Even if Zoom is in the wrong/has no case, all it takes to "win" in the US is enough of a bankroll to troll someone via the legal system. It's pay-to-play here and Zoom likely has the budget to run an independent researcher into the ground financially with legal defense fees alone.

I get that HN wants to have it's "hacker" ideals and all, but, I would expect to cause myself legal troubles for publishing security details on such a service (unless done anonymously with reasonable opsec).

People should be able to do things that hurt a company's business interests, especially reverse engineering. They do not deserve any protection. Actually, it should be encouraged since it leads to better products for consumers.

I think you'll find that most people - and a number of leading law experts - don't consider click through EULAs for valid binding contracts and clicking next is not the same as signing.

You'll also find that many (most? I stopped reading EULAs years ago) contains something about "the following might not be applicable in your jurisdiction".

Besides, just think of it: can a click on a button, placed in a way that makes it easy to click through for someone who accepts the defaults, can such a click really be considered a meeting of minds?

And do we really think people can be expected to read a number of pages of dense legalese? I remember one EULA filling 13 A4 pages with text in a small font after I gave up and printed it two decades ago when I was young and still believed they were valid.

Besides: Expecting non lawyers to read and understand legalese is as crazy as expecting non programmers to read basic Java or Python: within reach for many after basic self study, but still not something I'd bet much money on random people being able to do on the fly.

I'm expecting that this finally changes for the better, at least in some parts of the world, where the parts which don't adapt to that change spiral further down.

Rightly so!