If you use zoom, chances are that you are using the free
version. If so, your data (meetings, videos, speeches, pictures,
files containing numerical data, etc.) are not protected at all,
and might as well end up in the hands of a foreign government.
This is unlike in WhatsApp, for example, which has an end-to-end
(e2e) encryption (e2ee) for ALL users that makes sure only you and
the person you are sending your data to can access the
contents.
Zoom has certainly come a long way on the encryption matter,
even within the company’s rather short time of notoriety!
First, zoom had of recent claimed that its platform had an
end-to-end encryption capability that protects the data of all
users.
Next, the company retracted its proclamation, saying that the
encryption feature it claimed to have was in fact not available;
basically saying that the company had lied.
Then came stories that zoom started to develop an end-to-end
encryption technology, and now the CEO is saying that the feature
will only be available to customers that pay to use zoom.
The stated rationale is that Zoom wants to help the FBI of the
US and other law enforcement agencies to access any
videoconferencing data if they desire to do so.
This is obviously quite reminiscent of the way things are done
in China, and it could
be that Zoom also wants to help the Chinese government in the
process.
“Free users for sure we don’t want to give [e2e encryption]
because we also want to work together with FBI, with local law
enforcement in case some people use Zoom for a bad purpose,”
Zoom CEO Eric Yuan is reported to have said.
The statement by Zoom’s CEO can certainly be interpreted to mean
that folks who use the zoom service for free are the ones who are
more likely to engage in criminal activity and that those who pay
for the service will probably not.
Obviously, there is some fault in this line of reasoning, as
professional mischievous folks are more likely to pay for service
so they can hide their tracks.
On the other hand, folks who probably need e2ee, from the
standpoint of vulnerability – activists, journalists, and nonprofit
organizations – are also the ones with limited financial
resources.
So, Zoom’s CEO is probably not telling us the true reason why
his company is not planning to protect nonpaying customers.
Some folks have suggested upselling as Mr. Yuan’s true
objective. (You upsell when you invite a customer to purchase more
than she originally intended so you can generate more revenue.)
Probably the company is getting too weighed down by the free
component of its service and is looking for a way out. Afterall
there are overheads associated with all these free services.
Others have questioned zoom’s transparency based on events at
the company in the past couple of months, some of which inflate the
company’s worth in several aspects.
Even the ability of the company to provide e2ee to any decent
level has been questioned, and suggestions have also been made that
the kinds of encryption promised by Zoom, unlike what you have in
iPhone and WhatsApp, will allow some backdoor for the company and
perhaps others.
The technical difficulties associated with e2ee for the scale of
usage of zoom is believed to be beyond the capability of zoom, with
suggestions that the denial of e2ee to nonpaying users is an
attempt by zoom to contain the technical challenges!
If zoom’s posture is truly what its CEO pronounces that it is,
then the company probably doesn’t care much about public safety and
citizens’ data rights protection.
This could eventually put Zoom into a collision course with the
European Union (EU), who prioritizes the protection of the personal
data of its citizens. On the other hand, what Zoom is doing will
tie in nicely with the desires of repressive governments.
In this connection, you are reminded of the length that the
American company Apple has gone in several occasions to not help
the US government hack into the phones of private citizens, and the
government had to resort to hiring professional hackers.
(Obviously, I am not suggesting that the US is a repressive
government. Far from it at least on the books, as the country is
perhaps one of those where people are free, institutionally
speaking.)
Besides Apple, we also know that WhatsApp, owned by Facebook,
offers true e2ee capabilities to all its users.
I agree with Evan Greer, director of (the digital rights
organization) Fight for the Future that “anyone who cares about
public safety should be pushing for more encryption everywhere
possible, not less.”
“For the company (Zoom) to say they’ll only keep your calls safe
and secure if you pay extra—they’re leaving the people most likely
to be targeted by surveillance or online harassment vulnerable.
“They have a chance to do something really good for human rights
by implementing default end-to-end encryption to all users. But if
they make it a premium paid feature, they’re setting a precedent
that privacy and safety is only for those who can afford for
it.”
