[pthatcherg]

There are 2 different kinds of video calls: 1:1 and group calls. For 1:1 calls, e2e encryption incurs negligible processing and bandwidth. Do you worry about the processing and bandwidth increase when using HTTPS/SSL? Probably not. Same goes for 1:1 calls.

For group calls, it depends on how it's implemented, but many group calls are implemented using what's called a Selective Forwarding Unit (SFU). One benefit of SFUs is that they take much less processing for the server than the other kinds (where the video is re-encoded by the server). For those types of group calls, e2e encryption can be implemented with negligible increases to processing and bandwidth.

However, you are correct that it is harder to implement correctly. And it does prevent certain features to be added to the product, such as recording and server-based processing of information (for example, meeting transcriptions).

(I used to work at Google on WebRTC, Duo, and Hangouts, but now work on video calling at Signal).

[ska]

Recording will work fine locally, no (albeit perhaps more fiddly)? It does push some things off the server obviously, but arguably none of those things should be happening on the server in a situation when E2E is mandated, anyway.

[pthatcherg]

Yeah, I was just trying to point out that there is a feature vs. privacy/security tradeoff. Although I think e2e encryption is usually much more valuable.

[ska]

fair enough