Hacker News Reader

Comment by shaggyfrog | Hacker News Reader

Don't use the Zoom app. Load meetings in an incognito/private/whatever browser window, and cancel the automatic download it prompts you with, then click Join In Browser.

Nothing about this company's attitude towards privacy has changed in years.

View on HN

I wrote a small browser extension to transparently redirect you so you don't have to cancel the download and click "Join in Browser":

Chrome: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/zoom-redirector/fm...

Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/zoom-redirect...

Edge: https://microsoftedge.microsoft.com/addons/detail/dkhjempaia...

Opera: https://addons.opera.com/en/extensions/details/zoom-redirect...

Source: https://github.com/arkadiyt/zoom-redirector

Thank you. And thank you for making it open source.

Concerning this line: https://github.com/arkadiyt/zoom-redirector/blob/master/back... Why is it sometimes returning undefined? (or is that known)?

Cheers!

> Thank you. And thank you for making it open source.

Sure thing. All browser extension source code is available to you anyhow, even if the author doesn't publish it.

> Why is it sometimes returning undefined?

Looks like a simple bug as some folks below have pointed out. It doesn't impact the functionality of the extension in any way here.

Not the developer but nice catch. const match would be null, not undefined, if the regex search does not match, right?

In a browser console:

> const match = /^\/[js]\/(\d+)\/?$/.exec("something")

> undefined

The assignment to match returns undefined. The value of match is null.

To be pedantic the assignment returns null (always returns the rvalue[1]), it's the const statement that produces undefined[2]

[1] https://tc39.es/ecma262/multipage/ecmascript-language-statem... [2] https://tc39.es/ecma262/multipage/ecmascript-language-statem...

And to be even more pedantic, the function works because it is applied on an event listener... When null[1] is evaluated (in the right side of the || of the conditional), it produces a TypeError... which in effect (due to no catch and evaluation continuing in a parent/event-driven scope) is essentially equivalent to an empty return in this specific context.

What fun! :-)

Edit: apparently as also mentioned https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30268412

Run just /^\/[js]\/(\d+)\/?$/.exec("something") in the console

A function returns undefined if any value was not returned.

True generally, but irrelevant here: the function in question is RegExp.prototype.match. By definition, it never returns undefined, but only an array or null. The only way `match == undefined` could be true would be if smething had overridden RegExp.prototype.match, which would be… surprising and worthy of explicit note.

Also match[1] will never be undefined: it’ll either throw an exception, or be a string. No, this is just a bug, a poorly written guard that fails to guard what it was supposed to, and I suppose an exception is just silently swallowed and treated equivalently to the intended early return. But the clause should be changed to just `if (!match) return;` or similar.

Quick heads up you may want to update that to be === rather than ==, because of course JS is wonderful and null does == undefined (not a nerd snipe, I was just confused by your comment and went and looked at the code, and realized it was likely a typo :) )

Yeah, unfortunate typo, thanks for the correction. I spend most of my time writing Rust, and when I’m writing JavaScript I type !== and === naturally, but I think writing this comment I just didn’t quite switch into JavaScript mode.

Thanks for writing this - I've been using this for ages, and it's a recommended install for everyone at our company.

Missing only Safari, my browser of choice

Safari supports neither webRequestBlocking (for manifest v2 extensions) nor manifest v3 extensions. If they add support for either option then I can publish a Safari extension too.

Wonderful! Thank you. Only if there was a way to do the same on iOS.

I use zoom in the browser, and this my experience every time:

1. On first opening the link, a browser confirmation window immediately asks me for permission to launch the app. I press "Cancel".

2. There is no option to join from my browser. But, there is a big blue button that says "Launch Meeting". I press it.

3. Again, the confirmation window from (1.) is raised. I press "Cancel".

4. Choosing to cancel a second time causes a visibility toggle for a small link on the bottom of the page (hidden beneath the giant blue button) that says, "Having issues with Zoom Client? Join from Your Browser".

Anti-patterns out the wazoo!

The browser client is missing (or was recently) the “grid view,” which is very important for my use. So I won’t be leaving the desktop app anytime soon, despite my attempts :)

Zoom enables grid view in Chrome, just not in Firefox.

Everything else seems to work fine in both.

Audio on Firefox on Linux does not work well for me (mics not working)

On Chromium, sometimes video/screenshare is not visible for me, only black screen.

Often there is no choice but use the app… sadly.

If I wrote the same HN article but said Cisco Webex would you say the same thing?

Despite them doing the same thing.

Go for Jitsi. It's privacy conscious and has really good video quality. It seems to favour frame rate over resolution which doesn't look as glossy but the smooth video makes it much easier to pick up small gestures and facial expressions than the others like Teams and WebEx.

I use teams a lot for work and Jitsi with the makerspace crowd and Jitsi is just so much better imo..

+1 for Jitsi as an underrated, high-quality, free service

Jitsi is a winner, especially with non-techy people. Literally just click a link and you're in.

Ya. I don't install Zoom, Skype, Microsoft__, Cisco__, Dell__, etc.

You could’ve just rephrased this to “don’t work anywhere during the pandemic”. Seriously, most people have very little choice in what they can install.

WebEx and Skype also have web browser versions. I don't know about the other ones. But you can generally use these apps without having to run an executable or install anything.

I’ve worked remotely for years. Refuse to install these apps on my computer. If someone requires a meeting with an app-only interface, I dial in. Otherwise, I run Zoom on an iPad.

I don't really care that much about the privacy of what I install on my work computer. That's their business, as long as I can turn the computer off when my work day is over. It's more of a concern for my own machine.

Sandbox it, or get a hardware mute for your device if you don't have a choice.

I’ve worked remotely for years. Slack and Zoom work fine in a browser.

My practice is that if I'm paid, I'll use company software. In the real world (my own time)... not a chance

Microsoft Teams does the same thing on Linux, so yeah.

Yes?

Definitely, who cares what company makes it !

Uninstalled. Thank you.

But they bought keybase ... smirk

RIP a trustable keybase.

There's people who don't use BitWarden? :D

Is it safe to just use the Zoom iOS app, since it's way more locked down?

That’s my approach, anyway. I trust iOS’ sandboxing a bit more than a desktop OS. At least they can’t do things like installing a web server or reading files I’d like to keep private.

Yeah the British Govt with collusion of the so called free British press were pushing it when everyone was forced to go into lockdown and work from home because of covid.

Massive GCHQ data grab!

What is your source for this?

Two crimes dont make a right!

You can also join using a standard SIP client.

https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/201363273-Using-th...

With video and screen sharing ?

Video, yes. Haven't tried (nor needed to) screen sharing.

Apparently H.323 works too, but I haven't tried that either --- just noticed the "dial this IP to join via H323/SIP" at the bottom of the invites and did so.

Nice ! Thank you ! I’ll try this

Or just don't leave it running all the time. Not sure why anyone would, it's not like it's hard to exit or start up. Personally I run mine using firejail instead of the browser as I didn't have much luck with the browser version when I first needed it (work) a few years back... though that is likely better by now.

Leaving it open means that when you click on a Zoom link, the app opens much quicker and you are already logged in. But yeah, not worth the privacy hit.

We use single sign on with Zoom so I never have to login and it takes <1sec to start on my laptop. But even contained using firejail I wouldn't want it running all the time.

Some companies use Zoom for chat and phone lines, in addition to meetings, so not a lot of choice in that situation

First I've heard of that but it makes sense.

No background and filters in the web version.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com