feed the dog treats because it's what you're used to, regardless of the outcome of their actions. But more generally, it's not obvious that individual, "reptile-brain" incentives translate to large company leadership. I'd be hugely skeptical of applying positive psychology to international corporate leadership, but what do I know anyway.
  - unityByFreedom 6y ago
    Agree with your first paragraph, less so the second. People learn corporate leadership in steps, starting with a small group. The style of successful leadership doesn't change IMO, just the number of variables and possibility for greater success/failure.
- airstrike 6y ago
  Well, corporations aren't humans, contrary to what some might try to argue.
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    "Corporations are people my friend" --Mitt Romney [0] So we should all remember that Zoom is probably depressed right now and could probably use some support from its friends. Maybe urge GCal to send it a nice note. [0] https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2011/08/11/139551684/romneys-corporations-are-people-getting-lots-of-mileage https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2011/08/11/13955...
  - Mary-Jane 6y ago
    True enough. But they are comprised entirely of people. To change their behavior you must appeal to thepeople running them.
    - dhimes 6y ago
      My gripe is the companies who failed to implement because they couldn't do security in a way that was easy to use and resulted in a good user experience, but chose to be honest. I hate the (1) cheat to win and vanquish your competitors (2) when you're caught, say you're sorry, (3) win anyway because your competitors are gone progression. It seems like the penalty for that should be existential or at least something painfully severe.
      - sirspacey 6y ago
        Sincerely curious - what competitors do you believe were harmed here?
        dhimes 6y ago
        That's the point. It's the companies that are little known that get squashed. I don't know much about the space, but I tried Google and chose zoom instead because it was easier— and I pay for Google. I tried Jitsi. But what about the ones we haven't heard of, struggling to solve the problem that Zoom lied about solving, but because they're honest they never took that step forward. It's like RealPlayer. By the time the courts catch up, the game is over. Several people are on zoom instead of Google, for instance, even though I pay for Google. I don't know the other players in the space.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  Actually intermittent reinforcement is much more effective. If it's offered every time, then when it is not offered it is less likely to trigger the desired behavior. Operant conditioning using intermittent reinforcement trains to not expect the reinforcement mechanism every time, so when it doesn't come, the desired behavior is still displayed: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/intermittent-reinforcement https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/intermittent...
- darkerside 6y ago
  Wouldn't fees be considered negative punishment?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

macspoofing 6y ago

>What a slap on the wrist. "You blatantly lied to your customers for years. How about you just continue to implement the thing that you were working on anyways." Honestly - that's inline with the severity of the crime. >I don't think punishment is always the best solution but it seems that you should at least set some sort of example. I'm not a fan of regulatory bodies making examples of companies for minor infractions. And this is a very minor infraction.

pasabagi 6y ago
Is it minor? From my perspective, making security guarantees about a product is the same whether that product is software or hardware. If somebody guaranteed that their ferris wheel had x safety feature, then it turned out to be untrue, nobody would call that a minor infraction.
- kevincox 6y ago
  I agree. I see false advertising as a serious crime. Obviously we should be utilizing critical thinking ourselves, but I think that we also need the threat of punishment. Because if we have that threat one critical thinker can report the problem and it will be solved for everyone. If there is no punishment then there is no incentive for companies to tell the truth.
  - xbar 6y ago
    Exactly. Zoom should pay. Not crippling amounts, but non-trivial ones.
  - throwaway936482 6y ago
    Especially if one is ideologically committed to light touch regulation / free market economics. This makes false advertising a particularly serious crime because it introduces a false information asymmetry between the customer and supplier that damages the effective functioning of the market.

raxxorrax 6y ago

Certainly with government access to messages. The minds in charge would never let such an opportunity slip. They are set in the cold war of terror and that won't change for the current generation. So it is still not a good idea to use Zoom.

shyn3 6y ago
Is that a reference to the Chinese government because it appears in Canada we are using Zoom as well. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-participating-in-ontarios-first-zoom-trial-showed-me-its-value-for/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-participatin...

joering2 6y ago

> What a slap on the wrist. Exactly. Any small startup owners would see jail time. Similar case in recent History is Trump non-profit (please no flamewars). There are tens of thousands of business-owners rotting in jail today because they embezzled half a million bucks or more - here with Trump charity you have case of at least $2 million stolen plus self-dealing and basically living your whole life/paying personal bills out of charity and what does the judge do? - "Here Mr. Trump is a $99 training seminar on "How not to steal" from your own charity. Go get you and your children watch this online class and report back when you done". Unbelievable.

saghm 6y ago

> a prohibition on privacy and security misrepresentations Why did they have to "agree" to that? Shouldn't that already not be allowed? Also, this sounds a bit like they're allowed to misrepresent other things...