Skype handing over more chat data to law enforcement

Microsoft received a patent for "legal intercept" on VoIP calls last year.

Read the whole story

 

[dsleif]

How would this not be illegal wiretapping?

Do the police get a warrant before intercepting this information?

If so, how stringent is the warrant process?

 

[jdale]

The Washington Post article says "In the United States, such requests require a court order, though in other nations rules vary." but it doesn't clarify whether that is a warrant, what the standards are to obtain such an order, or whether this is actual practice or merely the WP's presumption based on their reading of law.

I would very much like to know the details of this part of the story. It makes a huge difference as to whether I think this is an appropriate police tool or a huge privacy assault.

 

[kleinma]

So I should stop running my drug and prostitution rings over skype?

 

[helel ben shachar]

Shhhhhh.... Don't tell anyone.

 

[wco81]

So the text chats are encrypted but Skype has some kind of backdoor?

 

[LoneWolf1510]

And thus, mumble/ventrilo/everythingelseoutthere proves itself better than skype. Again.

 

[sporkwitch]

This is the part where I say "I told you so." The US has been trying to get this access for years, without success, because they weren't an american company. As soon as the MSFT buyout was announced, this is the exact result I'd said would happen. Now it has. This is why I stopped any real use of skype the day the purchase was approved.

Does jabber have a compatible voice or video protocol? I'm liking the vision of a mesh future with directly routed comms and end-to-end encryption.

 

[Xavin]

Any criminal who conducts business over Skype pretty much deserves to get caught. There are dozens of communication methods that the police probably don't even know exist, if you use one that's popular and centralized, you are dumb.

 

[sporkwitch]

Any criminal who conducts business over Skype pretty much deserves to get caught. There are dozens of communication methods that the police probably don't even know exist, if you use one that's popular and centralized, you are dumb.

Prior to MSFT buying it, Skype was one of the easiest, most prominent, and most secure options available. Despite countless attempts, no government was able to get the backdoor access they kept requesting. This changed with the buyout, like I said it would.

 

[superfob]

although Microsoft filed for a patent in 2009 that would provide for a means of “legal intercept.” That patent was accepted and published in June 2011.

Does this mean if Apple has to comply with law enforcement to allow intercepts of facetime chats, they would have to pay MS or get sued? Great!

 

[dsleif]

Any criminal who conducts business over Skype pretty much deserves to get caught. There are dozens of communication methods that the police probably don't even know exist, if you use one that's popular and centralized, you are dumb.

I'm not really worried about the criminals. I'm worried about the non-criminals that can get caught up in this dragnet if the warrant process is a little too "easy".

 

[domovoi]

The Washington Post article says "In the United States, such requests require a court order, though in other nations rules vary." but it doesn't clarify whether that is a warrant, what the standards are to obtain such an order, or whether this is actual practice or merely the WP's presumption based on their reading of law.

I would very much like to know the details of this part of the story. It makes a huge difference as to whether I think this is an appropriate police tool or a huge privacy assault.

It's a warrant. I'm not sure why some people (not saying you) immediately jump to the conclusion that this is "warrantless," or that somehow warrant review procedures have changed in the slightest. We do have these things called courts and criminal defense lawyers to ensure any evidence obtained went through the proper procedures.

 

[geniekid]

And thus, mumble/ventrilo/everythingelseoutthere proves itself better than skype. Again.

Having used Skype for 2 years and Ventrilo for 6, I can say in SOME ways Skype is better UI-wise, voice quality-wise (even for paid Skype servers), and feature-wise (video chat).

Assuming that Skype monitoring only happens through legal protocols, I'm going to continue using Skype for small group communication and Ventrilo for less personal, larger group communication.

 

[PGXL]

How many of you use a telephone in the United States? Tell me how this is any different from that? Just about every form of communication is monitored in the US; warrants are required so the tinfoil hat needs some adjustment.

 

[Xavin]

Prior to MSFT buying it, Skype was one of the easiest, most prominent, and most secure options available. Despite countless attempts, no government was able to get the backdoor access they kept requesting. This changed with the buyout, like I said it would.

