# Video conferencing section **URL:** https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/video-conferencing-section/37641 **Category:** Site Development **Created:** 2026-05-05T11:26:39Z **Posts:** 21 ## Post 1 by @ph00lt0 — 2026-05-05T11:26:39Z I’d like to introduce a videocall section on the website to add recommendations for video calls. Proposed tools are: - [Proton Meet](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/proton-meet/37640) - Others (please create seperate #Site Development > Tool Suggestions discussion and we will add them here) **Note** this discussion is to introduce the section and it’s requirements. **Not individual tools**. Proposed requirements: - Allows to join calls via links without registration for people who join the host. - Enforces use of end to end encryption for both the video stream and if applicable the chat. - Does not require an app to join the call and must be available on cross platform. - Must allow for to join calls on Linux, MacOS, Windows, Android, and iOS through browser or app. - Must offer background blurring - Must not require to enable video and allow audio only calls. - Must offer a mute option - Must offer to disable recording or have no recording - Must offer to disable transciptions and AI assistants or not have them. --- ## Post 2 by @DigitalAutonomy — 2026-05-05T11:29:24Z I guess it goes without saying but the product must allow to be used itself as just an audio call and not mandate a video call. All video conferencing tools these days have a chat function too so might as well make that part of the requirements? --- ## Post 3 by @ph00lt0 — 2026-05-05T11:31:36Z Added, good points! --- ## Post 4 by @anonymous549 — 2026-05-05T13:17:16Z Do you want to add a whole new section for just this tool or are there more tools in mind if the section is created? I only hesitate with the idea of creating a new section for one tool as it seems like resources are stretched thin just keeping up with all the sections currently available. It seems like maybe a Wiki on Proton Meet would make more sense for now if there is only going to be one tool to meet the requirments. --- ## Post 5 by @pine — 2026-05-05T14:15:25Z Perhaps the solution being open source should be added as a requirement, either as a basic or best case criteria? --- ## Post 6 by @owlcat — 2026-05-05T15:47:52Z Cross platform requirement probably could be lessened. From what I observed: 1. Private calls, like between family members, are usually mobile device to mobile device. Sometimes desktop-to-mobile, e.g. in case of some big event call. 2. Desktop-to-mobile from time to time happens in education classes and in therapy sessions. It’s mostly down to whatever device is comfortable for “receiving side”. 3. Enterprise is desktop-to-desktop. I heard about some management liking mobile devices like iPads but never observed it in real life. From my experience with enterprise (but not at management level) - it’s always desktop-to-desktop, voice only calls and screen share. No one cares about your face but screen share was obligatory. So, it could be a requirement as well. It would be nice to have security audited software but I don’t see news about Proton Meet being audited. Open source requirement could be of a lesser degree - obligatory for client side but optional for server side. Shouldn’t Mailbox Meet be considered as well? I believe it’s OpenTalk based (open source). What about reviewing the Jami again? Previously it was rejected due to lack of audit and buggy nature. --- ## Post 7 by @ph00lt0 — 2026-05-05T16:26:50Z > [@owlcat](#): > > Shouldn’t Mailbox Meet be considered as well? I believe it’s OpenTalk based (open source). > [@anonymous549](#): > > more tools > [@owlcat](#): > > What about reviewing the Jami again? Previously it was rejected due to lack of audit and buggy nature As noted this discussion is not about what tools. Surely others can be considered but outside this thread. You are welcome to create a #Site Development > Tool Suggestions post. Here we draft the requirements for the section --- ## Post 8 by @ph00lt0 — 2026-05-05T16:28:31Z > [@owlcat](#): > > Private calls, like between family members, are usually mobile device to mobile device. Sometimes desktop-to-mobile, e.g. in case of some big event call. Right that is why i propose a section on video conferencing. There is already a section for what you describe: Real time commucation. --- ## Post 9 by @ph00lt0 — 2026-05-05T16:29:30Z > [@owlcat](#): > > It would be nice to have security audited software but I don’t see news about Proton Meet being audited. agreed but i dont believe there are any available thus it makes no sense require it. --- ## Post 10 by @owlcat — 2026-05-05T16:38:28Z The point was that requiring mobile devices support may outcast desktop conferencing software. And there are use cases for non-mobile communication: enterprise use, learning classes, and “IT support”-like (e.g. helping your relatives resolve whatever issue they have by directing them through screenshare from their side). Tho, requirements can be changed later, upon discussing actual tools to add. --- ## Post 11 by @privacy.slouchy — 2026-05-05T16:49:42Z > [@ph00lt0](#): > > Cross platform. Must be available on Linux, MacOS, Windows, Android, and iOS or in-browser I oppose this requirement. I see no reason to omit a strong tool that does not want to maintain five binaries We could add, as either a preferred or minimum requirement, in-browser support alone, which would imply compatibility with all OSs Also: this separate requirement may make it redundant: > [@ph00lt0](#): > > Does not require an app to join the call --- ## Post 12 by @privacy.slouchy — 2026-05-05T16:51:08Z Potential requirement discussion: call recording, and AI transcription tools, pose a threat to privacy. I’d like to enforce a capability to disable both --- ## Post 13 by @ph00lt0 — 2026-05-05T16:51:41Z > [@privacy.slouchy](#): > > We could add, as either a preferred or minimum requirement, in-browser support, which would imply comparibility with all OSs Perhaps i should phrase it better but that was my suggestion. Either support all major OSes or browser calls for all platforms. The reason this is important is that we should not want to promote a service that locks people into apple, google, microsoft ecosystems. Edited the section --- ## Post 14 by @ph00lt0 — 2026-05-05T16:56:53Z Added --- ## Post 16 by @ThePrivacyDad — 2026-05-05T22:06:58Z Maybe something about self-hosting requirement yes or no? --- ## Post 17 by @ph00lt0 — 2026-05-05T22:09:50Z You would have to argue why that would be important for this section specifically. We don’t require this for any other section. (And you will find many threads on the forum on this not being for normal users). And then specifically on why that makes it more privacy friendly, which I don’t see as the data is end to end encrypted. --- ## Post 18 by @ThePrivacyDad — 2026-05-05T22:20:12Z it’s not about it being a requirement for privacy, but having to have one person self-host makes a tool less user friendly, as at least one person in a team or social group has to know how to do that and be willing to put the time into maintaining the app. I’ve had this discussion elsewhere on the forum this week, but it depends on your target audience. The home page of PG suggests its target audience is anyone who wants to get started with digital privacy, as the central banner says ‘start your privacy journey.’ --- ## Post 19 by @ph00lt0 — 2026-05-05T22:21:54Z > [@ThePrivacyDad](#): > > it’s not about it being a requirement for privacy In that case it should not be considered as criteria for our recommendations for video conferencing. We are not self host guides. --- ## Post 20 by @ThePrivacyDad — 2026-05-05T22:27:09Z I meant the requirement could be that it _doesn’t_ require self-hosting. It really depends on who you are trying to reach with your recommendations and what the purpose of the Guide is. --- ## Post 21 by @ph00lt0 — 2026-05-05T22:28:22Z It is an interesting suggestion but seems broader than for video conferencing so might be better to open a separate discussion about that.