Zoom says it won’t encrypt free calls so it can work more with law enforcement

Re:Zoom says it won’t encrypt free calls so it can work more... by 4bpp on Wednesday June 03, 2020 @03:31PM (#23407633)

You can't do physical harm with encryption (unless you want to count superficial burns acquired from touching a Bitcoin-mining GPU), though. The presence of guns is a necessary and pretty much sufficient condition for certain classes of physical harm, which in the eyes of many _does_ make or qualitatively different.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zoom says it won’t encrypt free calls so it can work more... by bonaldi on Wednesday June 03, 2020 @04:04PM (#23407991)

One of the defences Facebook uses when confronted with WhatsApp-orchestrated lynchings in India is that e2e encryption means it can't know what people are talking about or help police track the source of the messages.

https://www.wired.com/story/how-whatsapp-fuels-fake-news-and...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zoom says it won’t encrypt free calls so it can work more... by 4bpp on Wednesday June 03, 2020 @04:24PM (#23408196)

Your point? If those lynchings had been orchestrated by people meeting up in person instead, nobody could know what people are talking about or help police track the source of the messages either.

In either case, to actually lynch someone, you still need to go there physically and actually do the deed. WhatsApp chats don't kill; dudes with weapons do.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Zoom says it won’t encrypt free calls so it can work more... by bonaldi on Wednesday June 03, 2020 @04:50PM (#23408550)

The point is the scale. Law enforcement was scaled and equipped to meet the challenge of in-person lynch mob formation. In-person meetings are risky, finding like-minded people can be a challenge, etc.

Encrypted comms gives a huge asymmetric scale benefit to those who have these crimes committed. What it hasn't scaled is the ability of law enforcement to respond. And that's a choice, one which is open to criticism.

[ Parent | on HN ]