Louis Suárez-Potts: > One is tempted to suggest using other than Skype. Alternatives exist, and > these are secure, at least according to their claims. As well, Skype's code > is not transparent, in the way that other, open source, applications' are. > > louis
What alternative do you exactly mean? I know some of them running under Linux, but I rarely know people using them. > On 13-03-20, at 22:39 , "Eric S Johnson" <cra...@oneotaslopes.org> wrote: > >> Dear LibTechers, >> >> When Microsoft applied in 2009 for a patent on “recording agents” to surveil >> peer-to-peer communications, it was assumed they were talking about >> something they might implement in Skype. >> Skype in 2010 started rearchitecting its use of supernodes “to improve >> reliability.” >> MS stated in 2012 that the re-engineering is “to improve the user >> experience.” >> The recent report in the Russian media that MS can trigger individual users’ >> Skype instances to establish session-specific encryption key exchange not >> with “the other end” but with intermediate nodes (thus making possible >> inline surveillance of Skype communications—presumably VoIP, since MS >> already stores Skype IM sessions “for 30 days”)—dovetails nicely with >> suspicions that MS is making (or has made) Skype lawful-intercept-friendly. >> >> But wouldn’t the above evolution require changes in the Skype client, too? >> Does anyone know of any work to identify whether it’s possible to say “if >> you keep your Skype client below version 4.4 [for instance], any newer >> capability to remotely trigger individually-targeted >> surveillance-by-intermediate-node isn’t (as) there”? >> >> Best, >> Eric -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
