Skype Encryption Stumps German Police

Discussion in 'privacy general' started by lotuseclat79, Nov 23, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. lotuseclat79

    lotuseclat79 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    5,103
    Slashdot article here.

    -- Tom
     
  2. caspian

    caspian Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Posts:
    2,301
    Location:
    Oz
    I wonder if they are saying that just to make criminals think that they are safe using Skype?
     
  3. HURST

    HURST Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Posts:
    1,419
    My exact thoughts when I read this. I don't think it's smart to let everyone know what your vulnerabilities are.
    As I'm not a criminal, I don't care if they can or cannot decrypt skype :D :D :D
     
  4. caspian

    caspian Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Posts:
    2,301
    Location:
    Oz
    I am not a criminal either. But I resent the fact that there is all of this illegal spying and massive data collecting. I don't care if I am at dictionary.com. It is no one's business. Sure, they need to know that "someone" went to dictionary.com for their stats, but not the name and IP address and physical address to store with all of the rest of the data.

    Think of it this way. You have an old friend come to visit you. The two of you decide to go take a hike in the woods and catch up on what's new and reminisce. There is a guy following you the entire length of your hike with a tape recorder. He will store the entire conversation with all of the rest of your personal data that has been collected over the years.

    But hey, it's the government, and if you are not doing anything illegal, why should you mind? And I guess it would also be okay if they came into your house while you were asleep and went through your underwear drawer, medicine cabinet, and personal financial records, at a whim......just because they felt like it. If you are not doing anything illegal, then why should you care?? Right?
     
  5. HURST

    HURST Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Posts:
    1,419
    I don't want to start a whole political discussion. We all have our points of view and I respect that. As for your example, of course, if a stranger is following me and taping my conversations, I would confront him, or at least try to loose him, so he can hear anything. Kinda like we try to do with spyware, keyloggers, etc.
    But, if the police is keeping track of my steps, I'm OK with that, I'm not doing anything wrong. As long as they delete the data after they found out I'm not a "target", it's OK. I prefer that than suffering terrorist attacks or having child abusers out on the street.
    I think there is a strong need of new laws that regulate this issues, so the privacy of the people whose data is collected is guaranteed.
     
  6. Carver

    Carver Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Posts:
    1,827
    Location:
    USA
    It is exactly this type of attude that permits the Government to collect and retain this data. You may find in 20 years you are denied health insurance or a Bank loan based on the profile madeup of all the data the Government collected in the last 20 years.
     
  7. caspian

    caspian Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Posts:
    2,301
    Location:
    Oz
    Well if you are a vegetarian, you had better watch out.

    http://thegurglingcod.typepad.com/thegurglingcod/2006/01/do_not_ever_ant.html

    You may think that intercepting the emails of gay college students across the country is in our best interest, but I think that it is Nazi-esque.

    "Pentagon anti-terror investigators labeled gay law school groups a *credible threat* of terrorism" ......(yeah right, what a sham).

    http://www.americablog.com/2005/12/pentagon-anti-terror-investigators.html

    I don't know about you, but I believe in freedom of speech and a right to privacy.....the most basic of our American values. Evidently our Founding Fathers seemed to value these principles as well. .Removing these rights, or disrespecting them in any way, is unAmerican. All of this spying in the name of National Security is a sham. Very little of it has anything at all to do with terrorism or national security. It is in fact a threat to Democracy and to National Security.

    "FBI monitoring and infiltration by the FBI and local law enforcement, targeting political, environmental, anti-war and faith-based groups".

    http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spyfiles/24011res20060131.html
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2007
  8. caspian

    caspian Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Posts:
    2,301
    Location:
    Oz
    Okay well I have had some time to think and I guess I am not being completely fair. I know that they have done a lot of valuable work, and for that I am truly grateful. I just think that there is a lot of abuse going on right now.
     
  9. Dogbiscuit

    Dogbiscuit Guest

    Great PR for Skype.
     
  10. HURST

    HURST Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Posts:
    1,419
    Thats why I said
    Cheers:D
     
  11. caspian

    caspian Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Posts:
    2,301
    Location:
    Oz
    I'm sorry, I get too woirked up some times, hehe!. But you are right. We just need some new laws and some oversight to put things in order. I am sure that it will come in time.
     
  12. Justin Troutman

    Justin Troutman Cryptography Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2007
    Posts:
    226
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA / Minas Gerais, BR
    Quis custodiet custodes ipsos?

    The real argument isn't security versus privacy; it's liberty versus tyranny. Privacy is not a privilege; it is an inherent right, and a necessity for the human condition. When you're showing the Mrs. just how much you love her, you're not doing anything wrong. The same holds true for many of our natural experiences. Privacy is not about the hiding of wrongdoing. Bruce talks about these things, and a lot more, here. I also recommend checking out this essay, by Daniel J. Solove.

    There certainly is. Unfortunately, those responsible for making hugely consequential security decisions aren't competent enough to be making them in the first place. Abuse is inevitable. There's too much government as it is, and by allowing the erosion of our privacy, we fertilize the growth of a police state, yet smother individuality as we know and harbor. Quis custodiet custodes ipsos?
     
  13. Rilla927

    Rilla927 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    1,710
    Re: Quis custodiet custodes ipsos?

    @Caspian & Justin Troutman
    You both said exactly the way I feel! I couldnt have said it better.
     
  14. Chuck57

    Chuck57 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2002
    Posts:
    1,422
    Location:
    New Mexico, USA
    Re: Quis custodiet custodes ipsos?

    "Quis custodiet custodes ipsos?" Indeed. Here in America, once elected those oxygen thieves seem to think they suddenly become superior and all knowing beings. Thanks in part to the Internet, that isn't as true as it once was. I'll bet they lay awake nights trying to think of ways to control it. We're supposed to be electing our best and brightest to office. These days, I think the opposite is true.

    'That government is best that governs least.' No truer words were ever spoken.
     
  15. lotuseclat79

    lotuseclat79 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    5,103
    Re: Quis custodiet custodes ipsos?

    Skype and the Bavarian trojan in the middle
    Article here.

    German gov't caught buying malware to intercept Skype calls
    Article here.

    -- Tom
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.