You can't really blame MS for that, as a large US company they are going to cooperate with warrants, and cooperating without warrants is still a very grey area right now until we get more case-law. If you want secure internet communication, use end to end encryption, period, there are dozens of options.

 

[Xavin]

Having used Skype for 2 years and Ventrilo for 6, I can say IN SOME WAYS Skype is better, both UI-wise, voice quality-wise (even for paid Skype servers), and feature-wise (video chat).

Vent is awful, use Mumble or TeamSpeak3 instead.

 

[geniekid]

Having used Skype for 2 years and Ventrilo for 6, I can say IN SOME WAYS Skype is better, both UI-wise, voice quality-wise (even for paid Skype servers), and feature-wise (video chat).

Vent is awful, use Mumble or TeamSpeak3 instead.

I haven't tried those, but from a quick google search, it seems like neither support video chat. Regardless, I'm not trying to assert Skype is the best voice/video chat in the market. My original post was only to argue that it shouldn't be dismissed right away in favor of these other programs assuming police monitoring follows due process.

 

[kleinma]

although Microsoft filed for a patent in 2009 that would provide for a means of “legal intercept.” That patent was accepted and published in June 2011.

Does this mean if Apple has to comply with law enforcement to allow intercepts of facetime chats, they would have to pay MS or get sued? Great!

Haven't you noticed with all the lawsuits being thrown around that MS/Apple suits are not part of it? They aren't being told the surface tablet is rectangle with round corners, so they can't sell it. They have a broad cross license agreement on their patents.

 

[kleinma]

I would be interested to know how you all would feel in the event some major terrorist plot was thwarted because of lawful wiretapping on a skype call.

 

[dsleif]

I would be interested to know how you all would feel in the event some major terrorist plot was thwarted because of lawful wiretapping on a skype call.

Same way I feel about the security theatre that is the TSA - it's a gross overreach of law enforcement that diminishes my rights.

Heavy-handedness is not the answer.

 

[sporkwitch]

Prior to MSFT buying it, Skype was one of the easiest, most prominent, and most secure options available. Despite countless attempts, no government was able to get the backdoor access they kept requesting. This changed with the buyout, like I said it would.

You can't really blame MS for that, as a large US company they are going to cooperate with warrants, and cooperating without warrants is still a very grey area right now until we get more case-law. If you want secure internet communication, use end to end encryption, period, there are dozens of options.

You're absolutely right, and despite my distaste for MSFT, I do not blame them, they comply with this law (if not with any relating to business practices or competition). My point was that the benefits of not being subject to america's continued "progress" towards becoming an Orwellian police state disappeared with the purchase, because america suddenly gained authority which it didn't previously have.

 

[sporkwitch]

Having used Skype for 2 years and Ventrilo for 6, I can say IN SOME WAYS Skype is better, both UI-wise, voice quality-wise (even for paid Skype servers), and feature-wise (video chat).

Vent is awful, use Mumble or TeamSpeak3 instead.

Mumble >>>> Teamspeak 2 > Teamspeak 3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ventrilo (especially regarding features and interface.) Hell, Roger Wilco was better than vent ever was or is now.

 

[pjladyfox]

I would be interested to know how you all would feel in the event some major terrorist plot was thwarted because of lawful wiretapping on a skype call.

Same way I feel about the security theatre that is the TSA - it's a gross overreach of law enforcement that diminishes my rights.

Heavy-handedness is not the answer.

Drat! Someone kind of beat me too the punch!

As dsleif noted this continued erosion of our privacy, and tossing around things like "terrorism" or "drugs" as excuses, is quickly beginning to get out of control. With the entire UAV thing trying to get off the ground as well it does not paint a pretty picture.

I have to ask 'tho, when did people stop trusting their fellow man and started trusting their government? Because I'm looking at some of these actions and wondering why everyone seems to be willing to hand over the keys to their personal affairs over to a non-personal entity that has historically shown should NEVER be that well-trusted? I mean, is this some kind of mass-infantalism that's going on here where everyone wants Daddy Obama and Mommy Clinton to take care of them?

