6 ms·

Not sure about that elephant. Anyone using Skype still assuming their conversation is secure and private, is exceedingly naive. Those who really need security

Not sure about that elephant. Anyone using Skype still assuming their conversation is secure and private, is exceedingly naive. Those who really need security and privacy, know not to use Skype.

mrweasel 10y ago
>Those who really need security and privacy, know not to use Skype. Everyone needs security, and privacy. If you're a company, you need security and privacy, and most will just assume that Skype provides it. And for the most part Skype provides them with the security they need. Most of the users of Skype just needs protection from snooping competitors and Skype provides that to a sufficient extend. Honestly no one will care the slightest that Skype has become less secure, because in their eyes it hasn't. But yes, most users for Skype are pretty naive, about security at least.
- gruez 10y ago
  >If you're a company, you need security and privacy, and most will just assume that Skype provides it. And for the most part Skype provides them with the security they need. Most of the users of Skype just needs protection from snooping competitors and Skype provides that to a sufficient extend. Aren't businesses supposed to use skype for business?
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    Is there any difference in security between business-skype and normal-skype?
    - throwanem 10y ago
      Probably, since "Skype for Business" is a renamed Microsoft Lync and has basically no technology in common with Skype per se. (Its user experience is also terrible, but differently so.)
      - cptskippy 10y ago
        They use the same icon and follow the same mantra "crash early, crash often."
      - douche 10y ago
        An endless source of confusion. What's even more fun is that the two clients almost, but don't really, interoperate, when the stars are in the correct alignment. Peer-to-peer calls and instant messages tend to be okay, but things go sideways when they get stepped into an n-way. It's buckets of fun trying to figure out why some calls get dropped by a Lync-based chat application, only to figure out that the customer was using the wrong client.
    - MichaelGG 10y ago
      Skype for Business, aka Lync before the idiotic rebrand, uses TLS and you can set your own certs if you run your own server.
- dimino 10y ago
  > Everyone needs security, and privacy I'm so tired of this, no I don't, at least not as much as so many people think I need. No, I don't care if my Netflix password is easily crackable, and no I don't care if the US government reads my Skype chats! Why am I not allowed to make that choice, to use Skype and be okay with the convenience tradeoff? I agree that I should have the choice, but if I do choose to use something insecure with full knowledge of it's insecurity, can't I be free to do that?
  - meira 10y ago
    Actually, if everybody knew that a channel is insecure, it would make it a lot less dangerous. The problem is: most of people need it to be safer, and there is no real option.
    - dimino 10y ago
      > The problem is: most of people need it to be safer, and there is no real option. You'll have to elaborate on how this is A) true, and B) there are no options. I can think of a dozen better options than Skype.
      - meira 10y ago
        A) if you and your contact knows that a channel is compromised, you'll be able to adapt if needed. But if one thinks it is safe, the other don't care about its safeness and it happens to be a compromised channel, the first guy might be in trouble. (B) If the default option was something architecturally safer (like encrypted decentralized mail), they would be able to trust it without need to fully trust the other parts envolved (contact and service).
        dimino 10y ago
        I was hoping you'd prove that most people consider Skype to be secure, for A, because that's what you claimed. As for B, there are many other options, I don't really know what you mean by "they would be able to trust it without need to fully trust the other parts envolved (contact and service)." Are you saying PGP is backdoored? Do you know something we don't?
wepple 10y ago
I feel that if a users assumption of privacy was based on skype being peer-to-peer and are now concerned their calls are being routed via the cloud, are in a bit of a misunderstanding about how intercept/collection can work.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

Not sure about that elephant. Anyone using Skype still assuming their conversation is secure and private, is exceedingly naive. Those who really need security and privacy, know not to use Skype.

mrweasel 10y ago

>Those who really need security and privacy, know not to use Skype. Everyone needs security, and privacy. If you're a company, you need security and privacy, and most will just assume that Skype provides it. And for the most part Skype provides them with the security they need. Most of the users of Skype just needs protection from snooping competitors and Skype provides that to a sufficient extend. Honestly no one will care the slightest that Skype has become less secure, because in their eyes it hasn't. But yes, most users for Skype are pretty naive, about security at least.

gruez 10y ago
>If you're a company, you need security and privacy, and most will just assume that Skype provides it. And for the most part Skype provides them with the security they need. Most of the users of Skype just needs protection from snooping competitors and Skype provides that to a sufficient extend. Aren't businesses supposed to use skype for business?
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  Is there any difference in security between business-skype and normal-skype?
  - throwanem 10y ago
    Probably, since "Skype for Business" is a renamed Microsoft Lync and has basically no technology in common with Skype per se. (Its user experience is also terrible, but differently so.)
    - cptskippy 10y ago
      They use the same icon and follow the same mantra "crash early, crash often."
    - douche 10y ago
      An endless source of confusion. What's even more fun is that the two clients almost, but don't really, interoperate, when the stars are in the correct alignment. Peer-to-peer calls and instant messages tend to be okay, but things go sideways when they get stepped into an n-way. It's buckets of fun trying to figure out why some calls get dropped by a Lync-based chat application, only to figure out that the customer was using the wrong client.
  - MichaelGG 10y ago
    Skype for Business, aka Lync before the idiotic rebrand, uses TLS and you can set your own certs if you run your own server.
dimino 10y ago
> Everyone needs security, and privacy I'm so tired of this, no I don't, at least not as much as so many people think I need. No, I don't care if my Netflix password is easily crackable, and no I don't care if the US government reads my Skype chats! Why am I not allowed to make that choice, to use Skype and be okay with the convenience tradeoff? I agree that I should have the choice, but if I do choose to use something insecure with full knowledge of it's insecurity, can't I be free to do that?
- meira 10y ago
  Actually, if everybody knew that a channel is insecure, it would make it a lot less dangerous. The problem is: most of people need it to be safer, and there is no real option.
  - dimino 10y ago
    > The problem is: most of people need it to be safer, and there is no real option. You'll have to elaborate on how this is A) true, and B) there are no options. I can think of a dozen better options than Skype.
    - meira 10y ago
      A) if you and your contact knows that a channel is compromised, you'll be able to adapt if needed. But if one thinks it is safe, the other don't care about its safeness and it happens to be a compromised channel, the first guy might be in trouble. (B) If the default option was something architecturally safer (like encrypted decentralized mail), they would be able to trust it without need to fully trust the other parts envolved (contact and service).
      - dimino 10y ago
        I was hoping you'd prove that most people consider Skype to be secure, for A, because that's what you claimed. As for B, there are many other options, I don't really know what you mean by "they would be able to trust it without need to fully trust the other parts envolved (contact and service)." Are you saying PGP is backdoored? Do you know something we don't?

wepple 10y ago

I feel that if a users assumption of privacy was based on skype being peer-to-peer and are now concerned their calls are being routed via the cloud, are in a bit of a misunderstanding about how intercept/collection can work.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]