back to article Zoom agrees privacy conditions, gets low-risk rating from Netherlands

Hot on the heels of Microsoft's report card from the Dutch department of Justice and Security comes news of rival messaging platform Zoom receiving a nod via a renewed Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA). The assessment was performed by the Privacy Company and was commissioned by SURF (the purchasing organisation for …

  1. wobball

    |Dirty, dirty client!

    This was a bag o' shitty nails from day one of being overrepresented by our own disaster here in the UK, Blowjob Johnson, and, in it's first iteration seen as OK for Government Ministers to meet over, routed via switches in China, had no e2 anything and had a freindface scraping tool embedded.

    All the while, working platforms already existed and there will have been at least one other recommended by our own security services.

    How did this piece of c**p ever gain any market traction and why wasn't it binned in the first instance by security services around the globe is a question that will never be answered.

    Wonder why?

    1. Dan 55 Silver badge

      Re: |Dirty, dirty client!

      The user interface wasn't a total clusterfuck, it was easy to invite people who didn't have an account, and it did group calls without the sound turning into an echoey mess when there are more than four people. Something that had somehow eluded Skype, Teams, and Meet.

    2. Ian Johnston Silver badge

      Re: |Dirty, dirty client!

      Wonder why?

      Because it's very easy to use and works very well.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    "However, while "there remains a risk that US authorities order Zoom to provide access to the data it processes in Europe, without informing the customer", it was reckoned that the probability of such a risk was low – occurring less than once every two years."

    There is no way they could assess this, as organizations that recieve National Security Letters cannot disclose that they even recieved one. Furthermore, even within the recieving organization, knowledge of receipt of a NSL is strictly limited to the smallest legal team nessesary to comply. That means none of the C-Suits are told unless they need to know for the organization to comply & they can't tell the other c-suits, and the people executing the tasks required to comply are not told why they are doing those tasks.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like