Most active commenters
  • angry_octet(5)
  • matz1(4)

←back to thread

Zoom needs to clean up its privacy act

(blogs.harvard.edu)
1597 points seapunk | 11 comments | 27 Mar 20 14:18 UTC | HN request time: 0.767s | source | bottom
Show context
mikestew ◴[27 Mar 20 14:46 UTC] No.22703219[source]▶
I have a need for Zoom, virus or no, but the point of the article is why I don't give them money. Give them money, while the company is apparently still going to worry about milking advertising dollars out of me? That's just going to be a strong "no". As the final paragraph of TFA says, either charge more or give away less for free. But if you're selling me out to advertisers after I've given you money, then you're one of "those" companies that I avoid if at all possible. Because they're skeezy. You don't want to appear skeezy, do you, Zoom?

So for now Skype and MS Teams works fine, or at least fine enough that I don't bother with Zoom. Which brings me to a side question: what is the value proposition for Zoom? What does their product do so much better than the others that I'd put up with this shit? Why am I hearing the hell out of it lately? Outstanding PR department?

EDIT: thanks for your answers to “why use it, then?” Because “it just works” seems to be the summary, which hoo boy, one cannot say about a lot of the competition.

replies(29): >>22703265 #>>22703271 #>>22703364 #>>22703382 #>>22703404 #>>22703580 #>>22703612 #>>22703697 #>>22703733 #>>22703760 #>>22703778 #>>22703833 #>>22704080 #>>22704128 #>>22704400 #>>22704642 #>>22704814 #>>22705137 #>>22705220 #>>22705347 #>>22705917 #>>22706107 #>>22706304 #>>22706493 #>>22707187 #>>22707586 #>>22708730 #>>22708818 #>>22709124 #
impendia ◴[27 Mar 20 15:05 UTC] No.22703382[source]▶
> What does their product do so much better than the others that I'd put up with this shit?

I'll share my perspective as an academic. Many of us have adopted Zoom, practically overnight, for our teaching, for one-on-one meetings with students, and even for conferences [1].

The answer is: It just works. It's easy. It does what we want it to, with a minimum of fuss.

As someone who now has a whole bunch of unanticipated shit to deal with, this is one less thing to worry about.

I definitely share your objection in principle. If this situation continues long into the future (a terrifying thought), then perhaps I'll revisit my choice of software. But in the short term, to be honest, I don't much care.

[1] https://www.daniellitt.com/agonize/

replies(11): >>22703420 #>>22703766 #>>22705467 #>>22705546 #>>22705584 #>>22706044 #>>22706113 #>>22706132 #>>22706184 #>>22707182 #>>22707723 #
hobs ◴[27 Mar 20 15:09 UTC] No.22703420[source]▶
Really trying to figure out a response that isnt flip - but if you give up your principals when something is difficult, why have them at all?
replies(6): >>22703457 #>>22703466 #>>22703504 #>>22703532 #>>22703670 #>>22704618 #
matz1 ◴[27 Mar 20 15:16 UTC] No.22703504[source]▶
In the end, its cost vs benefit. Does the benefit overweight the cost ? For most people, including me the answer is Yes.
replies(2): >>22703699 #>>22703746 #
angry_octet ◴[27 Mar 20 15:32 UTC] No.22703699[source]▶
But are you excluding people for whom the cost vs benefit is the other way? If you're in a position of authority it is up to you to minimise the violation.
replies(1): >>22703844 #
matz1 ◴[27 Mar 20 15:44 UTC] No.22703844[source]▶
It goes both way, if you force privacy, you too are excluding people for whom the cost vs benefit is the other way
replies(1): >>22704025 #
1. angry_octet ◴[27 Mar 20 16:00 UTC] No.22704025[source]▶
The consequences of privacy loss can be severe, up to and including violent death (partner violence, anti-LGBTI attacks, religious persecution). A person with a moral (and likely legal) obligation to protect individual privacy cannot lightly discard someone's fundamental rights to favour the marginal benefit of others.

We haven't seen a Zoom log found in an open S3 bucket yet, or a leak via fb, but experience says that it is only a matter of time.

So if you're going to mandate Zoom, own the risk. Mitigation is possible: provide recorded streams for secured download (if safe/ethical/notified to record other participants!); provide a work laptop with a non-identifying config instead of a BYOD; many other options.

replies(2): >>22704262 #>>22704446 #
2. matz1 ◴[27 Mar 20 16:26 UTC] No.22704262[source]▶
>The consequences of privacy loss can be severe, up to and including violent death (partner violence, anti-LGBTI attacks, religious persecution)

If you are going that way then likewise, there is always someone somewhere could die because the software doesn't work because they prioritize privacy.

