Zoom needs to clean up its privacy act

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.

> 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/

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?

In the end, its cost vs benefit. Does the benefit overweight the cost ? For most people, including me the answer is Yes.

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.

It goes both way, if you force privacy, you too are excluding people for whom the cost vs benefit is the other way

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.

>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.