3 ms·

What an overwrought headline, the employee in question has already been fired.

by _6fmb 6y ago

fermienrico 6y ago
The optics are still very, very bad for Zoom. I have zero trust in them.
- noir_lord 6y ago
  There are remarkably few organisations I somewhat trust (even then on a sliding scale) but on that spectrum Zoom sits at the "wouldn't touch them with someone elses bargepole" end.
criley2 6y ago
It's weird that you describe the headline as "overwrought" and call the person an "employee" when the headline is more accurate than you. This was an executive, not just an employee. That's a huge distinction and I can't help but think you intentionally downgraded his position to cover-up his behavior. "Just an employee" "Not a big deal" But when you read the allegations, they seem like a very big deal that an executive was spying on users, giving their information to the Chinese government explicitly for oppressive purposes, including folks who are not in China, and went out of his way to personally censor non-Chinese groups meeting to discuss the Massacre-Which-Cannot-Be-Mentioned. I would say the headline understates the gravity (it's very much a 'by-the-books' headline that you KNOW went through ten levels of Legal), and that your hand waving here feels much more dishonest than the headline.
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  Not only that, but this line stuck out to me. > and other employees have been placed on administrative leave until the investigation is complete. Zoom at least suspects he did not act alone.
- btown 6y ago
  Regardless of intent, it's undeniable that at some point there were insufficient controls to prevent this executive, or any executive in the future, from gaining this level of surveillance access. And it's also undeniable that the consequences for Zoom (really, just needing to fire a few people, and not even the people who designed those controls if there were any) are so minimal that they have no incentive to strengthen those controls. For some organizations (mine included) the benefits of Zoom outweigh the risks of Zoom having proven itself to not have those controls, namely the possibility of both political and corporate espionage. As with all things, YMMV.
- _6fmb 6y ago
  It was an executive purposefully brought in for legal compliance with that country's requirements. That he was fired is a huge signal in how seriously aggressive zoom is about protecting data that they would even be willing to go up against national governments. I feel like the firing is a huge part of the story.
alisonkisk 6y ago
The company in question is still operating. We don't know if the employee was just a scapegoat.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
kemonocode 6y ago
Sorry, but an executive is not just "an employee" and any alarms are rightfully justified. Took a little bit of cajoling in my company but we've successfully moved to self-hosted tools for the most part (Jitsi and Rocket.chat) with just a couple of projects with outside contractors using Slack.

What an overwrought headline, the employee in question has already been fired.

by _6fmb 6y ago

What an overwrought headline, the employee in question has already been fired.

fermienrico 6y ago

The optics are still very, very bad for Zoom. I have zero trust in them.

noir_lord 6y ago
There are remarkably few organisations I somewhat trust (even then on a sliding scale) but on that spectrum Zoom sits at the "wouldn't touch them with someone elses bargepole" end.

criley2 6y ago

It's weird that you describe the headline as "overwrought" and call the person an "employee" when the headline is more accurate than you. This was an executive, not just an employee. That's a huge distinction and I can't help but think you intentionally downgraded his position to cover-up his behavior. "Just an employee" "Not a big deal" But when you read the allegations, they seem like a very big deal that an executive was spying on users, giving their information to the Chinese government explicitly for oppressive purposes, including folks who are not in China, and went out of his way to personally censor non-Chinese groups meeting to discuss the Massacre-Which-Cannot-Be-Mentioned. I would say the headline understates the gravity (it's very much a 'by-the-books' headline that you KNOW went through ten levels of Legal), and that your hand waving here feels much more dishonest than the headline.

MattGaiser 6y ago
Not only that, but this line stuck out to me. > and other employees have been placed on administrative leave until the investigation is complete. Zoom at least suspects he did not act alone.
btown 6y ago
Regardless of intent, it's undeniable that at some point there were insufficient controls to prevent this executive, or any executive in the future, from gaining this level of surveillance access. And it's also undeniable that the consequences for Zoom (really, just needing to fire a few people, and not even the people who designed those controls if there were any) are so minimal that they have no incentive to strengthen those controls. For some organizations (mine included) the benefits of Zoom outweigh the risks of Zoom having proven itself to not have those controls, namely the possibility of both political and corporate espionage. As with all things, YMMV.
_6fmb 6y ago
It was an executive purposefully brought in for legal compliance with that country's requirements. That he was fired is a huge signal in how seriously aggressive zoom is about protecting data that they would even be willing to go up against national governments. I feel like the firing is a huge part of the story.

alisonkisk 6y ago

The company in question is still operating. We don't know if the employee was just a scapegoat.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

kemonocode 6y ago

Sorry, but an executive is not just "an employee" and any alarms are rightfully justified. Took a little bit of cajoling in my company but we've successfully moved to self-hosted tools for the most part (Jitsi and Rocket.chat) with just a couple of projects with outside contractors using Slack.