Hacker News Reader

Comment by saagarjha | Hacker News Reader

C'mon, what does it take for Zoom to understand that when people uninstall software they don't want parts of it to stick around forever?

View on HN

Usually this happens because the person who wrote the file or daemon didn't write the uninstaller and no one gives a hoot about it at review.

Never assume malice that which can be explained by a poor engineering culture

Well, malice or not, the result is not conforming to the law. And from how I remember it, that's not the first time they are in that situation, so "oops, our bad" shouldn't really cut it.

Especially when you consider the software and design of Zoom, poor engineering culture sounds like the more realistic answer.

> "Poor engineering culture"

The software and service is currently running at a scale that the vast majority of visitors to HN can barely dream of achieving.

But yeah, they prioritized ease of install for the client of their software over other considerations, so that must mean they have a "poor engineering culture", whatever that's supposed to mean.

Profitable business culture, poor engineering culture. Happens all the time in companies of all sizes.

In other words: a) malice, and b) a business problem, not a tech problem.

Absolutely would call this a tech culture problem. Just like e.g. not writing tests because management doesn't want to spend time on that. Doesn't mean that individual developers are to blame for this kind of decision, but it speaks for the overall culture of the tech org. Yes, often driven by business objectives.

Always assume that the malicious outcome is the intended outcome. Somewhere at zoom a tech lead looked at the features planned, saw 'uninstaller' and deprioritized it to P4. That was the malice, even though they did not cacke and wore a top hat with a monocle while doing it.

I’ve never worked somewhere where the tech lead would make that call; product would make the call after the team or tech lead gave estimates on different trade offs.

Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. Someone put functionality into the uninstaller that modifies your Chrome cookie jar. I don't know who you're referring to by "the person who wrote the file".

Except we're talking about a company that continuously employs dark patterns in their product and is generally considered a security threat in many countries. It's quite plausible to assume malice here, given previous examples of it (dark patterns are malicious by design and intent).

"they don't want parts of it to stick around forever"*

I don't think you're being fair. It's readily apparent that Zoom understands not to make parts of their software stick around forever. The fact that they understand this is the entire reason for setting the cookie to last only 10 years. Which is clearly not as long as forever! /s

it takes for them to stop profiting off it

Zoom is not alone in this. Lots of crud gets left, and it differs between which OS it is.

This looks more like them actively placing a cookie into the cookie DB upon install. Doesn't appear to be simply left behind.

*uninstall

I’m curious if the same is happening on Mac or Linux when uninstalling.

A court ruling for violation of the GDPR might go some ways there. Of course, these things move slowly. But zoom are now grown up enough that they'll have to plan on these time scales I guess.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com