Slashdot Mirror


Skype Apparently Threatens Russian National Security

Mr.Bananas writes "Reuters reports that 'Russia's most powerful business lobby moved to clamp down on Skype and its peers this week, telling lawmakers that the Internet phone services are a threat to Russian businesses and to national security.' The lobby, closely associated with Putin's political party, cites concerns of 'a likely and uncontrolled fall in profits for the core telecom operators,' as well as a fear that law enforcement agencies have thus far been unable to listen in on Skype conversations due to its 256-bit encryption."

144 comments

  1. I have to wonder by erroneus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Will there be any double standards? Will the US politicians start citing all sorts of things about human rights violations and the like while still supporting warrantless wiretapping and other illegal surveillance on citizens and legal residents? The U.S. stopped wearing the white hat long ago... sad.

    1. Re:I have to wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      skype is already compromised thru fring. fring controls skype users login/passwords on their servers in israel. israel shares skype data with the USA. problem solved.
      except the russians dont get cut in on this sweet deal.

    2. Re:I have to wonder by buchner.johannes · · Score: 1

      apropos wiretapping: Can someone enlighten me how Skype can be wiretapped although it uses AES? Does Skype have an additional key it gives away to governments? Did they add that in later versions?
      Since some people at Blackhat conference disassembled and analyzed the code, couldn't people offer 'clean' and secure versions of Skype?

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    3. Re:I have to wonder by buchner.johannes · · Score: 1

      I was asking this as I heard about Germany wanting or doing wiretapping Skype, but this article says it isn't possible except by breaking AES. German police uses a trojan.

      Probably the reason why China has its own version of Skype, TOM-Skype.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    4. Re:I have to wonder by JSlope · · Score: 2, Informative

      Skype is a closed system, so you can't review it...

      --
      ResoMail - the alternative secure e-mail system
    5. Re:I have to wonder by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      I think your confusion happens because you actually bought "cold war is over", "the end of history" claims by various people.

      Cold war has never ended.

    6. Re:I have to wonder by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Um, how exactly can you 'prove' that the protocol can't be wiretapped. The protocol isn't public, and the implementation isn't public, so you have to take Skype's word for it that it can't be wiretapped AND that they don't explicitly enable wiretapping in some fashion.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    7. Re:I have to wonder by Fred_A · · Score: 1, Funny

      The U.S. stopped wearing the white hat long ago... sad.

      Come on, you know how hard it is to keep a white hat white. What did you expect. You should be glad it only turned greyish, they could have put it in the wrong laundry basket...

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    8. Re:I have to wonder by Isao · · Score: 3, Informative

      What folks appear to be missing is that it's POSSIBLE for key exchanges to be routed through Skype corporate servers. Because of this Skype (the company) has the opportunity to man-in-the-middle an apparently secure communication. Breaking AES isn't involved, this would be an operational flaw.

    9. Re:I have to wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Breaking AES isn't involved, this would be an operational flaw.

      Or an operative's wet dream. Take your pick.

    10. Re:I have to wonder by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Interestingly, authorities in Italy (according to a Russian News site) are voicing a similar concern, but with what sounds like an Open Source twist: "The encryption system used in this computer program is not being uncovered by a developer which strongly complicates the work of law-enforcement agencies." Are they just looking for the source code? Or are they looking for developer cooperation in making the crypto crackable? The likely Italian-to-Russian-to-English translation makes it hard for me to guess the answer.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    11. Re:I have to wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      apropos wiretapping: Can someone enlighten me how Skype can be wiretapped although it uses AES? Does Skype have an additional key it gives away to governments? Did they add that in later versions?
      Since some people at Blackhat conference disassembled and analyzed the code, couldn't people offer 'clean' and secure versions of Skype?

      The trojan mentioned may refer to a program that emulates Skype as closely as possible, but which has been modified to have a backdoor. Kinda like downloading a presumed system patch from an untrustworthy site. It may have the functionality of the intended system program, plus ...?

