You don't see the point of being suspicious of secret-source? and especially of an entity that is known to be dishonest? unless it is known to have been dishonest in the precise manner in question?
I think both video and audio were skippy to the point of uselessness. I've also used Jitsi with moderate success with a couple of interlocutors, where video disappeared now and then.
I'm not a company, I'm at a university, and the u. has decided to use Zoom, perhaps because it doesn't care about security, or because it thinks being concerned about Zoom is being paranoid.
Sorry, I didn't think in terms of degrees of untrustworthiness.
What I miss is an open-source alternative. Doesn't Microsoft
let the NSA tap into Skype calls?
> As for Zoom, I don't understand why people trust them or still use their product if they are at all concerned about security. It makes very little sense.
I certainly don't trust them, but I do use Zoom (from a
dedicated unprivileged user, so it can't do any harm beyond
recording my conversations), because my colleagues use Zoom, and
because there doesn't seem to be any working alternative. I got
them to try Jitsi once, which simply didn't work.
PS. There may be working /secret-source/ alternatives, but I
don't know why one should think Zoom /more/ untrustworthy
than them.
Since everybody is now using Zoom and not Skype, I would expect the NSA to try to get the same access to Zoom conversations as they have to Skype conversations. And I don't have the impression that Zoom would say no to billions of dollars to protect its users' privacy.
Isn't the whole point of end-to-end encryption -- not to have to
trust any third party -- undermined by secret source? If
one does not trust Zoom not to snoop on content passing
unencrypted through their servers, why should one trust them to
provide true end-to-end encryption? And, if one does trust them
to provide true end-to-end encryption, why might one not as well
trust them not to snoop on unencrypted content?
That's a valid point. But isn't it a bit archaic to have the thing begged for as a direct object? Wouldn't it be more normal to say `beg for the question'?