3 ms·

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

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.

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.