The article (from "De Tijd" from today) is in Dutch, but i translate the most relevant phrases:
"Criminals use more and more the Internet to exchange data. Police needs urgently to be able to tap internet communication."
and
"Calling through internet becomes very common. They (criminals) can download for free software like Skype, and can therefore communicate for free. ... But, internet telephony can not be tapped in Belgium."
No comments needed :lol:

hi it would surprise me if it is not going on. I know. and if not officially then unofficially. they must test the system before putting into place right?

see the current european directives on retention of the data at the level of the internet-providers and related.

i know that at the level of the telecom-operators is done.

wether the material obtained that is collected now via certain wiretaps would be admissable in court, well I doubt that, but the information is certainly used.

[quote=texas_housewife]hi it would surprise me if it is not going on. I know. and if not officially then unofficially. they must test the system before putting into place right?

see the current european directives on retention of the data at the level of the internet-providers and related.

i know that at the level of the telecom-operators is done.

wether the material obtained that is collected now via certain wiretaps would be admissable in court, well I doubt that, but the information is certainly used.[/quote]

There's the added problem (which is not discussed in the article) that the Skype communications are encrypted. I'm pretty sure that law enforcement agencies are already doing Internet wiretaps so I'm assuming that they're actually talking about forcing companies like Skype to enable them to wiretap the encrypted communications.

In my opinion governments should grow accustomed to not being able to monitor the communications of their citizens. I'm pretty sure almost everything will be encrypted in the future.

[quote=BigPilot]There's the added problem (which is not discussed in the article) that the Skype communications are encrypted. ...

In my opinion governments should grow accustomed to not being able to monitor the communications of their citizens. I'm pretty sure almost everything will be encrypted in the future.[/quote]I wrote the same day it was published a short comment to the Newspaper with similar remarks. I am curious if they will publish it :roll:

[quote=Jean Mercier][quote=BigPilot]There's the added problem (which is not discussed in the article) that the Skype communications are encrypted. ...

In my opinion governments should grow accustomed to not being able to monitor the communications of their citizens. I'm pretty sure almost everything will be encrypted in the future.[/quote]I wrote the same day it was published a short comment to the Newspaper with similar remarks. I am curious if they will publish it :roll:[/quote]

We in the West think we're living in a democracy but it's actually more a 'mild mannered' dictatorial regime. :lol:

[quote=BigPilot]In my opinion governments should grow accustomed to not being able to monitor the communications of their citizens. I'm pretty sure almost everything will be encrypted in the future.[/quote]

No, governments will either just forbit encryption, or require lawwfull encrytion to provide a masterkey.

mahorn

[quote=mahorn63][quote=BigPilot]In my opinion governments should grow accustomed to not being able to monitor the communications of their citizens. I'm pretty sure almost everything will be encrypted in the future.[/quote]

No, governments will either just forbit encryption, or require lawwfull encrytion to provide a masterkey.

mahorn[/quote]

Yes they will try (but fail ultimately). :lol:

They tried forbidding encryption in the U.S., look what happened.

[quote=BigPilot][quote=mahorn63][quote=BigPilot]In my opinion governments should grow accustomed to not being able to monitor the communications of their citizens. I'm pretty sure almost everything will be encrypted in the future.[/quote]

No, governments will either just forbit encryption, or require lawwfull encrytion to provide a masterkey.

mahorn[/quote]

Yes they will try (but fail ultimately). :lol:

They tried forbidding encryption in the U.S., look what happened. [/quote]

youre an optimist.
The US hasn't realy tried yet. In a "War" everything is possible. :lol:

mahorn

[quote=mahorn63][quote=BigPilot][quote=mahorn63][quote=BigPilot]In my opinion governments should grow accustomed to not being able to monitor the communications of their citizens. I'm pretty sure almost everything will be encrypted in the future.[/quote]

No, governments will either just forbit encryption, or require lawwfull encrytion to provide a masterkey.

mahorn[/quote]

Yes they will try (but fail ultimately). :lol:

They tried forbidding encryption in the U.S., look what happened. [/quote]

youre an optimist.
The US hasn't realy tried yet. In a "War" everything is possible. :lol:

mahorn[/quote]

Nope, that war has been fought and it's dead and buried. They tried about a decade ago to prevent Zimmerman from releasing his PGP source code and binairies to the world. They lost. Now everything's encrypted, or it soon will be.

For now, they're counting on the complete ignorance of most people (i.e. who encrypts their email?). But sooner or later security and privacy will become an issue, especially now that it has been revealed that the U.S. is even eavesdropping on its own citizens without judicial oversight (never mind foreigners). No, ultimately people will insist on encryption and privacy no matter what their government tells them.

[quote=BigPilot]Nope, that war has been fought and it's dead and buried.
[/quote]
I meant the war against terrorism, excuse for everything.
[quote=BigPilot]
They tried about a decade ago to prevent Zimmerman from releasing his PGP source code and binairies to the world. They lost. Now everything's encrypted, or it soon will be.

