That without a doubt all changed many times and somewhat supprised they are using Zoom, and would of thought at least would of contracted to run their own private server connected via VPN. Very supprised and when American politicians all loved their blackberry's, they had their own dedicated servers they controlled access to, supplied by RIM.
But the DOH and all the other government departments are entities unto themselves, and I'm not that up on anything the last couple of decades, but suspect that there isn't any common solution to enable what they need to do for remote working in isolation. I'm sure much will change after this. Also fairly sure GCHQ probably bashing their heads on the table.
But I can see how they got to where they are, knowing aspects of government workings and departmental fencing, still - does kinda make you go WTF still.
I suspect Zoom just happens to be the choice this particular group has settled on. While across government people have been scrabbling to just make something work now that security's previous modus operandi is being trumped by the need to let people work from home.
Government even more than the private sector have been slow to allow for home working. I'm hopeful this will change that.
Not nearly hard enough. Not even close to hard enough. They need help with that, possibly with heavy machinery.
Core parts of GCHQ might love the potential honey pot. But their offshoot NCSC [1] will be table-flipping big time.
* [1] https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/
Not smacking their heads into the table nearly hard enough. Not even close.
Literally copying the literal Stasi approach to spying (not the rest, just spying) would simultaneously improve the quality of the data and reduce the negative side effects relative to the UK’s Investigatory Powers Act 2016.
The macho pose that comes out everytime someone suggests they should be subject to, you know, the law and behave better than Stalin's henchmen is very worrying.
So who is the politician who will is effective enough to provide true oversight and rein them in when required.
Name that politician. Any party.
Do you see the problem now?
Yes see, this is why almost nobody in the general population takes opinions like yours at all seriously.
If a government anointed any given handful of OS organizations as preferred benefactors of donations, I'd expect grifters to infiltrate those organizations and parasitically siphon off the funds one way or another.
Incentives matter. Government incentives are to be popular, or attract the support of other people who are popular or influential. Being efficient or effective is only a small part of that. I don't know that there's a good solution to the incentive problem.
I’d expect companies like Raytheon, Cerner, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and HPE/CSC/DXC to win a supermajority of those contracts.
Please check https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eu-fossa-2/news/how-c...
If the EU wants an open-source conferencing solution they have to do it in-house (whether from scratch or fork an existing solution) and treat it like a business with a clear objective and actual employees (instead of benevolent devs donating their time & effort) including positions which open source projects often deem unnecessary like UI & UX design, and so on.
I think France is also funding/developing Matrix.
There's also EU Public License (EUPL). One notable example of software that uses it is Pi-hole.
One more interesting thing I can think of is Joinup, whose idea is to share solutions between administrations in the EU: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/
https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/201363093-Deployin...
> HIPAA/PIPEDA plans start at $$200 per month per account, which comes with 10 hosts.
Apple's FaceTime is not HIPAA compliant because they haven't filed the paperwork.[1]
(Obviously, there are a lot more steps to it than signing a Business Associate agreement, but I would bet FaceTime is probably a little more secure than Zoom)
1. Go to zoom.com 2. Click "Join a meeting" 3. Enter meeting id and click Join 4. Ignore the automatic app download 5. Go back 6. Click "Join a meeting" again 7. Enter meeting id and click Join again 8. Ignore the app download again 9. Click at "If nothing prompts, click here" 10. Click "Join from your browser" 11. Agree to terms of service 12. Enter password and name, click Join
Yes, it actually requires you go back and try again at step 5. What dark pattern?
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/find-and-replace-...
Or do these guys just post this kind of stuff without even running it by their security folks?
To me, this sounds like a security 101 type issue.
The current UK PM is not the type to ask experts about whether it's a good idea, anyway.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/boris-johnson-co...
> Johnson, on his doctor’s recommendation, has withdrawn into his chambers for seven days and will forgo all public appearances and in-person group meetings. He will have his food left at the door to his apartment, his aides said.
> “He’s self-isolating in his flat,” said his official spokesman.
Edit, because downvotes: government email addresses can be retrieved easily through public records laws, and is done routinely, and can easily be scraped or inferred. I've done both many, many times, and it's trivial.
I’ve noticed over the years that FaceTime is much more likely than other video chat software to drop the video connection and move to audio only in case the connection is unstable whereas most others will hitch and lag for 30 seconds before looking into it, so maybe they got around it by only shipping the video in one or two resolutions?
How many participants can you have in a FaceTime group call?
I have also noticed that FaceTime drops the video much more often that other software.
Basically it's doable, but if you can prevent people complaining about the fans taking off and the CPU usage... why would you risk it?
(No idea how widespread encoder/decoder support is compared to vanilla h264 though)
Zoom automatically switches between quality levels based on your connection speed, who's talking and the size of the viewport. 720p would look fairly rough when fullscreened on most non-mobile displays, but it's orders of magnitude more than necessary when viewed as a thumbnail on a mobile device. Making multi-user video work in a mostly seamless fashion is a surprisingly hard problem.
Using a single stream would substantially degrade the experience, which may be a worthwhile tradeoff for high-security environments but certainly wouldn't be a worthwhile tradeoff for most users.
I may be spoiled with a good real 50/10 Mbit connection but for me in 2020 720p is the bare minimum. Expecially when screen sharing.
Ah, the guy at the top left.
Yes, shared by the Prime Minister, number and all. What a time to be alive.