Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2020/05/14/zoom-sued-over-bible-study-tha.html
“It is baffling, to say the least, how Zoom failed to protect Saint Paulus’s Bible study class from a ‘serial offender’ who has been ‘reported multiple times to the authorities,’” the church said.
5 Likes
While I’m tempted to make a joke about the church thinking that “Jesus is my infosec admin” and not securing the meeting (in May, when Zoom had patched exploits and when articles about how to prevent Zoom-bombing were everywhere), it sounds like Zoom knew about the problem user and did nothing to block him.
14 Likes
I’m guessing that the people running the zoom meeting are probably not particularly tech-savy and probably don’t think about that kind of thing. We’ve all had a huge learning curve and not all of us have had computers since our childhood or are hooked into a network online that understands security online.
How about people not be assholes for the lulz? 
Or is asking that a bridge too far? What if this were a kindergarten class?
23 Likes
Most likely no password, and people shared around the link on someone’s wall/page which was a bit too public. Or put somewhere that google indexed it (google regex search churns up massive amounts of predictable URL’s).
8 Likes
Child porn is way past the line of being an asshole. I hope when they catch him, they throw the book at him.
36 Likes
Right? No one needs to see that shit.
21 Likes
So much so that I suspect it didn’t happen. Maybe there’s some grammar issue here and they meant to say that children and toddlers saw the porn? Anyone that uses phrases like “video footages” doesn’t exactly have the firmest grasp of the english language.
4 Likes
No, it was child porn…
13 Likes
Yeah, I know it says that, it just doesn’t seem plausible to me. It seems more plausible that they’re either embellishing or some whisper-down-the-lane miscommunication is going on.
Why would they lie about it?
10 Likes
Oh, come on! So many comments from tech-savvy second-guessers, even judging based on exact grammar usage. Sheesh!
We obviously don’t have the FULL story, and certainly, not everyone is great at security all the time.
1 Like
To bolster their claim of harm? They’re suing a corporation for money here. Anyway, I feel like I’m getting uncomfortably close to looking like I’m defending child porn or something, which wow I’m not. It just sounds implausible to me. But maybe I’m just underestimating the depravity and stupidity of other people. shrug
2 Likes
Because corporations are so weak and powerless in our society?
I don’t think you are doing that even remotely, no.
Some people are indeed depraved and stupid, not to mention horribly cruel. People DO get arrested for producing this kind of material. It exists.
12 Likes
Yeah I’m aware. But how many stories have you seen where the offenders got caught because they were broadcasting it non-anonymously to groups of random strangers? That’s the part that seems unlikely to me. Shoving legal porn at some churchies I can totally see your average teenage boy doing because he thought it was funny. Doing it with radioactive you’re-going-to-prison-for-life material not so much.
4 Likes
Have you never heard of 4-chan and 8-chan?
17 Likes
This could have been just an annoying (arguably amusing) prank, but child porn? That’s just a crime.
I’m more familiar with other apps, but I would think Zoom has “floor” or moderator control just for that reason (well, more for coworkers with hot mics while they use the can). As others have commented, that probably requires actually using a password–trusting Jesus ain’t gonna cut it.
I’m on the not side of that. It’s not remotely amusing, even with just regular porn. How hard is it for people not to be just unmitigated dicks for the lulz?
Agreed. I hope they find the asshole and he gets criminal charges filed.
It might not be a “trust Jesus” thing, but more of a lack of knowledge thing.
12 Likes
Guess what? Zoom doesn’t require a real name and works with throwaway addresses.
Just because the account has done this before, doesn’t mean the person behind it is known for prosecutorial purposes. Hell, if it is a channer like @anon61221983 mentioned, then multiple people could be using the account.
Given the way I have seen people here react when it has anything to do with religion, I can definitely believe it for someone from some other site would pull this.
Generally, for a large part of this commentariat, victim blaming is not a good look. It’s also against the rules.
12 Likes
And just a general note, here is the congregation in question, which looks relatively progressive, inclusive, and active in working for the well-fare of their community:
14 Likes
I didn’t blame them for it happening, I said what they’re claiming seems unlikely to me.
