rikoh07
2021-08-02
Ok. Pls like.
Zoom reaches $85 mln settlement over user privacy, 'Zoombombing'
免责声明：上述内容仅代表发帖人个人观点，不构成本平台的任何投资建议。
分享至
微信
复制链接
精彩评论
我们需要你的真知灼见来填补这片空白
打开APP，发表看法
APP内打开
发表看法
1
1
{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"detailType":1,"isChannel":false,"data":{"magic":2,"id":805106696,"tweetId":"805106696","gmtCreate":1627863870315,"gmtModify":1631890298562,"author":{"id":3585450491695844,"idStr":"3585450491695844","authorId":3585450491695844,"authorIdStr":"3585450491695844","name":"rikoh07","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":5,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"fanSize":1,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body><p>Ok. Pls like.</p></body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body><p>Ok. Pls like.</p></body></html>","text":"Ok. Pls like.","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/805106696","repostId":2156646311,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2156646311","kind":"highlight","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"Reuters.com brings you the latest news from around the world, covering breaking news in markets, business, politics, entertainment and technology","home_visible":1,"media_name":"Reuters","id":"1036604489","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/443ce19704621c837795676028cec868"},"pubTimestamp":1627861249,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2156646311?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-08-02 07:40","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Zoom reaches $85 mln settlement over user privacy, 'Zoombombing'","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2156646311","media":"Reuters","summary":"Aug 1 (Reuters) - Zoom Video Communications Inc agreed to pay $85 million and bolster its security p","content":"<p>Aug 1 (Reuters) - Zoom Video Communications Inc agreed to pay $85 million and bolster its security practices to settle a lawsuit claiming it violated users' privacy rights by sharing personal data with <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/FB\">Facebook</a>, Google and LinkedIn, and letting hackers disrupt Zoom meetings in a practice called Zoombombing.</p>\n<p>A preliminary settlement filed on Saturday afternoon requires approval by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California.</p>\n<p>Subscribers in the proposed class action would be eligible for 15% refunds on their core subscriptions or $25, whichever is larger, while others could receive up to $15.</p>\n<p>Zoom agreed to security measures including alerting users when meeting hosts or other participants use third-party apps in meetings, and to provide specialized training to employees on privacy and data handling.</p>\n<p>The San Jose-based company denied wrongdoing in agreeing to settle.</p>\n<p>In a statement on Sunday, Zoom said: \"The privacy and security of our users are top priorities for Zoom, and we take seriously the trust our users place in us.\"</p>\n<p>Saturday's settlement came after Koh on March 11 let the plaintiffs pursue some contract-based claims.</p>\n<p>Though Zoom collected about $1.3 billion in Zoom Meetings subscriptions from class members, the plaintiffs' lawyers called the $85 million settlement reasonable given the litigation risks. They intend to seek up to $21.25 million for legal fees.</p>\n<p>Zoombombing is where outsiders hijack Zoom meetings and display pornography, use racist language or post other disturbing content.</p>\n<p>Koh said Zoom was \"mostly\" immune for Zoombombing under Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which shields online platforms from liability over user content.</p>\n<p>Zoom's customer base has grown sixfold since the COVID-19 pandemic forced more people to work from home.</p>\n<p>The company had 497,000 customers with more than 10 employees in April 2021, up from 81,900 in January 2020. It has said user growth could slow or decline as more people get vaccines and return to work or school in-person.</p>\n<p>The case is In re: Zoom Video Communications Inc Privacy Litigation, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 20-02155.</p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Zoom reaches $85 mln settlement over user privacy, 'Zoombombing'</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nZoom reaches $85 mln settlement over user privacy, 'Zoombombing'\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n<a class=\"head\" href=\"https://laohu8.com/wemedia/1036604489\">\n\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://static.tigerbbs.com/443ce19704621c837795676028cec868);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\n<p class=\"h-name\">Reuters </p>\n<p class=\"h-time\">2021-08-02 07:40</p>\n</div>\n\n</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>Aug 1 (Reuters) - Zoom Video Communications Inc agreed to pay $85 million and bolster its security practices to settle a lawsuit claiming it violated users' privacy rights by sharing personal data with <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/FB\">Facebook</a>, Google and LinkedIn, and letting hackers disrupt Zoom meetings in a practice called Zoombombing.