Well, this brings up the problem, even if you require a password, as an open court, they're required to publish it to allow people to join. Would they simply post it physically somewhere and only local people could access? But then people could share it with bad actors anyway.
Maybe it would just reduce the volume of attacks, not eliminate them.
I have to use Zoom at my day-job, and there's quite a few things you can do to try to minimize noise, unwanted guests, etc, including:
- Automatically muting people on entry
- Not allowing people to unmute themselves
- "Locking" the room after the mandatory attendees have joined.
It's not intuitive, but it's not super-complicated, either. I don't think it's a failure of the judge, per se--it's a failure of the court not to provide someone knowledgeable to help setup the meeting.
Imagine that this is the group of people your adult life hangs by a thread with. How can you be expected to respect their decision on a very technically complex crime when they can't even setup a zoom call...
The same reason why Europeans use American spyware and adware to communicate with eachother.
Because the risk profile permits it. In this county, many courts are open, and prior to COVID, you could just walk into one and listen. Court decisions are likewise open, and part of the public record.
Edit: Did you also know that courts and lawyers still use faxes? Did you know that tapping a fax line has been trivial for decades?
Just a side note, but some jurisdictions treat faxing similarly to giving a document in-person. For example, signing a contract and faxing it can be considered the same as certified mail. Generally not so with email. I'm not saying it's right by the way, just that is how it is sometimes.
That is clearly not the case. This particular issue with Zoom was caused by user error, there are settings to prevent exactly what happened, not some endpoint exploit.
The court is open to the public. What threat is "chinese spyware" when you are publishing the meeting anyway?
His point was that the software itself is insecure and installing it on your machine is a security issue, regardless of the content you're hosting using it.
but it did answer a burning question I had about how they froze this kid's funds in a prior case: they were on Bitmex and Bitmex cooperated with authorities, and unfroze the funds when authorities realized they had no standing.
Organizations really need someone who is technically proficient enough to dig in to zoom settings and configure meetings to disallow anonymous users, screen shares, videos. Zoombombing can be simply prevented by putting everyone not part of the hearing in a "listen-only" mode, and I'm pretty sure the controls to enable that are already there.
Ah yes, the classic answer. Ironically proven wrong in the post you've commented on as a group of boomers are about to throw away the rest of the life of a kid who literally did know far more than them for exactly that.
Reminds me of the televised trial that was using Skype to conduct an interview of a witness and 4chan got ahold of the phone number. The video[1] of it happening is hilariously surreal.
29 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 83.1 ms ] threadAre you kidding me? I know the courts tend to be tech Luddites, but jeeze.
Maybe it would just reduce the volume of attacks, not eliminate them.
- Automatically muting people on entry
- Not allowing people to unmute themselves
- "Locking" the room after the mandatory attendees have joined.
It's not intuitive, but it's not super-complicated, either. I don't think it's a failure of the judge, per se--it's a failure of the court not to provide someone knowledgeable to help setup the meeting.
Because the risk profile permits it. In this county, many courts are open, and prior to COVID, you could just walk into one and listen. Court decisions are likewise open, and part of the public record.
Edit: Did you also know that courts and lawyers still use faxes? Did you know that tapping a fax line has been trivial for decades?
The court is open to the public. What threat is "chinese spyware" when you are publishing the meeting anyway?
but it did answer a burning question I had about how they froze this kid's funds in a prior case: they were on Bitmex and Bitmex cooperated with authorities, and unfroze the funds when authorities realized they had no standing.
[1] https://youtu.be/QKhOFRMkE-0