![]() ![]() But, this also means there’s no account to hack in the first place.ĭoes the platform support transit encryption? How is it implemented? Because users don’t need an account to join meetings on the service, two-factor authentication is not an option. Evaluating the platform’s security propertiesĭoes the platform support two-factor authentication? By what methods? Self-hosting is an ideal solution for users who want to keep their conversations private, and maintain ownership of call data. If you want, you can optionally password-protect the meeting to bar unwelcome participants from joining your call.Īdvanced users, like organizations with a well-supported technical infrastructure, can host their own Jitsi service. To join a call, all you need is the meeting link, which you can open in a browser window on your computer, or through Jitsi’s mobile app. Jitsi Meet users don’t need to create an account to join a call. Jitsi Meet (also referred to as ) is a free and open source video conference service maintained by parent company 8x8. Can I get the job done easily and without abuse?.Evaluating the platform’s privacy properties.Evaluating the platform’s security properties.And if you see anything wrong, let us know at freedom.press/contact. In addition to Jitsi Meet, we’ll examine…Įach of these platforms changes regularly, so check back to see our regular updates. In our fact sheets, we’ll be taking a closer look at several tools in common use at media organizations. In particular, we’re focusing on properties that are critical to high-risk users, like journalists, and developed a series of questions to help examine these properties. This “fact sheet” will detail some security, privacy, usability, and anti-abuse properties of Jitsi Meet. We also wanted to dive deeper into what we know about a few individual tools. At Freedom of the Press Foundation, we’ve published a high-level comparison of some common video chat applications, and many others maintain detailed comparison spreadsheets to help you compare dozens of tools. No willingness by support to offer any compensation for multiple botched webinars.If you work remotely on the web, you’re probably getting comfortable with multiple video chat tools. "Webinars" and peculiar way to modify options for each webinar (or session?). Audio issues that made me sound like a frog, despite using multiple different audio inputs. Showing my screen on a Mac was glitchy and inconsistent, and pixelated & blurry at times. Ability to have multiple moderators assisting with answering Questions & Chats. You shouldn't have to bend over backwards to show your screen, video, and audio without a hitch. We ended up with 3-4 botched webinars that made a poor impression on potential customers, and support wasn't interested in compensating us for the inconvenience, which is why I'm writing this: to alert other users who might be giving this company too much credit for things to work the way they're supposed to. We were only really comparing the niceties that come with it (marketing features) but we deeply regret making that assumption. We thought that when comparing webinar softwares, the one thing that everyone was doing well was the core of the technology - being able to display screen + video + audio without problem on everyone's devices. Then we started having audio issues and blurry imagery. Tested this in a test webinar, inquired if we'd need to reset before each webinar, and they said no, but it continued to be problematic. We were advised by support to use a different browser, told to reset some settings on our devices to let it better perform. ![]() Kommentare: We had a screenshare issue with our very first webinar.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |