7 ms·

Zoom settles US class action privacy lawsuit for $86m

144 points by williamsharris 5y ago

bpodgursky 5y ago
I'm so excited that some lawyers get a payout for a class action suit on behalf of me about stuff I could not care less about.
quadrifoliate 5y ago
Zoom's income in 2021 was 2.6 billion dollars. $86m/$2.6 billion = 0.033. If I earn $100k per year, that's like a fine of $3300.
- threatofrain 5y ago
  That's a substantial fee for a human making $100k per year (plus taxes), but I don't think we should be comparing what's a reasonable fine for a person vs a business.
  - parineum 5y ago
    Why?
    - threatofrain 5y ago
      Taking 3.3% of someone's income is substantial, whereas for a business, this is a cha-ching deal for potentially getting a business edge by not focusing on privacy rules when momentum mattered. Most businesses are structured such that failing isn't disastrous (creditors cannot chase after the owners), whereas a human experiencing financial failure is an extreme life setback.
      - grp000 5y ago
        Not to mention the compounding effects of getting that business advantage earlier than others in the same space. If you can lie and say you have e2e encryption to scoop up market share before anyone else, even if the bare-faced lie gets revealed like it did here, not all of the clients who signed up are going to leave you, and you already have market inertia as a big player that will help you keep growing.
      - parineum 5y ago
        Those are all advantages an individual can achieve by breaking the rules as well.
        effingwewt 5y ago
        No when people break rules it's called breaking the law and we get life-altering fines and jail time. Corporations lose one day of revenue and continue with business as usual.
  - quadrifoliate 5y ago
    I understand that a person and a business are different, but it's worth contrasting if numbers are roughly in the same ballpark, right? A lot of businesses do start out as just one person. In a year with like 300% revenue growth, I feel like Zoom can probably just treat this fine as cost of doing business. I mean, I pay a lot more than $3k in taxes per year!
  - ttty2 5y ago
    I think we need ask the question: is this fee enough to prevent bad behavior? I think not, then just be higher.
- yarky 5y ago
  3.3% of gross revenue isn't as tiny as you make it sound.
  - bpodgursky 5y ago
    Yeah I mean, if I got a $3,300 speeding ticket I would be furious for about a month.
    - quadrifoliate 5y ago
      Are you sure? What if you were making only $25k/year the previous year, and the speeding ticket enabled you to get the job that's making $100k/year?
      - thedmstdmstdmst 5y ago
        Yeah usually a $3,300.00 ticket comes with some form of demerits so even if you pay the fine you lose your license if you do it to much. Can't think of a job where you'd benefit by speeding but losing your license would be fine.
    - hellbannedguy 5y ago
      We need to tie all governmental fee/fines (muni, civil, criminal, even patent/trademark) to 1040 income level. A wealthy man get's a $625 red light violation, and it's dinner conversation. A poor man get the same punishment, and it could be the last straw.
    - paxys 5y ago
      And if you got a $3,300 fine for murdering someone you'd be pretty happy about it.
- modriano 5y ago
  A $3300 fine would get me to change my behavior. I don't think Zoom is profiting from breeching privacy; I think they profit from providing video-meeting software. I think penalizing undesirable behavior that doesn't produce profit will motivate Zoom to take that undesirable behavior very seriously.
  - bsder 5y ago
    Is that $3,300 the reason why I have a $100K job instead of a $50K job? If so, I wouldn't even flinch at paying that. Many moons ago, lawyers used to crash the carpool lanes in Washington, DC for about that price given the time they would save and the amount they could bill. The firms just started paying the fines. It wasn't until the penalty started having points and could cost you your drivers license that the behavior stopped.
  - sleepyhead 5y ago
    "I don't think Zoom is profiting from breeching privacy" They are. "Move fast and break things"-strategy is a decision for higher growth at the cost of privacy, security and stability for customers.
- fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
  The discourse on this is interesting to me. I first heard it in reference to truly small fines, like less than a million dollars for a big company. Then over time it gets repeated for literally any fine, no matter how large. Now we are talking about a month’s worth of profits (Zoom’s profit last quarter was $227M), which is really quite a lot. It’s a similar magnitude event to a global company losing all its UK customers. Hundreds of people would be laid off for a screwup this big, whole business units shut down.
  - justapassenger 5y ago
    It’s one off write off during earnings call. It’s really not a big deal at all, it can even cause stock price to pop, as it shows that company is big enough, that lying is cheap and gives you amazing ROI. E2EE was a big feature that helped to fuel the growth. One month of profits, once you’ve experienced extreme growth and tons of money infusion, is a great deal.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - quadrifoliate 5y ago
