I'm sorry that I may have posted this to the wrong location, but the Linux world has got to see this.
Won't Microsoft have a run in, with the GPL-3 ?
http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/05/skype-replaces-p2p-supernodes-with-l...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 05/30/2012 05:19 PM, Jim wrote:
I'm sorry that I may have posted this to the wrong location, but the Linux world has got to see this.
If it's the end of the world as we know it I feel fine. :-)
Won't Microsoft have a run in, with the GPL-3 ?
http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/05/skype-replaces-p2p-supernodes-with-l...
I
don't see why you'd think that? Skype the app always was and is proprietary so the platform it's hosted on makes no difference to the license question - if they were violating something before they are probably still violating it now and likewise if they were not.
The GPL (long before v3) has always been very careful not to restrict downstream users regardless of their field of endeavour so nuclear weapons scientists, lawyers and evil super geniuses are just as welcome to use Linux as Microsoft (subject to local laws of course ;-).
I'm very happy to see a company like Microsoft selecting a superior operating system platform for their public facing services.
Regards, Bryn.
On 30 May 2012 17:19, Jim binarynut@comcast.net wrote:
I'm sorry that I may have posted this to the wrong location, but the Linux world has got to see this.
Won't Microsoft have a run in, with the GPL-3 ?
http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/05/skype-replaces-p2p-supernodes-with-l...
My concern really is that now it is much easier for the American security services to have access to everybody's communications. Although the article says that "calls do not pass through supernodes" one wonders if that is really true, and if it is, for how long. And even to know that a call was established, as is now happening since it goes through Microsoft supernodes, is significant.
If I was a shady character I definitely would not use Skype!
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Piscium groknok@gmail.com wrote:
If I was a shady character I definitely would not use Skype!
No need to be a shady character to appreciate the virtues of Jitsi ( www.jitsi.org).
FC
My concern really is that now it is much easier for the American security services to have access to everybody's communications.
It's not changed. Read the analysis on things that have leaked out in court cases. Skype seems to have all the usual intercept facilities required by law enforcement.
I would expect the same of the many standards based gateways to the POTS network.
Alan
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Alan Cox alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk wrote:
I would expect the same of the many standards based gateways to the POTS network.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_A...
FC
On 30 May 2012 22:41, Alan Cox alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk wrote:
My concern really is that now it is much easier for the American security services to have access to everybody's communications.
It's not changed. Read the analysis on things that have leaked out in court cases. Skype seems to have all the usual intercept facilities required by law enforcement.
I would expect the same of the many standards based gateways to the POTS network.
I was not aware of that, still I think it is all relative. I remember reading years ago that criminals in Italy preferred using Skype to mobile phones or landlines as they were - at the time - less likely to be intercepted. But yes, I would think that there is no communication means that is 100 % secure and suitable for all use cases.
And I am uneasy at the extent of the growth of the information that Western governments are collecting about us as a reaction to 9/11 and what followed (Madrid and London bombings, etc), but there is nothing I can do about that that is practical. What I would wish is a return to the more nuanced approach to data collection that existed before 9/11, in particular in Europe. I don't believe that the current approach where governments know everything about us makes us any more secure.
But maybe I should stop now as I am going off-topic!
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Piscium groknok@gmail.com wrote:
. What I would wish is a return to the more nuanced approach to data collection that existed before 9/11, in particular in Europe. I don't believe that the current approach where governments know everything about us makes us any more secure.
This multi-platform Java app is a good solution for secure point-to-point, pc-to-pc, person-to-person text chat without a central server.
http://users.ece.gatech.edu/cortes/SeChat.html
The author has some experience with encryption, and source code is avaialble. FWIW
FC
On 30 May 2012 23:36, Fernando Cassia fcassia@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Piscium groknok@gmail.com wrote:
. What I would wish is a return to the more nuanced approach to data collection that existed before 9/11, in particular in Europe. I don't believe that the current approach where governments know everything about us makes us any more secure.
This multi-platform Java app is a good solution for secure point-to-point, pc-to-pc, person-to-person text chat without a central server.
http://users.ece.gatech.edu/cortes/SeChat.html
The author has some experience with encryption, and source code is avaialble. FWIW
I am all in favour of open-source peer-to-peer communication solutions. The issue is how to convince my relatives and friends with whom I use Skype to switch to something else as they don't care about open-source or being listened to by the government!
Also it would be nice not to have to rely on a communications service provider and instead communicate wirelessly with our neighbours forming a mesh. There are some projects working towards that goal. Let's hope they succeed.
On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 00:12 +0100, Piscium wrote:
The issue is how to convince my relatives and friends with whom I use Skype to switch to something else
You have two choices:
Find something better, for them. But they're going to want something that can talk to Skype, too, so they can contact their other friends, without having to run multiple VOIP applications. And Skype being proprietary, is going to make that next to impossible.
Don't use Skype, and tell them that if they want to call you, they'll need to use something else. Of course, the response may well be that they stop calling you.
On Wed, 2012-05-30 at 22:03 +0100, Piscium wrote:
Although the article says that "calls do not pass through supernodes" one wonders if that is really true,
The article is conflicting, in that regard.
On the one hand, it says calls do not pass through it (it just organises the two parties to connect to each other). And, on the other hand, it talks about not exposing the calling party's IPs, which is an impossible thing to do for peer-to-peer. The only way to hide the IPs is to have at least one proxy in the middle, where the entire call passes through.
But for what it's worth, as far as calls going through some place like Microsoft, I, for one, would prefer that phone calls pass through companies which can be held up to the law, rather than random people on the internet, who could, probably, have far more nefarious desires about handling the data.
On 05/30/2012 08:01 PM, Tim wrote:
On the one hand, it says calls do not pass through it (it just organises the two parties to connect to each other). And, on the other hand, it talks about not exposing the calling party's IPs, which is an impossible thing to do for peer-to-peer. The only way to hide the IPs is to have at least one proxy in the middle, where the entire call passes through.
Before it can connect the two parties, it has to know both of their IP addresses even if the call is managed peer-to-peer once the connection is made.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 05/31/2012 07:04 AM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 05/30/2012 08:01 PM, Tim wrote:
On the one hand, it says calls do not pass through it (it just organises the two parties to connect to each other). And, on the other hand, it talks about not exposing the calling party's IPs, which is an impossible thing to do for peer-to-peer. The only way to hide the IPs is to have at least one proxy in the middle, where the entire call passes through.
Before it can connect the two parties, it has to know both of their IP addresses even if the call is managed peer-to-peer once the connection is made.
Although skype probably has this requirement it's not true in the general case. There are methods available that allow two mutually-anonymous parties to set up a rendezvous via (also anonymous and untrusted) third parties in such a way that no party can discover the network identity of the others or eavesdrop on the resulting communications.
The TOR hidden service model implements this via rendezvous and introduction points that allow nodes to discover and connect to published hidden services.
Regards, Bryn.
-
Alan Cox -
Bryn M. Reeves -
Fernando Cassia -
Joe Zeff -
Mickey -
Piscium -
Tim