If you use zoom, chances are that you are using the free
version. If so, your data (meetings, videos, speeches, pictures,
files containing numerical data, etc.) are not protected at all,
and might as well end up in the hands of a foreign government.
This is unlike in WhatsApp, for example, which has an end-to-end
(e2e) encryption (e2ee) for ALL users that makes sure only you and
the person you are sending your data to can access the
contents.
Zoom has certainly come a long way on the encryption matter,
even within the company’s rather short time of notoriety!
First, zoom had of recent claimed that its platform had an
end-to-end encryption capability that protects the data of all
users.
Next, the company retracted its proclamation, saying that the
encryption feature it claimed to have was in fact not available;
basically saying that the company had lied.
Then came stories that zoom started to develop an end-to-end
encryption technology, and now the CEO is saying that the feature
will only be available to customers that pay to use zoom.
The stated rationale is that Zoom wants to help the FBI of the
US and other law enforcement agencies to access any
videoconferencing data if they desire to do so.
This is obviously quite reminiscent of the way things are done
in China, and it could
be that Zoom also wants to help the Chinese government in the
process.
“Free users for sure we don’t want to give [e2e encryption]
because we also want to work together with FBI, with local law
enforcement in case some people use Zoom for a bad purpose,”
Zoom CEO Eric Yuan is reported to have said.
The statement by Zoom’s CEO can certainly be interpreted to mean
that folks who use the zoom service for free are the ones who are
more likely to engage in criminal activity and that those who pay
for the service will probably not.
Obviously, there is some fault in this line of reasoning, as
professional mischievous folks are more likely to pay for service
so they can hide their tracks.
On the other hand, folks who probably need e2ee, from the
standpoint of vulnerability – activists, journalists, and nonprofit
organizations – are also the ones with limited financial
resources.
So, Zoom’s CEO is probably not telling us the true reason why
his company is not planning to protect nonpaying customers.
Some folks have suggested upselling as Mr. Yuan’s true
objective. (You upsell when you invite a customer to purchase more
than she originally intended so you can generate more revenue.)
Probably the company is getting too weighed down by the free
component of its service and is looking for a way out. Afterall
there are overheads associated with all these free services.
Others have questioned zoom’s transparency based on events at
the company in the past couple of months, some of which inflate the
company’s worth in several aspects.
Even the ability of the company to provide e2ee to any decent
level has been questioned, and suggestions have also been made that
the kinds of encryption promised by Zoom, unlike what you have in
iPhone and WhatsApp, will allow some backdoor for the company and
perhaps others.
The technical difficulties associated with e2ee for the scale of
usage of zoom is believed to be beyond the capability of zoom, with
suggestions that the denial of e2ee to nonpaying users is an
attempt by zoom to contain the technical challenges!
If zoom’s posture is truly what its CEO pronounces that it is,
then the company probably doesn’t care much about public safety and
citizens’ data rights protection.
This could eventually put Zoom into a collision course with the
European Union (EU), who prioritizes the protection of the personal
data of its citizens. On the other hand, what Zoom is doing will
tie in nicely with the desires of repressive governments.
In this connection, you are reminded of the length that the
American company Apple has gone in several occasions to not help
the US government hack into the phones of private citizens, and the
government had to resort to hiring professional hackers.
(Obviously, I am not suggesting that the US is a repressive
government. Far from it at least on the books, as the country is
perhaps one of those where people are free, institutionally
speaking.)
Besides Apple, we also know that WhatsApp, owned by Facebook,
offers true e2ee capabilities to all its users.
I agree with Evan Greer, director of (the digital rights
organization) Fight for the Future that “anyone who cares about
public safety should be pushing for more encryption everywhere
possible, not less.”
“For the company (Zoom) to say they’ll only keep your calls safe
and secure if you pay extra—they’re leaving the people most likely
to be targeted by surveillance or online harassment vulnerable.
“They have a chance to do something really good for human rights
by implementing default end-to-end encryption to all users. But if
they make it a premium paid feature, they’re setting a precedent
that privacy and safety is only for those who can afford for
it.”