In the third example box of the "Immutable Updates" section, I believe the text '(joe,dob,"Joe Bob") ===> Answer' should be changed to '(joe,dob,"1978-01-01") ===> Answer'.
Inferring device does encryption, while silently allowing data leakage in complex ways that are beyond the typical consumer is deceptive at best.
It provides a very weak link to the entire claim of end-to-end.
Security minded knows that you also need attribution and chain of command. Your example of hopping through hoops is your own doing, which you are free to do on your own. For free. This product is provided as a SECURE means of communication and it IS NOT.
You are not an attractive target. That is ok, usually preferred. That is not the situation for everyone. However I bet someone will using Zoom is likely to be a person of influence in a major industry of organization that you have an interest in. With a target in mind, you now have a goal: Find a way to convince zoom to send encrypted comms to any device within reach. Note it doesn't mean you NEED a device to be dumb. You just need the smart device to convize Zooms servers that is is "dumb" (or a land line, fax machine, etc). Once convinced it will happily send the data onward.
This is the type of problem that will eventually be exploited in a major way if their mixed messaging is not curtailed. Suggesting otherwise is only kicking that can down a longer road, off a bigger ciff.
This type of commentary only serves to move the progressive goalpost closer towards the conservative (imho also the regressive side) of the debate.
Yes everyone does it. But is that ok? To suggest so, is to suggest there is no better alternative. This thinking ultimate leads to it's predicted outcome, not because of any sort of prescience, but out of the lack of will to use the available light to find a better way out.
I hear what you're saying. But the enemy will poison the minds of gen pop with such messages. Divide and conquer is the one true strategy to the game.
Drawing these lines proverbially is akin to perforating our social fabric. Lots of small holes, that left untouched, provide the strength to maintain structure. But once enough of those dots are connected by tears, it's usually too late to rebuild without starting from scratch.
As citizens, we have the right to argue that BOTH angles apply. Whether one out weighs another is significantly less consequential in the heat of battle. Navigating the seas, making progress towards your goal, that should remain the focus when having discussions that often gets lost. IMHO at least
Human's are lazy by what once was necessity, and that is still deeply rooted in our behavior.
Most folks in tech can grok that Laziness can be a virtue.
However, modern society has perverted the image this trait reflects to appear somehow inferior to "hard work."
We live in a society where we are raised to "endure" adulthood. It definitely doesn't have to be like this now. Whether it did in order to achieve the tech at hand is a lovely debate to be had... if only more people could hear the opportunity is literally pounding at the door begging to come in.