    > Then over time it gets repeated for literally any fine, no matter how large. I mean, I think it's worthwhile to compare and see how you'd think about this, right? $3k fine seems high in the abstract to me. Then again, if it's viewed as a kind of tax for going from $25k/year in annual income to $100k/year – eh, doesn't sound like much. What do you think? > Hundreds of people would be laid off for a screwup this big, whole business units shut down. I am actually curious to see if that's the case – are there any reports of such shutdowns/layoffs?
  - eurasiantiger 5y ago
    It does not matter for a company that is funded by the CCP.
- crazygringo 5y ago
  You're comparing income to salary, which doesn't make sense, since most of income goes back out on expenses. A more logical comparison is profits (net income) to salary, which is the money they keep (like salary). Zoom had net income of $672M in FY2021. Which means if you earned $100k, that'd be a fine of $12,800. That's a pretty big fine if you ask me. That's not a slap on the wrist -- that's going to be behavior-changing for most people.
  - quadrifoliate 5y ago
    > You're comparing income to salary, which doesn't make sense, since most of income goes back out on expenses. Where do you think my salary goes? Things are pretty expensive.
    - refurb 5y ago
      Then do the same math. $100k income, maybe $20k savings after all expenses (if you’re lucky), a $3,300 fine is huge then.
- t-writescode 5y ago
  One of the best things about the GDPR isn't that the maximum fine is _only_ 4% of the yearly revenue, it's that it's AS MUCH AS 4% of the yearly revenue. So when the court is considering fines, they don't go and look at a 3 million dollar fine and go "that's a good fine", they look at the revenue instead and go "the fine can be as much as 400M"
aminozuur 5y ago
I learned a new word https://wor.do/Zoombombing https://wor.do/Zoombombing
for1nner 5y ago
Glad to continue seeing regular reminders of what failed economic and legal systems look like in my very own backyard.
- edrxty 5y ago
  Do you mind expanding on what you mean?
  - eurasiantiger 5y ago
    The lawsuit awards less than $1 per Zoom user. Granted it only concerns US users so this figure is not strictly correct, but it shows privacy in a global service is a central problem that cannot be litigated for in a specific jurisdiction.
  - ezconnect 5y ago
    Corporation illegal and unethical actions have no consequences. In his country as long as you have money you are pretty much untouchable.
  - for1nner 5y ago
    Sure! Zoom made over $600M in profits in 2020 alone.[1] This awards members of the class at most $25 - which might materially mean something to an individual (unlikely), but is virtually nothing; furthermore as an accounting line item for Zoom, this is literally not worth batting an eye at. Yes there will be knock on effects of "better training" and scrutiny of messaging/security both internally and externally, but it will effect practically 0 change to their overall bottom line or revenue/profit projections, and there is obviously no legal precedent set or oversight changes that will aid end users moving forward. yay. What does all of that cost? $21M[2] to law firms. I won't go into the insanity and inanity of billable hours and the profit machine of law in this country, but that point is simply to underscore that those legal firms are the second winners in this. Despite their position and goal - ostensibly and in name only - of aiding the members of the class in seeking a just and fair reward for wrongdoing and bad faith by Zoom. Meanwhile, as others have commented, reputations and contracts have been burned and sullied, and doubtless money lost along with that, but our legal system is not interested in trying to attach responsibility or reparation to those effects (because they can't necessarily be proven as fault of Zoom). So the ultrarich get ultraricher. [1]https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1585521/000158552121000048/zm-20210131.htm#ia236e241e3d24ef38336aae04f576242_106 https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1585521/0001... [2]https://www.reuters.com/article/zoom-settlement-idUSKBN2F30WC https://www.reuters.com/article/zoom-settlement-idUSKBN2F30W...
stevenicr 5y ago
If it finalizes they are offering to send me $15 ? That is not enough for the damage to my reputation and that of my business. I recommended them to others for privacy important things and showed the advertised 'e2e' that was advertised approved by us gov. I also used it with several other security professionals to work in tandem on hacked servers. Passwords were not obfuscated do to our belief in the e2e. Shouldn't we get an opt-out of the class action email?
- sharken 5y ago
  Class action lawsuits rarely benefit the users financially. On the other hand the lawyers get a nice $21m payout. You can read the original complaint here: https://www.classlawgroup.com/zoom-class-action-lawsuit/ https://www.classlawgroup.com/zoom-class-action-lawsuit/
  - rhizome 5y ago
    >Class action lawsuits rarely benefit the users financially. ...because courts approve unreasonably low settlements.
- purplecats 5y ago
