Zoom Sued By Consumer Group For Misrepresenting Its Encryption Protections (washingtonpost.com) 11
A consumer advocacy group is suing Zoom and seeking millions of dollars in damages, accusing the company of misleading its users about the strength of its encryption protections. From a report: The nonprofit group Consumer Watchdog is also accusing the videoconferencing company of deceiving users about the extent of its links with China and the fact that some calls between people in North America were routed through servers in China. That raises the danger Beijing could steal or demand access to the contents of those calls, according to a copy of the lawsuit, which was shared exclusively with The Cybersecurity 202.
Those phony claims "lull[ed] consumers and businesses into a false sense of security" and helped Zoom to soar in popularity during the early months of the pandemic, according the lawsuit, which was filed late yesterday in Washington D.C. Superior Court. The consumer group fears that if Zoom isn't punished, other companies will be incentivized to make false claims about their security and privacy protections to attract users and stand out against competitors.
Those phony claims "lull[ed] consumers and businesses into a false sense of security" and helped Zoom to soar in popularity during the early months of the pandemic, according the lawsuit, which was filed late yesterday in Washington D.C. Superior Court. The consumer group fears that if Zoom isn't punished, other companies will be incentivized to make false claims about their security and privacy protections to attract users and stand out against competitors.
Incentivized (Score:2)
Re:Incentivized (Score:4, Insightful)
It's very simple, Zoom claimed they were using end to end encryption. They were not. They knew they were not. The lack of it materially increases the risk of private communication being leaked.
So why shouldn't they face a penalty for that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They should, and a penalty calibrated to their scale (vs an individual) should also be levied.
Fuck them. If you don't hold "people" to the same standard you let the law apply to real human beings, then they'll keep grinding you down.
Tin can, rat, corporate belly, blowtorch.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's not defined by law, such as "concrete warranty" or "5g", then a corporation can use the term to mean anything. OTOH, courts have asserted that well-defined terms, such as "end-to-end" or "vegetable" have their common meaning (which may not be technically correct), in a contract.
But the real reason is, governments want to surveill people so there was no incentive to tell Zoom subscribers how vulnerable they were.
Re: (Score:2)
flyingfsck sneered:
Unfortunately I read up to the BS indicator 'incentivized'.>/p>
Merriam-Webster's definition [merriam-webster.com] for "incentivized":
Definition of incentivize
transitive verb
: to provide with an incentive
The alternative term "incent" is a recent back-formation from "incentivize," which is itself the verb form of "incentive." As recently as the late 1990's, it did not exist in any dictionary.
Feel free to look up the etymology of both words - in the OED, for instance - to discover which is the original (and still preferred) verb form. If you bother, you might just have to
What did they expect? (Score:2)
What did they expect when they allowed lawyers to use their service? With over 1,340,000 lawyers in the Untied States there's a lawsuit hiding behind every door, after all, those yachts cost some serious money.
"Good morning Zoom... (Score:1)
...ers"
said every spy agency in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
OK zoomer.