4 ms·
Wiretapping sounds so innocent. Of course, all US comms must be available for lawful wiretaps in fight against crime. No, what we're dealing with here is a dra
by hastur 14y ago
Wiretapping sounds so innocent. Of course, all US comms must be available for lawful wiretaps in fight against crime.
No, what we're dealing with here is a dragnet cast upon the comms of users around the world, who aren't protected by US Constitution and thus can be tapped at will by US agencies and even private corporations without any warrants or oversight.
For instance, if Microsoft wanted to learn about technical or trade secrets of competitors communicating through Skype (say, a couple of start-up founders), now they're free to do it.
Also, if a US agency wanted to put on a no-fly list some people who casually converse about what morons those TSA people are or how all US administrations support the Israeli regime that commits war crimes against Palestinians, now it's very easy to do.
- HarshaThota 14y agoFor instance, if Microsoft wanted to learn about technical or trade secrets of competitors communicating through Skype (say, a couple of start-up founders), now they're free to do it. Is that any different from using, say, Gmail or Google Apps? Not saying that Google is looking at that data but this is a problem with essentially every web-based communication tool. People shouldn't have an expectation of privacy or security just because it's a company they know/like or it's a popular tool.
- pfraze 14y agoIt's a risky situation, if you ask me. Consider the data that tools collect on us: - location and contact history (cell phones) - message history and address book (email, social network) - interests/activities (calendars, event tools, feed subscriptions) - browsing history As an engineer, think about the evil fun you could have with that data. You could really mess somebody up if you didn't like them.
- untog 14y agoWhile technology makes this easier, it isn't new. You could hire a PI to follow the CEO of a competitor. You could break in and bug their offices. None of this is legal, and if discovered there would be a legal case to answer.
- brudgers 14y agoI've long thought that Google's ability to track searches from Microsoft IP addresses was one of the reasons for the development of Bing - i.e. Bing's value is, in part, that it plugs an information leak and siphons other leaks into Microsoft's data mine.
- tptacek 14y agoFor instance, if Microsoft wanted to learn about technical or trade secrets of competitors communicating through Skype (say, a couple of start-up founders), now they're free to do it. What? No they're not.
- thebigshane 14y agoIt does sound outlandish but... what specifically is stopping them?
- tptacek 14y agoDo you seriously think trade secrets aren't enforceable outside US borders? That there's no such thing as a transnational tort claim? Do you also think that because the "Constitution doesn't protect" stuff that Microsoft can randomly steal from people? Can they murder people too? You knew this was a batshit claim when you saw someone trying to map the Constitution to Microsoft in the first place, since the Constitution doesn't regulate private businesses at all. Come on. We're smarter than this.
- ced 14y agoHow would they get caught stealing trade secrets through Skype? Whistleblowers? Have there been any instance of a transnational tort claim in tech? I really wonder how much espionage is going on. Does MS have a mole at Google, and vice versa?
- Create 14y agoCome on. Pseudonaïvité. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Controversy (To your first question: ask Robert Metcalfe (3com), Charles H. Ferguson etc. To your second question: drones. -- Welcome to the real world) But true, this has little to do with skype.
- tptacek 14y agoWhat does ECHELON and military drones have to do with civil liability? The root comment in this thread suggests that Microsoft might be centralizing Skype so that it can scrape trade secrets out of phone calls. That sentiment is based on a preposterous misapprehension about how international law works.