  it's pretty obvious that corporate crime pays exceedingly well. makes mathematical sense for corporations to do bad things for profit since we aren't a society that is capable of holding corporations financially accountable for their negative actions
  - bamboozled 5y ago
    Probably why there is so much vaccine hesitancy. (I've had my jab, it's ok).
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      I don't believe this is the only reason, but certainly part of it. Trust has to be earned.
stadium 5y ago
> Zoom had invaded the privacy of millions of users by sharing personal data with Facebook, Google and LinkedIn. What personal data was shared? Was the sharing of data the problem, or the T&C's weren't clear on it? The article doesn't mention it. What are the implications for other companies that share user data to advertising partners?
- Nicksil 5y ago
  >What personal data was shared? Was the sharing of data the problem, or the T&C's weren't clear on it? The article doesn't mention it. >What are the implications for other companies that share user data to advertising partners? If they ask the user and the use says it's OK, then I don't think there would be much of an issue.
  - eurasiantiger 5y ago
    Depends on how they ask. If I have to scroll through a list of 400 partners and uncheck ”legitimate interest” for each one, there is definitely an issue. Looking at you, TechCrunch.
    - Nicksil 5y ago
      >If I have to scroll through a list of 400 partners and uncheck ”legitimate interest” for each one, there is definitely an issue. Certainly. And they know it's an issue. And they know next to no body will sit there an un-check those options. Such dark patterns are replete in this industry. They know, if given the choice, very few people would opt-in. They know this and it continues every day.
EGreg 5y ago
So, how much will Clubhouse have to pay? https://www.tweaktown.com/news/80791/clubhouse-data-hacked-3-8-billion-phone-numbers-for-sale-on-darknet/index.html https://www.tweaktown.com/news/80791/clubhouse-data-hacked-3...
throwawaysea 5y ago
When I visit this BBC article I get a pop up asking me to sign in and then my browser just freezes up and becomes very unresponsive. This is Safari on iOS. Anyone else experiencing the same?
colechristensen 5y ago
Can we get a law that forbids (or taxes enormously) class action settlements that result in less than $10 per class member?
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Can we get a law that forbids (or taxes enormously) class action settlements that result in less than $10 per class member? Maybe we can, but that would be stupid. You are always free to opt out of a class action if you'd prefer what you think you can recover directly.
  - colechristensen 5y ago
    >Maybe we can, but that would be stupid. What value to society do small per-user judgements bring? They tend to be a negligible percentage of revenue, involve the company denying wrongdoing, and giving an amount valuing a gumball and a mcdonalds meal to people. Really what is the point?
    - d110af5ccf 5y ago
      > negligible percentage of revenue But what percentage of profit? And far more importantly, are they large enough to serve as a disincentive for others to do the same thing in the future? I'd suggest that the popularity of binding arbitration clauses is evidence that the fines are noticeable. (Note that I refer to class actions in general, not Zoom specifically.)
      - oblio 5y ago
        > And far more importantly, are they large enough to serve as a disincentive for others to do the same thing in the future? Considering that 100% of the popular social networks were built on these practices, no. They risk fines of hundreds of millions, maaaaybe billions at most, and they make tens of billions.
        5y ago
quattrofan 5y ago
Payday for scumbag lawyers. Shakespeare was right...
eingaeKaiy8ujie 5y ago
Never use any closed-source software if privacy is important. With closed-source software, always assume that there is zero privacy, all your data will be shared with third parties, and your system is compromised.
dinkleberg 5y ago
When they say sharing data with Google, Facebook, and LinkedIn, is this intentional sharing for their profit or is this a side effect of using things like the Facebook SDK to support Log in with Facebook? If they're using these third party services they should absolutely have that listed in their privacy policy, but even if the end result is the same, the intention is completely different between the two.
upofadown 5y ago
>It also accused Zoom of misstating that it offers end-to-end encryption... I really think that we need some sort of standard definition for what this actually means. Pretty much everything claims E2EE these days just as long as there is some sort of encryption used somewhere in their system. Many (most?) are not doing something that would mean that only the end users would have access to the content, even in the face of assertive actions by the provider. Many get the technical details right but fail to properly inform the user about any critical actions required on the part of the user to make that possible. Providers of such things should be expected to explicitly state who you need to trust and under what circumstances.