Beside, The reason we have growing acceptance for the LGBT is because of the openness and transparency. That won't happen if we have perfect privacy.

Yes is true that leak is only matter of time, so its even more infeasible to maintain privacy. The solution should be to assume information is public as much as we can and fix the issue that arise from that.

replies(1): >>22705765 #
3. spunker540 ◴[27 Mar 20 16:45 UTC] No.22704446[source]▶
What could possibly happen in an educational setting that is so sensitive that it needs a CIA-level approach to safeguarding privacy?

The consequence of getting on a school bus can be life or death. The consequence of eating a peanut butter sandwich can be life or death.

If you’re a medical professional or psychiatrist, maybe you shouldn’t use zoom due it’s privacy record. But if you’re teaching a lecture on linked lists to your class of 30 kids, death via persecution should probably be very low on your considerations when choosing video conference tech.

replies(3): >>22705646 #>>22707283 #>>22708324 #
4. angry_octet ◴[27 Mar 20 18:51 UTC] No.22705646[source]▶
It isn't being used just for comp sci lectures though, it's being used for all sorts of things, e.g. union organising, prayer meetings. (And even for Comp Sci it tells an observer who goes to which university and the class(es) they take.)

Frankly I find your comment dismissive of the real threats faced by women and minorities.

replies(1): >>22708454 #
5. angry_octet ◴[27 Mar 20 19:02 UTC] No.22705765[source]▶
'A privacy breach is inevitable with this this privacy violating software, so no point in having privacy' is quite an unconventional take.

If you could post your real name, address, phone number, email, sexual orientation, religion, employment status, performance review, salary, hobbies, political viewpoints etc we can get started processing your revocation of privacy.

Oh you didn't realise your boss was having meetings with HR over Zoom? Sorry, we can't have different rules for some.

Oh and you'll start seeing ads for '5 step sobreity' now since we see you were in the local AA Zoom. Sorry about not getting that new job -- that company ticked the 'no addicts' flag in the selection matrix, and, well, the job market is kinda competitive now.

replies(2): >>22706297 #>>22709758 #
6. matz1 ◴[27 Mar 20 20:04 UTC] No.22706297{3}[source]▶
>If you could post your real name, address, phone number, email, sexual orientation, religion, employment status, performance review, salary, hobbies, political viewpoints etc we can get started processing your revocation of privacy.

Eventually yes, I would prefer that I don't have to keep secret of all of those information but I can't because not everyone is.

>Oh and you'll start seeing ads for '5 step sobreity' now since we see you were in the local AA Zoom. Sorry about not getting that new job -- that company ticked the 'no addicts' flag in the selection matrix, and, well, the job market is kinda competitive now

If a company choose not to hire addict than its their choice, its their lost.

7. madwhitehatter ◴[27 Mar 20 21:57 UTC] No.22707283[source]▶
Why do they have to record calls? Transcribe the call into text then Store it. Why do they need to take copies of whiteboards and PowerPoint’s it’s does not make sense.
8. mlyle ◴[28 Mar 20 01:04 UTC] No.22708324[source]▶
Guess (or find a leaked meeting ID) and you can talk / show things pseudo-anonymously to a bunch of kindergartners today. Or just observe them and find out aout them. That has some potential problems.
9. spunker540 ◴[28 Mar 20 01:31 UTC] No.22708454{3}[source]▶
I did not mean to be dismissive of real threats. But I also think an overwhelming majority of calls on zoom could be leaked wholesale and no one would be harmed. And just because they use the Facebook and Google SDKs to measure their marketing does not mean they’re “selling user data” or inadequately protecting the privacy of video conversations. And it’s a very far leap to blame an educator for choosing zoom (a free and easy to use product) as insensitive to the persecution of minorities, when it’s really not a factor for most use-cases.
replies(1): >>22711527 #
10. saagarjha ◴[28 Mar 20 07:24 UTC] No.22709758{3}[source]▶
> If you could post your real name, address, phone number, email, sexual orientation, religion, employment status, performance review, salary, hobbies, political viewpoints etc we can get started processing your revocation of privacy.

I have actually voluntarily shared pretty much everything on your list publicly at some point. Even then the important part is that it was my choice to do so, and there’s still a number of things I will not freely share.

11. angry_octet ◴[28 Mar 20 15:01 UTC] No.22711527{4}[source]▶
Let me know where you draw the line for beginning to care, without having asked any of the participants.

I know math lectures don't seem a hot spot, but it's a slippery slope of adoption, and you might be surprised about the depth of harassment problems in the math community.