>>chrono+(OP)
Called it a few days ago: >>37022827

It's baffling how many people in previous threads thought a company that gets most of its money from enterprise/business clients, will burn all their reputation by surreptitiously using client data to train their AI.

>>gruez+ch
Given the company’s history, it doesn’t seem very baffling at all…

> Zoom has agreed to pay $85 million to settle claims that it lied about offering end-to-end encryption and gave user data to Facebook and Google without the consent of users. The settlement between Zoom and the filers of a class-action lawsuit also covers security problems [0]

> Mac update nukes dangerous webserver installed by Zoom [1]

> The 'S' in Zoom, Stands for Security - uncovering (local) security flaws in Zoom's macOS client [2]

[0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/08/zoom-to-pay-85m-...

[1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/07/silen...

[2] https://objective-see.org/blog/blog_0x56.html

>>gruez+ch
Yes, who could imagine such a thing from a company that leaked personal data without consent (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58050391) and lied about end-to-end encryption for 5 years (https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2020/11/...).

>>single+AV
> You can use "will" to create a promise--a contractual obligation. See Bryan A. Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage 941-942 (2d ed., Oxford U. Press 1995). When used in this way, "will" is not merely stating a future event, it is creating a promise to perform:

> > Landlord will clean and maintain all common areas.

> In most basic contracts, I recommend using "will" to create obligations, as long as you are careful to be sure any given usage can't be read as merely describing future events. I'm generally against "shall" because it is harder to use correctly and it is archaic.

https://law.utexas.edu/faculty/wschiess/legalwriting/2005/05...

>>Simorg+FM
>>37021910

>>gnfarg+4K
jitsi

https://meet.jit.si/

>>chrono+(OP)
Zoom was proved as being dishonest and untrustworthy years ago (https://citizenlab.ca/2020/04/move-fast-roll-your-own-crypto...) but companies never cared about the privacy of the people they forced to use the software and all the security problems and leaks that followed still didn't discourage people from using it. I doubt their mining of personal data for AI will stop people from using it either.

Although there are a ton of alternatives out there they are all "too hard" or something, so since Zoom mostly works OK most of the time and is dead simple to use it will continue to win out over everything else.

My position on Zoom hasn't changed since 2020: Anyone using Zoom will continue to get exactly what they deserve.

>>ec1096+8L
Let's please not pretend like philosophical razors are anything other than rhetorical devices. There's exactly zero data to back any of them up and it wouldn't matter if there was since each case is unique.

There is however research (that aligns with a lot of people's experience) to suggest psychopaths and sociopaths are very over represented in leadership:

https://www.sakkyndig.com/psykologi/artvit/babiak2010.pdf

>>rpgbr+581
It's definitely a challenge, but another good thing about HN is people link alternatives in threads like this. I'm already checking out Jitsi (mentioned up thread) and it looks awesome. It's even open source:

https://jitsi.org/

>>Animat+o01
How does this add up with E2EE?

They claim they can’t read anything passing through the server. Is there some other way they’ll get access?

https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/360048660871-End-t....

>>chrono+(OP)
Nextcloud Talk has no TOS AFAIK. It is FOSS and self-hosted. Nextcloud AI tools run on your instance with the exception of the optional OpenAI plugin app. They are developing further FOSS AI models to replace those. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14gSiyAl9Fw

>>rpgbr+581
Whereby? https://whereby.com/

>>Imnimo+LZ
I actually consider the act of doublespeak potentially insinuating ill intent.

What you and what you say need to be consistent to preserve user trust and then being inconsistent shows mismanagement by senior leadership or even potentially intent to deceive or spin the situation while still implementing the policy. It’s the PR classic do one thing say another.

Edit: Oh, and then this hits almost at the same time…

https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/zoom-return-to-office-an...

>>autoex+N11
Let's also not forget that Zoom's internal processes and engineering standards for security were so poor that Apple implemented the rarely-used malware removal tool, because they screwed up their client software so badly:

https://techcrunch.com/2019/07/10/apple-silent-update-zoom-a...

https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/10/20689644/apple-zoom-web-s...

https://www.macrumors.com/2019/07/10/apple-update-remove-zoo...

>>berbec+Vp
The terms have since been updated. It's still an interesting lesson in spin when the change they made looks like this https://diffcheck.io/y-_v1LkBYyk4WBueHX

>>petese+HV1
The BAA (https://explore.zoom.us/docs/en-us/baa.html) looks the same. Did you mean to the TOS (which is subject to change as has now happened twice)?

The BAA still states: Zoom shall not Use and/or Disclose the Protected Health Information except as otherwise limited in this Agreement ... for the proper management and administration of Zoom ... Zoom will only use the minimum necessary Protected Health information necessary for the proper management and administration of Zoom’s business specific purposes

As discussed in my comments on yesterday's post "proper management and administration" is vague language copied from HHS and can be construed as improving products as described in a legal analysis I quoted. I would also hazard a guess that a provider signing this agreement could be construed to have implied consent.

Nevertheless, it would not be hard to explicitly state that this does not include training models in the only truly legally binding agreement at play. An explicit declaration was also recommended in said legal analysis.

>>aftbit+t41
Doesn’t using a Google product taint the solution, if privacy is a major concern? Also, WebRTC leaks ip addresses when using a VPN.

What is the secure way to video conference? Webex? FaceTime offers end to end encryption, but can not easily share non-mac os screens.

Articles like this sure make me like Apple sometimes

https://9to5mac.com/2023/07/20/apple-imessage-facetime-remov...

>>robert+A62
Strange, only seems to be happening to me on mobile.

This should work: https://web.archive.org/web/20230808072418/https://explore.z...

>>chrono+(OP)
To pile on the alternative recommendations: I've enjoyed using Whereby[0] in the past. I also somehow keep forgetting about them in these discussions until someone reminds me. The main thing of it for me is it's been more reliable than Jitsi (though I do need to give Jitsi another try) and doesn't need to be self-hosted.

[0]https://whereby.com/

>>jonpla+i91
e2ee is not the default, and is incompatible with some of their other features like "cloud recordings".

they also got caught being malicious and/or dumb in the past (https://www.businessinsider.com/china-zoom-data-2020-4) so there's no reason to bother with them now.

>>mplewi+Ct
It's gone. They removed this part.

https://www.diffchecker.com/RLiqgAaA/

>>synaes+S61
The GDPR page of Zoom is just a joke: https://explore.zoom.us/en/gdpr/

They basically claim that the customer (the one who signs the contract, not the Zoom user) who hosts the meeting is responsible for GDPR compliance by defining the right account settings. So if you are invited on a call you basically have no rights.

>>dr_mon+qz
Edit: they added the line back again -_-

They just made another edit and removed the line.

Here's the edit history going all the way back to March:

- 4/1 https://www.diffchecker.com/dCuVSMnp/

- 7/1 https://www.diffchecker.com/Zny4Rjqw/

- 8/7 https://www.diffchecker.com/ER0RHSdb/

- 8/8 https://www.diffchecker.com/RLiqgAaA/

>>janals+Oa1
>>37050084