I'm so excited that some lawyers get a payout for a class action suit on behalf of me about stuff I could not care less about.

quadrifoliate 5y ago

Zoom's income in 2021 was 2.6 billion dollars. $86m/$2.6 billion = 0.033. If I earn $100k per year, that's like a fine of $3300.

threatofrain 5y ago
That's a substantial fee for a human making $100k per year (plus taxes), but I don't think we should be comparing what's a reasonable fine for a person vs a business.
- parineum 5y ago
  Why?
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    Taking 3.3% of someone's income is substantial, whereas for a business, this is a cha-ching deal for potentially getting a business edge by not focusing on privacy rules when momentum mattered. Most businesses are structured such that failing isn't disastrous (creditors cannot chase after the owners), whereas a human experiencing financial failure is an extreme life setback.
    - grp000 5y ago
      Not to mention the compounding effects of getting that business advantage earlier than others in the same space. If you can lie and say you have e2e encryption to scoop up market share before anyone else, even if the bare-faced lie gets revealed like it did here, not all of the clients who signed up are going to leave you, and you already have market inertia as a big player that will help you keep growing.
    - parineum 5y ago
      Those are all advantages an individual can achieve by breaking the rules as well.
      - effingwewt 5y ago
        No when people break rules it's called breaking the law and we get life-altering fines and jail time. Corporations lose one day of revenue and continue with business as usual.
- quadrifoliate 5y ago
  I understand that a person and a business are different, but it's worth contrasting if numbers are roughly in the same ballpark, right? A lot of businesses do start out as just one person. In a year with like 300% revenue growth, I feel like Zoom can probably just treat this fine as cost of doing business. I mean, I pay a lot more than $3k in taxes per year!
- ttty2 5y ago
  I think we need ask the question: is this fee enough to prevent bad behavior? I think not, then just be higher.
yarky 5y ago
3.3% of gross revenue isn't as tiny as you make it sound.
- bpodgursky 5y ago
  Yeah I mean, if I got a $3,300 speeding ticket I would be furious for about a month.
  - quadrifoliate 5y ago
    Are you sure? What if you were making only $25k/year the previous year, and the speeding ticket enabled you to get the job that's making $100k/year?
    - thedmstdmstdmst 5y ago
      Yeah usually a $3,300.00 ticket comes with some form of demerits so even if you pay the fine you lose your license if you do it to much. Can't think of a job where you'd benefit by speeding but losing your license would be fine.
  - hellbannedguy 5y ago
    We need to tie all governmental fee/fines (muni, civil, criminal, even patent/trademark) to 1040 income level. A wealthy man get's a $625 red light violation, and it's dinner conversation. A poor man get the same punishment, and it could be the last straw.
  - paxys 5y ago
    And if you got a $3,300 fine for murdering someone you'd be pretty happy about it.
modriano 5y ago
A $3300 fine would get me to change my behavior. I don't think Zoom is profiting from breeching privacy; I think they profit from providing video-meeting software. I think penalizing undesirable behavior that doesn't produce profit will motivate Zoom to take that undesirable behavior very seriously.
- bsder 5y ago
  Is that $3,300 the reason why I have a $100K job instead of a $50K job? If so, I wouldn't even flinch at paying that. Many moons ago, lawyers used to crash the carpool lanes in Washington, DC for about that price given the time they would save and the amount they could bill. The firms just started paying the fines. It wasn't until the penalty started having points and could cost you your drivers license that the behavior stopped.
- sleepyhead 5y ago
  "I don't think Zoom is profiting from breeching privacy" They are. "Move fast and break things"-strategy is a decision for higher growth at the cost of privacy, security and stability for customers.
fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
The discourse on this is interesting to me. I first heard it in reference to truly small fines, like less than a million dollars for a big company. Then over time it gets repeated for literally any fine, no matter how large. Now we are talking about a month’s worth of profits (Zoom’s profit last quarter was $227M), which is really quite a lot. It’s a similar magnitude event to a global company losing all its UK customers. Hundreds of people would be laid off for a screwup this big, whole business units shut down.
- justapassenger 5y ago
  It’s one off write off during earnings call. It’s really not a big deal at all, it can even cause stock price to pop, as it shows that company is big enough, that lying is cheap and gives you amazing ROI. E2EE was a big feature that helped to fuel the growth. One month of profits, once you’ve experienced extreme growth and tons of money infusion, is a great deal.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- quadrifoliate 5y ago
  > Then over time it gets repeated for literally any fine, no matter how large. I mean, I think it's worthwhile to compare and see how you'd think about this, right? $3k fine seems high in the abstract to me. Then again, if it's viewed as a kind of tax for going from $25k/year in annual income to $100k/year – eh, doesn't sound like much. What do you think? > Hundreds of people would be laid off for a screwup this big, whole business units shut down. I am actually curious to see if that's the case – are there any reports of such shutdowns/layoffs?
- eurasiantiger 5y ago
  It does not matter for a company that is funded by the CCP.
crazygringo 5y ago
You're comparing income to salary, which doesn't make sense, since most of income goes back out on expenses. A more logical comparison is profits (net income) to salary, which is the money they keep (like salary). Zoom had net income of $672M in FY2021. Which means if you earned $100k, that'd be a fine of $12,800. That's a pretty big fine if you ask me. That's not a slap on the wrist -- that's going to be behavior-changing for most people.
- quadrifoliate 5y ago
  > You're comparing income to salary, which doesn't make sense, since most of income goes back out on expenses. Where do you think my salary goes? Things are pretty expensive.
  - refurb 5y ago
    Then do the same math. $100k income, maybe $20k savings after all expenses (if you’re lucky), a $3,300 fine is huge then.
t-writescode 5y ago
One of the best things about the GDPR isn't that the maximum fine is _only_ 4% of the yearly revenue, it's that it's AS MUCH AS 4% of the yearly revenue. So when the court is considering fines, they don't go and look at a 3 million dollar fine and go "that's a good fine", they look at the revenue instead and go "the fine can be as much as 400M"

