more on re: The eBay-Skype deal is a blow to open standards

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>
Date: September 18, 2005 1:49:11 PM EDT
To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <dewayne-net () warpspeed com>
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] re: The eBay-Skype deal is a blow to open  
standards
Reply-To: dewayne () warpspeed com


[Note:  This comment comes from reader Steve Schear.  DLH]


> From: Steve Schear <s.schear () comcast net>
> Date: September 18, 2005 10:18:15 AM PDT
> To: dewayne-net () warpspeed com
> Subject: Re: [Dewayne-Net] The eBay-Skype deal is a blow to open   
> standards
>
>
> At 11:22 AM 9/17/2005, Dewayne Hendricks wrote:
>
>
> >     Good commentary on the eBay-Skype deal: <http://  
> > socialsoftware.weblogsinc.com/entry/1234000923058521>.  Worth
> > reading!  Personally, I'm moving away from Skype to Gizmo <http://  
> > www.gizmoproject.com/>.  My Gizmo handle is 'wa8dzp'.  See you there!
>
> The reason I haven't gravitated to open standards is that all of  
> the services using them., AFAIK, don't offer any end-user  
> controlled privacy nor open source implementation for code exam.   
> (Please correct me of I'm wrong.).  I agree with U.S. Supreme Court  
> Justice Brandeis (Olmstead v. United States ) that wiretaps are an  
> unwarranted and illegal invasion of the privacy of those not named  
> in court orders who call phones which are monitored.*  Unless  
> crypto is end-to-end and open source for clients, forget it.
>
> Also, the open standards-based services all seem to use centralized  
> server systems, and not the decentralized models of Skype, meaning  
> too easy to wiretap and traffic analysis.
>
> Steve
>
> * "Subtler and more far-reaching means of invading privacy have  
> become available to the government. Discovery and invention have  
> made it possible for the government, by means far more effective  
> than stretching upon the rack, to obtain disclosure in court of  
> what is whispered in the closet. Moreover, 'in the application of a  
> Constitution, our contemplation cannot be only of what has been,  
> but of what may be.' The progress of science in furnishing the  
> government with means of espionage is not likely to stop with wire  
> tapping. Ways may some day be developed by which the government,  
> without removing papers from secret drawers, can reproduce them in  
> court, and by which it will be enabled to expose to a jury the most  
> intimate occurrences of the home. Advances in the psychic and  
> related sciences may bring means of exploring unexpressed beliefs,  
> thoughts and emotions."
>
> Later, after some of the types of invasion of privacy that Brandeis  
> envisioned became a reality, his dissent gradually evolved into one  
> of the most frequently cited opinions  in Supreme Court rulings.  
> See, for example GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT, 381 U.S. 479 (1965);  
> ESTES v. TEXAS, 381 U.S. 532 (1965); MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, 384 U.S.  
> 436 (1966); KATZ v. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 347 (1967); EISENSTADT  
> v. BAIRD, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)


Weblog at: <http://weblog.warpspeed.com>



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

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