    12. Re:I have to wonder by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      the global warming made sure it wasnt quite so cold

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    13. Re:I have to wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      apropos wiretapping: Can someone enlighten me how Skype can be wiretapped although it uses AES?

      You wiretap an AES stream by knowing the key and using it to decrypt, just like the receiver.

      You get the key by MitMing the key exchange.

      We don't know Skype can be MitMed, but they've never given us any hint that they can't be MitMed. If you don't know how something is designed, it's sane to assume it's poorly designed. If it were not poorly designed, they would tell everyone how it works, to gloat, impress, etc.

    14. Re:I have to wonder by JSlope · · Score: 1

      I think they suppose that strong cryptography wasn't used or there are backdoors in software. Or they want an easier way to find bugs which could be exploited.

      --
      ResoMail - the alternative secure e-mail system
  2. (internet tech here) threatens (nation here)... by plasmacutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is the new incarnation of formulaic news.

    SURPRISE, yet another national govenrment considers unhindered, truly private free speech to be a national security risk, from france to the good-ol' US of A every government is probing their constitutions and public opinion with microscopic probes looking for the loopholes and excuses which will make their abolition appear justified.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    1. Re:(internet tech here) threatens (nation here)... by quentez · · Score: 1

      I agree with that, I'm french and lately the government have kept on trying to enforce new laws concerning the usages of internet. The official reason is to prevent p2p and child pornography but what has email monitoring to do with that ?

    2. Re:(internet tech here) threatens (nation here)... by JSlope · · Score: 1

      Is there a ban on encryption in France?

      --
      ResoMail - the alternative secure e-mail system
    3. Re:(internet tech here) threatens (nation here)... by moon3 · · Score: 1

      This is related to big nations exclusively, the smaller the state is the stakes are generally lower and the people are more free. Less police, less army, no taxes and no wiretapping. Do you see the connection here ?

    4. Re:(internet tech here) threatens (nation here)... by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      SURPRISE, yet another national govenrment considers unhindered, truly private free speech to be a national security risk,[...]

      unhindered, truly private free speech as in: provided to you by a corporation through some closed and obsfurcated code with strange secretive routing schemes.

  3. Security? by iYk6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, security is threatened because people can more easily communicate securely? But before VOIP, when more people used insecure phone channels, security was better? The solution to these security problems is to prevent encryption so that anybody with the right tools and knowledge can listen to any conversation?

    1. Re:Security? by plover · · Score: 5, Funny

      You remind me of this old cold-war era joke:

      American tourist: Of course our technology is better than yours. Why in America, if we need the police on the telephone, we just dial 911 from anywhere.

      Russian: We have you beat! In Russia, we don't even have to dial!

      --
      John
    2. Re:Security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, security is threatened by software which is closed-source, hardened against reverse engineering and capable of tunneling through most firewalls, has control over the microphone and the camera and reads BIOS information, i.e. Skype.

    3. Re:Security? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Informative

      A few fun facts about Russian laws on the matter.

      Russia has a mandatory program for all telecommunication providers (ISPs included), wherein they should have equipment to log all network usage. According to the law, access to that equipment is restricted to law enforcement and intelligence services, and only with court permission; however, they do not have to show the court order to providers, and some parts of the law can be interpreted as meaning that order can be obtained after the fact.

      On to more funny stuff. In Russia, "in the interests of informational security", it is illegal to "research, develop, sell or use encryption measures, as well as protected storage devices" without a license; as well as import them (all quotes are translations of the actual law). Enforcement of this is explicitly assigned to the police and Federal Security Service.

      Now, I've no idea if Skype has a license or not. They probably do, but I imagine that FSS guys aren't very happy about present state of affairs regardless...

    4. Re:Security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Do they even bother with things like licenses in Russia? We are talking about a country where corruption is endemic, contract hits are carried out in broad daylight, and crime bosses and oligarchs are essentially above the law (provided that they don't become too political like Mikhail Khodorovsky did).

