If I remember correctly, zoom used to have on the front page - use this it's encrypted, and 'even used by us govt something-something' - so I assumed it was completely secure.
I actually refused to use other conference services much to the bemoans of many clients who already had other 'goto' software installed, used and understood - and convinced them that in order to talk turkey we needed to use the real secure zoom system.
It passed the smell test at the time for me because they also had paid plans which meant to me a legitimate business that did not need to slay privacy with ads and such, as they had a clear path to make money.
Now they are tarnished, and my reputation with several clients and doctors and others may be as well - as this is getting mainstream press (I think that's a good thing actually) - I'm livid about this.
I agree with below it is also fraud - and another commentator mentioned they changed to "your client connection is encrypted" is still deception imho. Needs a big asterisk and real explanation of the lack of privacy.
I know it's the kind of thing that can randomly keep a person up at night, but I think you can probably safely forget about this awkwardness and move on.
People in Tennessee watching regular news on free over the air antenna (non-cable news) -> https://www.wsmv.com/news/security-experts-warn-about-zoom-h...
any anyone who is within earshot of such 'non-tech news' is hearing how unsecure zoom is.
Sure most of my clients are unlikely to read HN at all, and most are unlikely to read tech crunch regularly if at all - but I bet some have TC or something similar in their fbook feed.
People watching TV news in Utah see: https://fox17.com/news/nation-world/zoom-call-with-utah-elem...
However people who don't even own computers are seeing this debacle.
So, anyone I've advised to use zoom for privacy and security, citing the encryption and use by US gov - is going to have to wonder - how do these things happen on a secure, private, encrypted system - must not be what it was purported to be by that guy Steve. Then they are going to wonder what kind of damage could be done with the info that was 'securely' shared with the service.
where's the hassle? or the lack of shine? it works better than any other proprietary service
1) I don't want to train them on it
2) I don't want to support them on it
3) It isn't good enough for them to use without 1-2
So I pick the shiny costly commercial version that comes with training and support.
I mean, I've done the recommend my parents and older coworkers use difficult OSS software thing in my past, and I honestly regret it. No one won.
insert Hanlons razor quote here
But just because someone uses a word wrong doesn't give you any proof about their intentions. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22767447 for further elaboration on that point.
Again, it's harmful to use words incorrectly, _especially_ when it comes to E2E, so they should rightly get flak for getting it wrong. You all seem to be so sure that it was intentional though, while I've seen the same problem so many times before in the industry without it being intentional. If you do have proof it's intentional, please share it with the rest of us so we can be on the same page.
Being incompetent has nothing to do with the size or prominence of the company. Big/prominent companies fuck up/are sloppy all the time.
Their intention was to deceive users that the communication was encrypted, when in reality it wasn't.
I'm in no way saying it's impossible that Zoom did say E2E encryption while knowing that's not true, but I could imagine a scenario where a security person says "Yeah, we're encrypting connections to our backend" and a marketing person researching E2E and then saying to themselves "Yeah, sounds like we're doing E2E, let's write that", because this stuff happens all the time in the industry.
> Their intention was to deceive users
You sound so sure about their intentions, do you have any actual proof of this that others are missing? Again, I'm not saying it's impossible that their intention was to deceive users, but as an engineer, I always favor proof over guessing.