[IP] more on Senate Tangles Over VOIP Rules
Begin forwarded message:
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@xxxxxxxx>
Date: June 18, 2004 11:10:28 AM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: btm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Senate Tangles Over VOIP Rules
David Farber wrote, quoting Brad Templeton:
I was surprised to see Skype noted in this story, and then
see all the quotes that seem unaware of what it is and what
it does.
Skype works largely Peer to Peer, and it encrypts the voice
traffic end to end. It does not all the time, not just when
you ask for it. As it should be, most users are not even aware
of the encryption. (I have long maintained that zero user interface
is the right user interface for encryption.)
What this means, however, is that they are trying to close the
barn door after the genie has gotten out of the bag. Anybody
actively afraid of snooping will quickly learn to use Skype or a
tool like it. There is no party on which a warrant or other tap
order can be served.
Dave,
To amplify what Brad said: When I was in Stockholm last fall, I spoke
at length with Skype CEO Niklas Zennstrom about wiretapping and what
he'd do when various governmental agencies come calling. Following is
an excerpt.
-Declan
http://gizmodo-cnet.com.com/2008-7352_3-5112783.html
[...]
News.com ran an article a few months ago talking about how the FBI
wants to force VoIP providers to make their networks subject to
wiretaps. If it gets adopted, what would this proposal mean for you?
The landscape is changing. In the old world you had issues like lawful
interception of telephone calls. In Sweden the police can get a court
order and wiretap a telephone call if the crime would lead to six years
in jail or something like that.
And if the Swedish police came to you?
We cannot do anything because we don't have access to the data stream.
The old way of thinking was easy. You'd go to the local telephone
company and they'd get a wiretap. That's not a problem because the
telephone service owns the infrastructure, provides the service, and
operates in one country. The Internet is a bit different. What you
would have to do is to go to the Internet service provider.
Assume the police can get a court order and conduct the tap. But the
Skype conversation is encrypted and they only can hear gibberish.
I'm just trying to say in general what the issues are. I don't have a
solution. In general it's not as clear cut as it was in old POTS (plain
old telephone service) days. My point is that it's not as easy as it
was before.
Have you been contacted by any law enforcement or national security
agency?
No. What if we got contacted by the Chinese government, or the U.S.
government, or North Korea, or the Swedish? If you're operating
something that's only available in one country it's an easy clear-cut
case. But if it's available worldwide, that's different.
[...]
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose
use
has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. The
'IP' Internet discussion group is making it available without
profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding
of
literary, educational, political, and economic issues, for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. I believe that this constitutes
a
'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of
the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for
purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain
permission
from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/