OK, so I don’t really have much choice but to use Zoom with those people who are already invested in it. I would like people’s input, though, if they wanted to share personal information via video chat, that they didn’t want going anyplace at all. Does anyone offer PGP encryption for video chat? Or is that too resource-intensive?
Not to get into too much detail, but someone whose privacy I care about, wants to use a video streaming service for cybersex. I want to steer them toward something that doesn’t require a computer science degree to configure, that they won’t have to worry too much about ending up in some stranger’s fap folder.
I can attest that Signal is indeed excellent as a secure texting app- and it can indeed make encrypted video calls.
But for that to work, the other person has to have it too, and I don’t think it yet supports multiple simultaneous video calls merged, which is what Zoom and others that do videoconferencing do. God I wish it could
So - been using zoom on pc laptop but have not download or installed it - it suggests if the meeting doesn’t connect to download/install but I just refresh the page till it works. Expect some data gets shared but have Facebook container and something else(?) to minimize the data shared. Maybe someone that knows more could opine on my strategy?
Not to diminish your concerns but I’ve not heard of as much issue with interception of video streams as opposed to saved videos being copied and posted by the intended recipient or by someone who has hacked the recipient’s computer/phone or their cloud back up. The ability to prevent saving is as much a security issue as encryption (though nothing prevents the analog hole, where someone just cams the screen). Just something to consider in addition to encryption.
The reference to ice cream in the “We heart the Free Ice Cream” thread’s OP links to a General Moderation Thread post about a banned user not appreciating all the free flavors of ice cream offered on BoingBoing - a trope here on the BBS that is a reference to BoingBoing and the BBS being free. So the thread is, I would say, titled based on the trope, and a bit of a pun that incorporates a meta reference to the forum itself, though the author might disagree.
I was pretty sure 252 posts about ice cream featuring hundreds of pictures of ice cream is about ice cream, but maybe it’s a really subtle in-house in-joke and the 252 posts about ice cream featuring hundreds of pictures of ice cream aren’t about ice cream after all.
That’s pretty meta.
Did you miss the bit up above, about Zoom leaving always-on servers on people’s systems (at least Macs) that could be (and WERE) used by malefactors, even after supposed uninstallation of the application? Supposedly they’ve removed the hidden web server now, but what the actual fuck was it there for, in the first place, ESPECIALLY since it turned out to have vulnerabilities that allow remote code execution? Who thinks installing such a thing secretly is OK, much less leaving it after it’s supposed to be gone?
So…yeah. I’d call that “interception” of the video stream, although it’s really taking direct control of one end of it. And there’s more to it, as well.
And so on.
THIS IS NOT EVEN REMOTELY OK. You can stop the armwaving campaign; thanks.
The OP is about the sharing of information with FB, not the issues you brought up. Bugs, vulnerabilities and poor default privacy controls are different issues I’d be happy to talk about on their own merits - er, or lack of merit.
No snark here folks- I’d love to see more subversive articles on how to avoid the bullshit often brought to our attention, like this.
I often learn of less than stellar news here, but rarely see a way to counteract said less than stellar news.
Lets be square- a lot of you are involved deeply in technological careers, I’d like to see a happy mutant’s guide to counteracting bullshit, and how to get around common technological pitfall issue like this.
Occasionally Cory or Xeni might actually post something along those lines, and I like seeing stuff like that.
They display ads to identities based on the users’ categories of interests. This also means they also have these incredibly valuable, easy-to-sell lists of identities tagged with the categories. Want a list of furries in your zip code, or a list of gun owners? Or a list of people who click on ads for healing crystals and who donate generously to the Church of Extreme Woo?
And while they may not externally sell them, they internally have lists of the addresses of people who have home safes, have over 10 million in stocks, or who make more than a million dollars a year; and who are posting videos of themselves sailing the Caribbean for the next month. Of course every FB employee is perfectly trustworthy and they’ve never been breached, so this isn’t a real issue.
The most valuable data they collect is when they can tie a list of browsing habits to an identity, just like Zoom did for them. Some of us are happy denying them; and are sad when this happens.