</p>\n<p>A preliminary settlement filed on Saturday afternoon requires approval by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California.</p>\n<p>Subscribers in the proposed class action would be eligible for 15% refunds on their core subscriptions or $25, whichever is larger, while others could receive up to $15.</p>\n<p>Zoom agreed to security measures including alerting users when meeting hosts or other participants use third-party apps in meetings, and to provide specialized training to employees on privacy and data handling.</p>\n<p>The San Jose-based company denied wrongdoing in agreeing to settle.</p>\n<p>In a statement on Sunday, Zoom said: \"The privacy and security of our users are top priorities for Zoom, and we take seriously the trust our users place in us.\"</p>\n<p>Saturday's settlement came after Koh on March 11 let the plaintiffs pursue some contract-based claims.</p>\n<p>Though Zoom collected about $1.3 billion in Zoom Meetings subscriptions from class members, the plaintiffs' lawyers called the $85 million settlement reasonable given the litigation risks. They intend to seek up to $21.25 million for legal fees.</p>\n<p>Zoombombing is where outsiders hijack Zoom meetings and display pornography, use racist language or post other disturbing content.</p>\n<p>Koh said Zoom was \"mostly\" immune for Zoombombing under Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which shields online platforms from liability over user content.</p>\n<p>Zoom's customer base has grown sixfold since the COVID-19 pandemic forced more people to work from home.</p>\n<p>The company had 497,000 customers with more than 10 employees in April 2021, up from 81,900 in January 2020. It has said user growth could slow or decline as more people get vaccines and return to work or school in-person.</p>\n<p>The case is In re: Zoom Video Communications Inc Privacy Litigation, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 20-02155.</p>\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"ZM":"Zoom"},"is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2156646311","content_text":"Aug 1 (Reuters) - Zoom Video Communications Inc agreed to pay $85 million and bolster its security practices to settle a lawsuit claiming it violated users' privacy rights by sharing personal data with Facebook, Google and LinkedIn, and letting hackers disrupt Zoom meetings in a practice called Zoombombing.\nA preliminary settlement filed on Saturday afternoon requires approval by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California.\nSubscribers in the proposed class action would be eligible for 15% refunds on their core subscriptions or $25, whichever is larger, while others could receive up to $15.\nZoom agreed to security measures including alerting users when meeting hosts or other participants use third-party apps in meetings, and to provide specialized training to employees on privacy and data handling.\nThe San Jose-based company denied wrongdoing in agreeing to settle.\nIn a statement on Sunday, Zoom said: \"The privacy and security of our users are top priorities for Zoom, and we take seriously the trust our users place in us.\"\nSaturday's settlement came after Koh on March 11 let the plaintiffs pursue some contract-based claims.\nThough Zoom collected about $1.3 billion in Zoom Meetings subscriptions from class members, the plaintiffs' lawyers called the $85 million settlement reasonable given the litigation risks. They intend to seek up to $21.25 million for legal fees.\nZoombombing is where outsiders hijack Zoom meetings and display pornography, use racist language or post other disturbing content.\nKoh said Zoom was \"mostly\" immune for Zoombombing under Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which shields online platforms from liability over user content.\nZoom's customer base has grown sixfold since the COVID-19 pandemic forced more people to work from home.\nThe company had 497,000 customers with more than 10 employees in April 2021, up from 81,900 in January 2020. It has said user growth could slow or decline as more people get vaccines and return to work or school in-person.\nThe case is In re: Zoom Video Communications Inc Privacy Litigation, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 20-02155.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":247,"commentLimit":10,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"symbols":[],"verified":2,"subType":0,"readableState":1,"langContent":"EN","currentLanguage":"EN","warmUpFlag":false,"orderFlag":false,"shareable":true,"causeOfNotShareable":"","featuresForAnalytics":[],"commentAndTweetFlag":false,"andRepostAutoSelectedFlag":false,"upFlag":false,"length":11,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ORIG"},"commentList":[],"isCommentEnd":true,"isTiger":false,"isWeiXinMini":false,"url":"/m/post/805106696"}
精彩评论