|
|
|
|
|
by jospoortvliet
2276 days ago
|
|
Well, yes, but now you're saying our trust is limited because other companies do bad. But we have a pretty good reason, beyond that, to not trust Zoom - THEY clearly never gave a shit about security, given in a few weeks of people taking a slightly deeper look we've had pretty much every possible leak and bug and problem you can imagine crop up. How long did it take Microsoft to go from "no-shits-are-given-security" to "security-is-core"? 2 decades, something like that? So yeah, sure, 90 days, that's... well, maybe the beginnings of a start. |
|
However, saying "it took another megacorp twenty years to fix their privacy problems, so we shouldn't trust $relativelysmallcompany for the next two decades" is not fair to $relativelysmallcompany and doesn't even consider the cultural change it probably took to get $megacorp to actually care about security and user privacy.
Personally, I don't really like Zoom. I use it, and it works okay, but there are a lot of little nitpicks I would like to see addressed- for instance, it'd be really nice to be able to adjust individual member's volume levels or be able to mute them outright as a participant instead of listening to a compressor that needs a new bearing in the background for an entire meeting because they're not using push-to-talk and the host just downloaded the client yesterday. I'm also more than willing to give a company time to fix underlying architecture problems and not demand fixes in the meantime.
I would want to be given the benefit of time to fix problems, wouldn't you?