aminozuur 5y ago

I learned a new word https://wor.do/Zoombombing https://wor.do/Zoombombing

for1nner 5y ago

Glad to continue seeing regular reminders of what failed economic and legal systems look like in my very own backyard.

edrxty 5y ago
Do you mind expanding on what you mean?
- eurasiantiger 5y ago
  The lawsuit awards less than $1 per Zoom user. Granted it only concerns US users so this figure is not strictly correct, but it shows privacy in a global service is a central problem that cannot be litigated for in a specific jurisdiction.
- ezconnect 5y ago
  Corporation illegal and unethical actions have no consequences. In his country as long as you have money you are pretty much untouchable.
- for1nner 5y ago
  Sure! Zoom made over $600M in profits in 2020 alone.[1] This awards members of the class at most $25 - which might materially mean something to an individual (unlikely), but is virtually nothing; furthermore as an accounting line item for Zoom, this is literally not worth batting an eye at. Yes there will be knock on effects of "better training" and scrutiny of messaging/security both internally and externally, but it will effect practically 0 change to their overall bottom line or revenue/profit projections, and there is obviously no legal precedent set or oversight changes that will aid end users moving forward. yay. What does all of that cost? $21M[2] to law firms. I won't go into the insanity and inanity of billable hours and the profit machine of law in this country, but that point is simply to underscore that those legal firms are the second winners in this. Despite their position and goal - ostensibly and in name only - of aiding the members of the class in seeking a just and fair reward for wrongdoing and bad faith by Zoom. Meanwhile, as others have commented, reputations and contracts have been burned and sullied, and doubtless money lost along with that, but our legal system is not interested in trying to attach responsibility or reparation to those effects (because they can't necessarily be proven as fault of Zoom). So the ultrarich get ultraricher. [1]https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1585521/000158552121000048/zm-20210131.htm#ia236e241e3d24ef38336aae04f576242_106 https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1585521/0001... [2]https://www.reuters.com/article/zoom-settlement-idUSKBN2F30WC https://www.reuters.com/article/zoom-settlement-idUSKBN2F30W...

stevenicr 5y ago

If it finalizes they are offering to send me $15 ? That is not enough for the damage to my reputation and that of my business. I recommended them to others for privacy important things and showed the advertised 'e2e' that was advertised approved by us gov. I also used it with several other security professionals to work in tandem on hacked servers. Passwords were not obfuscated do to our belief in the e2e. Shouldn't we get an opt-out of the class action email?

