News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Zoom meetings aren’t end-to-end encrypted, despite marketing. Parent comment

Re:Zoom meetings aren’t end-to-end encrypted, despite marketing by cyphar on Tuesday March 31, 2020 @05:51AM (#22736163)
It goes far further than stupid comments by our (former) prime minister. The current legislation (passed in 2018) allows the government to force the installation of backdoors through a process that doesn't have any judicial overview or substantial public scrutiny whatsoever.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Zoom meetings aren’t end-to-end encrypted, despite marketing by maze-le on Tuesday March 31, 2020 @05:56AM (#22736188)
Number one reason we dropped JIRA.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Zoom meetings aren’t end-to-end encrypted, despite marketing by sebiol on Tuesday March 31, 2020 @07:42AM (#22736610)
Out of curiosity, what did you switch to?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Zoom meetings aren’t end-to-end encrypted, despite marketing by 101404 on Tuesday March 31, 2020 @11:28AM (#22738451)
Why? How is it related to Jira?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Zoom meetings aren’t end-to-end encrypted, despite marketing by lvh on Tuesday March 31, 2020 @11:43AM (#22738635)
Atlassian is an Australian company, headquartered in Sydney, though the current plc is legally in the UK. (I have no idea if that means they're bound by said backdoor law.)
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Zoom meetings aren’t end-to-end encrypted, despite marketing by cyphar on Tuesday March 31, 2020 @01:16PM (#22739821)
They are because they provide services to Australians and have an Australian subsidiary -- just as anyone in Australia must comply with a warrant or any other lawful request by law enforcement.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Zoom meetings aren’t end-to-end encrypted, despite marketing by marcus_holmes on Tuesday March 31, 2020 @03:18PM (#22741355)
If they employ a single Aussie developer, or have foreign developers on Australian soil, the government can coerce those developer to insert anything they like.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Zoom meetings aren’t end-to-end encrypted, despite marketing by cyphar on Tuesday March 31, 2020 @10:24PM (#22744985)
This is not quite true, though it was reported widely. The legislation doesn't consider individuals as "designated communications providers" if they work for one (unless they are self-employed or sole traders). The way it works is that your employer gets a TCN and then they disclose it to the employees necessary to implement it.

But note that if you have an Australian employee (unless they are a sole trader / contractor) you must already have an Australian subsidiary of your company (for tax and superannuation reasons).

Don't get me wrong, I am absolutely opposed to this legislation and think it is a draconian overstep of government power which (despite the PR spin doled out by the government) was absolutely not necessary for effective law enforcement. But it's best not to fall into the trap of overstating what the law actually allows the government to do.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Zoom meetings aren’t end-to-end encrypted, despite marketing by marcus_holmes on Wednesday April 01, 2020 @08:04AM (#22747809)
useful correction, thanks :)
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Zoom meetings aren’t end-to-end encrypted, despite marketing by ThePowerOfFuet on Tuesday March 31, 2020 @11:44AM (#22738644)
Atlassian is based in Australia.
[ Parent | on HN ]