Side-By-Side: Comparing Popular Video Conferencing Platforms' Security and Usability
Lawyers and cybersecurity experts examine the security and usability benefits and shortcomings of video conference platforms Zoom, Microsoft Teams, GoToMeeting and Webex.
April 10, 2020 at 10:30 AM
5 minute read
Just a few months ago, Zoom, Microsoft Teams, GoToMeeting, Cisco Webex and other video conference platforms were mere conveniences for making conference calls or hosting a webinar.
Now, as COVID-19 and social distancing recommendations spread, video conferencing is a must for business development and day-to-day interactions with clients, colleagues and staff.
While some leverage proprietary video conferencing software, many legal organizations, midsized firms, solos and boutiques are largely turning to commercial video conference platforms, including Zoom.
"We are absolutely flooded with calls from lawyers that need help getting used to Zoom, training on it, etc.," said Sharon Nelson, a lawyer and co-founder of digital forensics and cybersecurity firm Sensei Enterprises Inc.
As Zoom's usage and popularity grows, so have reports of its security risks. Last week two class action suits were filed in California, alleging privacy violations. Random "zoombombings" where unauthorized attendees flood a meeting with obscene language or images have also been reported.
For some, the bad press was enough to switch to other platforms, said Sensei Enterprises co-founder John Simek. However, the security features are usually similar across different platforms, he noted.
"I don't think Zoom is less secure than a Webex or GoToMeeting environment, and it depends on what you're doing or what your needs are," Simek said.
Below, cybersecurity experts and lawyers shared what they consider the best and most lackluster cybersecurity and usability features of the top video conference platforms for lawyers.
|Zoom
Zoom is the most popular video conference software at the moment, with lawyers heavily relying on it because their clients prefer the platform. As it's grown in popularity, consumers have also noted its security shortcomings, but Otterbourg privacy and cybersecurity practice chair Philip Berg argued that the "fundamental privacy concern with Zoom is overblown."
He explained, "If you carefully configure the privacy and security settings of the meetings you host then the privacy and security concerns, with respect to the meeting you are hosting, you can take a fair amount of control over that."
While true end-to-end encryption is needed in Zoom, Berg noted you can activate stiffer password and access requirements easily in the platform. The problem most faced, however, was Zoom had those security controls deactivated by default, Berg said.
To be sure, requiring passcodes for a client to join a lawyer's scheduled Zoom meeting may slightly take away from Zoom's ease of use, but it's a slight inconvenience for better security, Berg argued.
|Microsoft Teams
Microsoft Teams is a popular collaboration tool across industries, but its video conferencing feature is less leveraged by lawyers.
The biggest criticism about Teams is there are no dial-in capabilities similar to Zoom, Webex and GotoMeeting, Simek said. Instead, the dial-in feature is only included in Office 365′s enterprise 3 tier, which is the most expensive, he added.
However, some of Teams' security features are preconfigured in Office 365, unlike Zoom, noted enterprise software company Approyo CEO Chris Carter. Teams' security features include password requirements to enter meetings and limitations for sharing a meeting's URL. Additionally, Teams is integrated with video conference platforms including Zoom and Webex, Slack, Azure and other useful programs, Carter said.
|Webex
Beyond staring at Webex's screen during a webinar, the platform isn't extremely user-friendly, observers said. While its security features match its competitors, it's "bulky," Carter noted.
"It's a big app because it's a little larger and clunkier and harder to use for some folks, especially if you are using the dial-in service versus the online capabilities," he said. Still, for lawyers attempting to log into a meeting while multitasking, there's multiple touch points to access a meeting, unlike other platforms, Carter explained.
|GoToMeeting
GoToMeeting also has security features that are common among video conference platforms, Carter said. The platform's useful, but not extremely unique, security controls include the ability to see the complete list of attendees' current roles and privileges and the option to disconnect attendees.
However, the platform's user interface appears more suited for the tech and business audience, he added. GoToMeeting also includes a camera and hardware equipment to support in-office video and phone conferences, which isn't likely needed for most personal video chats.
The larger problem law firms will have to contend with as their lawyers leverage GoToMeeting and other platforms from home is securing sensitive information. However, that onus can't stop at the video conference platform, Simek said.
"I think there's too much hype about the security of these platforms. They don't know what's going on, on the other side of the machine. They could have their iPhone recording their conversation and they are not focusing on it," he said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250