 

[sporkwitch]

I would be interested to know how you all would feel in the event some major terrorist plot was thwarted because of lawful wiretapping on a skype call.

Same way I feel about the security theatre that is the TSA - it's a gross overreach of law enforcement that diminishes my rights.

Heavy-handedness is not the answer.

Drat! Someone kind of beat me too the punch!

As dsleif noted this continued erosion of our privacy, and tossing around things like "terrorism" or "drugs" as excuses, is quickly beginning to get out of control. With the entire UAV thing trying to get off the ground as well it does not paint a pretty picture.

I have to ask 'tho, when did people stop trusting their fellow man and started trusting their government? Because I'm looking at some of these actions and wondering why everyone seems to be willing to hand over the keys to their personal affairs over to a non-personal entity that has historically shown should NEVER be that well-trusted? I mean, is this some kind of mass-infantalism that's going on here where everyone wants Daddy Obama and Mommy Clinton to take care of them?

Don't forget Uncle George "Dubya," most of the true dangers right now got their start when his regime was in charge; the current one just pulled 180's and fought to protect those unconstitutional changes that they swore they'd repeal if elected.

 

[Deleted member 338050]

Any criminal who conducts business over Skype pretty much deserves to get caught. There are dozens of communication methods that the police probably don't even know exist, if you use one that's popular and centralized, you are dumb.

Prior to MSFT buying it, Skype was one of the easiest, most prominent, and most secure options available. Despite countless attempts, no government was able to get the backdoor access they kept requesting. This changed with the buyout, like I said it would.

Would you bet your life on that statement? Because, I know for a fact that everything can be intercepted with a warrant or ...

 

[dlux]

As dsleif noted this continued erosion of our privacy, and tossing around things like "terrorism" or "drugs" as excuses, is quickly beginning to get out of control.

Beginning?!?

Were you, by any chance, in a coma for the past twenty or so years?

(Hell, let's go back to the McCarthy era for some refreshers on how it's done.)

 

[jdale]

The Washington Post article says "In the United States, such requests require a court order, though in other nations rules vary." but it doesn't clarify whether that is a warrant, what the standards are to obtain such an order, or whether this is actual practice or merely the WP's presumption based on their reading of law.

I would very much like to know the details of this part of the story. It makes a huge difference as to whether I think this is an appropriate police tool or a huge privacy assault.

It's a warrant. I'm not sure why some people (not saying you) immediately jump to the conclusion that this is "warrantless," or that somehow warrant review procedures have changed in the slightest. We do have these things called courts and criminal defense lawyers to ensure any evidence obtained went through the proper procedures.

It's an immediate concern because of national security letters, because of cell tower records being obtained without a warrant (even "everyone near the tower" which inherently sweeps up data about people not even under investigation), because of the use of GPS trackers, etc etc. In short, because the precedent we have seen over and over again is that any new method of obtaining information is used without a warrant until the courts or legislature get around to cracking down on it.

And while I appreciate your saying that it is a warrant, and that may be true, I also feel the need to ask for a citation supporting that conclusion. I am not assuming it is without a warrant, but I am also not willing to assume it is with one.

 

[jarvis]

Any criminal who conducts business over Skype pretty much deserves to get caught. There are dozens of communication methods that the police probably don't even know exist, if you use one that's popular and centralized, you are dumb.

I always thought in-game chat like in the scrabble and pictionary rip-offs for Android/iOS was a pretty clever way to hide communications. I'm sure there are games even more off the radar with that capability that most wouldn't think to track...

How about thins like Xbox Live & PSN? Do they have secret backdoors?

 

[sporkwitch]

Any criminal who conducts business over Skype pretty much deserves to get caught. There are dozens of communication methods that the police probably don't even know exist, if you use one that's popular and centralized, you are dumb.

