Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

It wouldn't be controversial if they explicitly stated that, and took "End-to-end encryption for all meetings" off of their features page.


sort by: page size:

According to the article, users can opt-in to end-to-end encryption, so it's not true that this is "out of our control".

Their encryption is on by default, just not the end-to-end kind. I know that's pedantic but it's true.

OK, that would be serious flaw, and also the current blog post states clearly that they do, so if that's a lie, then we have a much bigger problem on our hands than whether they should be using the term "end-to-end encryption."

> To be clear, in a meeting where all of the participants are using Zoom clients, and the meeting is not being recorded, we encrypt all video, audio, screen sharing, and chat content at the sending client, and do not decrypt it at any point before it reaches the receiving clients.


If it's true that they implemented end-to-end encryption (as it seems), it's unlikely that they do.

I'm not claiming it is end-to-end, nor did I expect it to be, but perhaps some people would assume that. I thought you were claiming they don't use encryption at all.

No, that's not relevant for the end to end encryption though.

According to the article, they don't yet have end-to-end encryption yet. It's still under development.

of course they don't want end-to-end encryption because then they won't be able to look at your data...

The issue in my eyes is more that they are intentionally redefining what end-to-end encryption is, which is intentionally misleading.

You implied that encryption is optional whereas this shouldn't even be a discussion.

Most of the comments here seem to be about the cons of removing encryption or backdooring encryption, but I don't think the author is suggesting that.

I think the article is only advocating for a checkbox in the settings menu to enable encryption for any would-be communication medium, which is turned off by default. I'm not especially against this, so long as there are no detractors to enabling this option.


I don’t see “end-to-end encryption” among advertised features. Is it true, or encryption is implied these days?

No end to end encryption is deal breaker for most.

If the service doesn't enforce end-to-end encryption of customer data, then it's a misleading statement.

In addition to this, they've also locked the ability for users to vote for this feature so even if you do sign in, you can't vote for end to end encryption to be implemented.

That was their earlier statement. This one says encryption.

It's a shame they dropped mandatory encryption. Now "HTTP2 all the things" doesn't mean "encrypt all the things" anymore.

The question is simple: Are they building it with end-to-end encryption? If not, it deserves all the criticism. Security/privacy has to be part of the design and cannot be bolted on post-facto.

Why not end to end encryption so we don’t need to even discuss this.
next

Legal | privacy