more on Senate Tangles Over VOIP Rules

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
Date: June 18, 2004 11:10:28 AM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Cc: btm () templetons com
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 interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/