sharken 5y ago
Class action lawsuits rarely benefit the users financially. On the other hand the lawyers get a nice $21m payout. You can read the original complaint here: https://www.classlawgroup.com/zoom-class-action-lawsuit/ https://www.classlawgroup.com/zoom-class-action-lawsuit/
- rhizome 5y ago
  >Class action lawsuits rarely benefit the users financially. ...because courts approve unreasonably low settlements.
purplecats 5y ago
it's pretty obvious that corporate crime pays exceedingly well. makes mathematical sense for corporations to do bad things for profit since we aren't a society that is capable of holding corporations financially accountable for their negative actions
- bamboozled 5y ago
  Probably why there is so much vaccine hesitancy. (I've had my jab, it's ok).
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    I don't believe this is the only reason, but certainly part of it. Trust has to be earned.

stadium 5y ago

> Zoom had invaded the privacy of millions of users by sharing personal data with Facebook, Google and LinkedIn. What personal data was shared? Was the sharing of data the problem, or the T&C's weren't clear on it? The article doesn't mention it. What are the implications for other companies that share user data to advertising partners?

Nicksil 5y ago
>What personal data was shared? Was the sharing of data the problem, or the T&C's weren't clear on it? The article doesn't mention it. >What are the implications for other companies that share user data to advertising partners? If they ask the user and the use says it's OK, then I don't think there would be much of an issue.
- eurasiantiger 5y ago
  Depends on how they ask. If I have to scroll through a list of 400 partners and uncheck ”legitimate interest” for each one, there is definitely an issue. Looking at you, TechCrunch.
  - Nicksil 5y ago
    >If I have to scroll through a list of 400 partners and uncheck ”legitimate interest” for each one, there is definitely an issue. Certainly. And they know it's an issue. And they know next to no body will sit there an un-check those options. Such dark patterns are replete in this industry. They know, if given the choice, very few people would opt-in. They know this and it continues every day.

EGreg 5y ago

So, how much will Clubhouse have to pay? https://www.tweaktown.com/news/80791/clubhouse-data-hacked-3-8-billion-phone-numbers-for-sale-on-darknet/index.html https://www.tweaktown.com/news/80791/clubhouse-data-hacked-3...

throwawaysea 5y ago

When I visit this BBC article I get a pop up asking me to sign in and then my browser just freezes up and becomes very unresponsive. This is Safari on iOS. Anyone else experiencing the same?

colechristensen 5y ago

Can we get a law that forbids (or taxes enormously) class action settlements that result in less than $10 per class member?

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Can we get a law that forbids (or taxes enormously) class action settlements that result in less than $10 per class member? Maybe we can, but that would be stupid. You are always free to opt out of a class action if you'd prefer what you think you can recover directly.
- colechristensen 5y ago
  >Maybe we can, but that would be stupid. What value to society do small per-user judgements bring? They tend to be a negligible percentage of revenue, involve the company denying wrongdoing, and giving an amount valuing a gumball and a mcdonalds meal to people. Really what is the point?
  - d110af5ccf 5y ago
    > negligible percentage of revenue But what percentage of profit? And far more importantly, are they large enough to serve as a disincentive for others to do the same thing in the future? I'd suggest that the popularity of binding arbitration clauses is evidence that the fines are noticeable. (Note that I refer to class actions in general, not Zoom specifically.)
    - oblio 5y ago
      > And far more importantly, are they large enough to serve as a disincentive for others to do the same thing in the future? Considering that 100% of the popular social networks were built on these practices, no. They risk fines of hundreds of millions, maaaaybe billions at most, and they make tens of billions.
      - 5y ago

quattrofan 5y ago

Payday for scumbag lawyers. Shakespeare was right...

eingaeKaiy8ujie 5y ago

Never use any closed-source software if privacy is important. With closed-source software, always assume that there is zero privacy, all your data will be shared with third parties, and your system is compromised.

dinkleberg 5y ago

When they say sharing data with Google, Facebook, and LinkedIn, is this intentional sharing for their profit or is this a side effect of using things like the Facebook SDK to support Log in with Facebook? If they're using these third party services they should absolutely have that listed in their privacy policy, but even if the end result is the same, the intention is completely different between the two.

upofadown 5y ago

>It also accused Zoom of misstating that it offers end-to-end encryption... I really think that we need some sort of standard definition for what this actually means. Pretty much everything claims E2EE these days just as long as there is some sort of encryption used somewhere in their system. Many (most?) are not doing something that would mean that only the end users would have access to the content, even in the face of assertive actions by the provider. Many get the technical details right but fail to properly inform the user about any critical actions required on the part of the user to make that possible. Providers of such things should be expected to explicitly state who you need to trust and under what circumstances.