Prior to MSFT buying it, Skype was one of the easiest, most prominent, and most secure options available. Despite countless attempts, no government was able to get the backdoor access they kept requesting. This changed with the buyout, like I said it would.

Would you bet your life on that statement? Because, I know for a fact that everything can be intercepted with a warrant or ...

Let me know how useful the intercepted data is in 2050 when they break the encryption on it. I didn't say anything about interception, I was talking about access, as in to the plaintext content, not the ciphertext.

 

[kleinma]

I would be interested to know how you all would feel in the event some major terrorist plot was thwarted because of lawful wiretapping on a skype call.

Same way I feel about the security theatre that is the TSA - it's a gross overreach of law enforcement that diminishes my rights.

Heavy-handedness is not the answer.

Drat! Someone kind of beat me too the punch!

As dsleif noted this continued erosion of our privacy, and tossing around things like "terrorism" or "drugs" as excuses, is quickly beginning to get out of control. With the entire UAV thing trying to get off the ground as well it does not paint a pretty picture.

I have to ask 'tho, when did people stop trusting their fellow man and started trusting their government? Because I'm looking at some of these actions and wondering why everyone seems to be willing to hand over the keys to their personal affairs over to a non-personal entity that has historically shown should NEVER be that well-trusted? I mean, is this some kind of mass-infantalism that's going on here where everyone wants Daddy Obama and Mommy Clinton to take care of them?

I am just going on the fact that if the feds want to listen to my skype convos, then they are more than welcome. I am a law abiding tax paying citizen, and I never, ever had any expectation of true privacy across any electronic medium. I keep hearing these increased cries about no privacy, and then those people go off and tweet and post on facebook everything about their lives.

 

[SirMarth01]

Does jabber have a compatible voice or video protocol? I'm liking the vision of a mesh future with directly routed comms and end-to-end encryption.

Thanks to ZRTP and SRTP, you can use the Jingle extension of XMPP to allow encrypted voice and video chat.

The only good client for Windows seems to be Jitsi. Jitsi also supports OTR for chat encryption.

 

[Bob.Brown]

I would be interested to know how you all would feel in the event some major terrorist plot was thwarted because of lawful wiretapping on a skype call.

I'd feel absolutely, positively astonished! Terrorists, at least the foreign kind, tend to come from countries with (even more) repressive regimes. They are wary of things like Skype.

Gadgets, whether Skype taps or naked x-rays, do not catch terrorists. Boring but effective intelligence work catches terrorists.

 

[dsleif]

I am just going on the fact that if the feds want to listen to my skype convos, then they are more than welcome. I am a law abiding tax paying citizen, and I never, ever had any expectation of true privacy across any electronic medium. I keep hearing these increased cries about no privacy, and then those people go off and tweet and post on facebook everything about their lives.

Tweeting something and talking over Skype are two vastly different methods of communication. There is NO expectation of privacy over Twitter, and plenty of it over Skype.

Please try again.

 

[sporkwitch]

Does jabber have a compatible voice or video protocol? I'm liking the vision of a mesh future with directly routed comms and end-to-end encryption.

Thanks to ZRTP and SRTP, you can use the Jingle extension of XMPP to allow encrypted voice and video chat.

The only good client for Windows seems to be Jitsi. Jitsi also supports OTR for chat encryption.

What about for operating systems that don't suck?

 

[skicow]

I am just going on the fact that if the feds want to listen to my skype convos, then they are more than welcome. I am a law abiding tax paying citizen, and I never, ever had any expectation of true privacy across any electronic medium. I keep hearing these increased cries about no privacy, and then those people go off and tweet and post on facebook everything about their lives.

The .gov listening to my private conversations on Skype is very different than if I tweeted something -- please tell me that you can see the difference between these!

 

[Raptor's Boomstick]

How many of you use a telephone in the United States? Tell me how this is any different from that? Just about every form of communication is monitored in the US; warrants are required so the tinfoil hat needs some adjustment.

I don't understand why there is this opinion that the internet should be completely different. For some reason, a lot of people seem to expect that it should be this wild country where everything is ok and no one has a right to monitor anything.