For now, they're counting on the complete ignorance of most people (i.e. who encrypts their email?). But sooner or later security and privacy will become an issue, especially now that it has been revealed that the U.S. is even eavesdropping on its own citizens without judicial oversight (never mind foreigners). No, ultimately people will insist on encryption and privacy no matter what their government tells them.[/quote]
US is eavesdropping because of this war. Ruling out encrytion is the next logical step.
If someone demands a right for encryption he'll be adressed with the biggest insult in the US: He's no patriot. :-)

mahorn

[quote=mahorn63][quote=BigPilot]Nope, that war has been fought and it's dead and buried.
[/quote]
I meant the war against terrorism, excuse for everything.
[quote=BigPilot]
They tried about a decade ago to prevent Zimmerman from releasing his PGP source code and binairies to the world. They lost. Now everything's encrypted, or it soon will be.

For now, they're counting on the complete ignorance of most people (i.e. who encrypts their email?). But sooner or later security and privacy will become an issue, especially now that it has been revealed that the U.S. is even eavesdropping on its own citizens without judicial oversight (never mind foreigners). No, ultimately people will insist on encryption and privacy no matter what their government tells them.[/quote]
US is eavesdropping because of this war. Ruling out encrytion is the next logical step.
If someone demands a right for encryption he'll be adressed with the biggest insult in the US: He's no patriot. :-)

mahorn[/quote]

Hahahah, you're not American, are you? Most Americans don't give a sh*t about patriotism when it involves their privacy. They don't care for what their government tells them either. If Bush accuses them of not 'being patriotic' when he insists all communications must be tapped, most people will simply laugh in his face.

[quote=BigPilot]Hahahah, you're not American, are you? Most Americans don't give a sh*t about patriotism when it involves their privacy. They don't care for what their government tells them either. If Bush accuses them of not 'being patriotic' when he insists all communications must be tapped, most people will simply laugh in his face.[/quote]

Right, I'm not american. (Thanx God.)

Are you ? What you say might be true for some, but in my opinion its not true for the majority.
Americans elected Bush. Must I say more ?

They might laugh in his face, but thy must not do it anonymously as it might offend him. He already ignored the first amendment when he ignored the right for anonymity. :wink:

And he is definitly not into human rights. See CIA aktivities and Guantanamo.


mahorn63

[quote=mahorn63]... human rights ...[/quote]Hey Mahorn, i like to discuss politics ... but i think on this forum we discuss Skype matters.

Of course, decisions of some politicians can influence the behaviour of Skype as a company, or can bring up external tools to change the "behaviour" of Skype as a software, and we should discuss it here!

But please ... stay ON TOPIC ... :evil:

For those who want to stay on topic... the American Constitution guarantees no general rights to privacy except as it pertains to private property and efforts to secure it. Encryption IS LEGAL in the USA. It is protected NOT by the 1st Amendment, but by other provisions:

The 2nd Amendment guarantees the "right to bear arms"....commonly referred to as the gun-rights amendment. Encryption is classified as an "arm" under American law. Bush is a huge supporter of the 2nd Amendment, and you can argue that it is more liberal persons in American politics who want to outlaw these personal "arms".

Bush and his party are also ardent advocates for the 4th Amendment that protects "private property"... as opposed to certain elements in the government that want to expand the "takings clause" in order to subjugate private property rights to goverment whim. In the 4th Amendment, a prime threat is seen as "unreasonable search and seizure", and that's why the spying that Bush wants to do is described as "reasonable". Spying is illegal unless the government has a "reasonable" interest in doing it, and only with respect to targeted persons and/or targeted information and/or targeted activities.

The practical effect of 2nd and 4th Amendment protection is arguably greater privacy protection than in most countries, even in Europe (eg. spy cameras on every street corner). The relaxation of 2nd and 4th Amendment protections pertain specifically to a war situation. As a matter of policy, the legislation is not seen as an abridgement of the 2nd or the 4th amendments or any other protections. The only question is whether Bush has gone beyond what the Constitution allows and beyond what Congress specifically authorized. The President may or may not have ordered warrantless wiretaps for right or sufficient reasons against valid targets. I don't presume to know whether he overstepped his bounds, but the issue is not essentially a criminal matter. Rather, it is a matter of constitutional and legislative interpretation.

Two further points:
1. Just because the President asserts the right to intercept conversations that he determines are germain to national security does not mean that he asserts that citizens who might be wiretapped don't have the right to use encryption (an "arm" protected by the 4th amendment) in defense of legal activity.
2. If there were an Internet technology that had no purpose other than for a criminal or terrorist, then it might be possible to outlaw that technology. However, when there is an Internet technology that is plausibly (or irrefutably) required for the conduct of legal activity, then it's not going to be outlawed. Example: encryption.

IMHO, Skype is under no pressure in the USA to create a "back door" to its encryption. That does not mean that they won't divulge information about who called whom and when... if they are presented with a warrant or legal mandate. As for other countries such as China, there are rumors that Skype has "agreed" to filter certain words and phrases. Such actions, if they are true, reflect China's bureaucratic silliness rather than any potential Skype security problem.

[quote=garnet_stone]...[/quote]Hey Mahorn,
this is what i mean by staying on topic ... written by an American

[quote=Jean Mercier][quote=BigPilot]There's the added problem (which is not discussed in the article) that the Skype communications are encrypted. ...
[/quote]I wrote the same day it was published a short comment to the Newspaper with similar remarks. I am curious if they will publish it :roll:[/quote]The Financial Newspaper here published my remark today (in Dutch, of course). Nothing new in my published comment compared to the information in this thread, therefore i will not post it here. Anybody wanting a jpg copy of it can PM me, but as i said ... nothing more interesting then this thread!