That said, if this were warrantless (and nothing I've seen indicates that it is), I'd agree that it's a bad thing.

 

[Deleted member 338050]

Any criminal who conducts business over Skype pretty much deserves to get caught. There are dozens of communication methods that the police probably don't even know exist, if you use one that's popular and centralized, you are dumb.

Prior to MSFT buying it, Skype was one of the easiest, most prominent, and most secure options available. Despite countless attempts, no government was able to get the backdoor access they kept requesting. This changed with the buyout, like I said it would.

Would you bet your life on that statement? Because, I know for a fact that everything can be intercepted with a warrant or ...

Let me know how useful the intercepted data is in 2050 when they break the encryption on it. I didn't say anything about interception, I was talking about access, as in to the plaintext content, not the ciphertext.

They don't have to break the encryption. Lawful Access provisioning requires that the data is handled to the law enforcing agencies in a readable format with a warrant. Under US laws, the company rejecting to provide this is liable and trust me no company wants to be in that position. I know this for a fact because I work in this field.
Whatever you hear that company A or Company B does not provide data, etc. to the law enforcing agencies is very far from the truth

 

[jdale]

I would be interested to know how you all would feel in the event some major terrorist plot was thwarted because of lawful wiretapping on a skype call.

Same way I feel about the security theatre that is the TSA - it's a gross overreach of law enforcement that diminishes my rights.

Heavy-handedness is not the answer.

Drat! Someone kind of beat me too the punch!

As dsleif noted this continued erosion of our privacy, and tossing around things like "terrorism" or "drugs" as excuses, is quickly beginning to get out of control. With the entire UAV thing trying to get off the ground as well it does not paint a pretty picture.

I have to ask 'tho, when did people stop trusting their fellow man and started trusting their government? Because I'm looking at some of these actions and wondering why everyone seems to be willing to hand over the keys to their personal affairs over to a non-personal entity that has historically shown should NEVER be that well-trusted? I mean, is this some kind of mass-infantalism that's going on here where everyone wants Daddy Obama and Mommy Clinton to take care of them?

I am just going on the fact that if the feds want to listen to my skype convos, then they are more than welcome. I am a law abiding tax paying citizen, and I never, ever had any expectation of true privacy across any electronic medium. I keep hearing these increased cries about no privacy, and then those people go off and tweet and post on facebook everything about their lives.

Are you concluding that because you see people expecting privacy on the net, and also see that Twitter and Facebook are on the net? I'm sure that there are people who expect privacy and also use those services, though I also expect they limit what they post on those services. Personally, I don't post on Twitter at all and do not have a Facebook account, precisely for this reason. I'm not willing to support a system that is that abusive of privacy.

(Twitter's record for protecting privacy is actually pretty good, though -- aside from posts that are deliberately public. Unlike Facebook.)

 

[sporkwitch]

I am just going on the fact that if the feds want to listen to my skype convos, then they are more than welcome. I am a law abiding tax paying citizen, and I never, ever had any expectation of true privacy across any electronic medium. I keep hearing these increased cries about no privacy, and then those people go off and tweet and post on facebook everything about their lives.

Tweeting something and talking over Skype are two vastly different methods of communication. There is NO expectation of privacy over Twitter, and plenty of it over Skype.

Please try again.

Nevermind the fallacy of "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."

My MSgt defends unconstitutinal laws and terrifying legislation and restriction with that fallacy all the time. His entire argument is centered on "it would never happen in america; there would be revolution if it did" and then completely dismisses the "poached frog" analogy illustrated in 1984 and V for Vendetta, with the usual false logic of "it's a movie and therefor would never happen."

To be fair, these are simplifications of his statements, but their essence is captured. Unfortunately, most Americans today either think the same way or don't care at all. Another great example was my stepfather saying i'm a disgrace to my uniform and recommending i seek psychiatric help from the VA (and citing his service during vietnam) for pointing out how fucked up attempts to force god into law is (and citing the constitution's prohibitions on doing so).