    5. Re:Security? by 21mhz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Now, I've no idea if Skype has a license or not. They probably do, but I imagine that FSS guys aren't very happy about present state of affairs regardless...

      Skype may have a termination agreement with some of the telephony/VoIP operators (which are obliged to provide hooks for wiretapping, indeed). But as the government let strong encryption out of the bag in the early 2000s - sorry, Putin, you can't roll back the history - they have absolutely no control over Skype p2p communications. Don't get distracted with this "national security" talk, the initiative is pure lobbying of our horse cart & buggy whip operators.

      --
      My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
    6. Re:Security? by ionix5891 · · Score: 1

      reminds me of the KGB poster > "We are still watching you"

    7. Re:Security? by Cyberax · · Score: 2, Informative

      "On to more funny stuff. In Russia, "in the interests of informational security", it is illegal to "research, develop, sell or use encryption measures, as well as protected storage devices" without a license; as well as import them (all quotes are translations of the actual law)."

      It's more complex than that... The current laws apply only to private entrepreneurs and legal persons, they don't apply to private persons. However, creating a software which uses cryptography (SSL for example) can be interpreted as violation of licensing rules (you must be licensed to work with crypto).

    8. Re:Security? by CarpetShark · · Score: 0, Troll

      You remind me of this old cold-war era joke:

      I suspect you've confused jokes with propaganda.

    9. Re:Security? by RobVB · · Score: 1

      Whether a joke is used to help depressed children or promote patriotism, it's still a joke.

      --
      I'd rather you rationally disagree than irrationally agree.
    10. Re:Security? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Encrypted free communication increases the security of the people. The lack of those increases the security of politicians and government officials who believe themselves to be better than the common citizens. They're close kin to slave owners.

      Consider than in a truly free U.S. everyone in the TSA would understand that they are at best, a necessary evil. They would do their job in an apologetic manner.

    11. Re:Security? by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      Is it? Or is it just designed to make you think it's a joke? Perhaps the real joke is that people take it as a joke.

    12. Re:Security? by plover · · Score: 4, Informative

      I suspect you haven't read a single book on Soviet-era history, on the repression of dissidents, or any of the histories that have been revealed since the fall of the Iron Curtain. Pick up a book by Mitrokhin, and start reading about the actual history of the KGB as recorded in the KGB archives. It's amazing how well it confirms much of the supposed "CIA propaganda" about repression inside the USSR.

      Then start reading some of the Venona decrypts. Hayes has an excellent book that tracks Soviet propaganda activity through the U.S., confirming the Soviets planted counterclaims, and pushed the idea of "CIA propaganda". Finally, start checking the stories out in the KGB's own words in books like Spy Handler by Cherkashin.

      Or, if you just like reading stories about ordinary people being made miserable by a thuggish regime, pick up One Day In The Life of Ivan Denisovich.

      Oh, yeah, it's all just propaganda. Sorry for my cruel, cruel joke.

      --
      John
    13. Re:Security? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 0

      it is, pretty much. in western countries nowadays there is much more survelliance going on than even in the worst soviet times.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    14. Re:Security? by EllisDees · · Score: 1

      >Russia has a mandatory program for all telecommunication providers (ISPs included), wherein they should have equipment to log all network usage. According to the law, access to that equipment is restricted to law enforcement and intelligence services, and only with court permission; however, they do not have to show the court order to providers, and some parts of the law can be interpreted as meaning that order can be obtained after the fact.

      Something about that sounds vaguely familiar.

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
  4. the 21st century is a bitch by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Informative

    'a likely and uncontrolled fall in profits for the core telecom operators,'

    Yeah, I bet the horse shoe manufacturers lobbied hard against the introduction of the self-propelled carriage too.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:the 21st century is a bitch by CSFFlame · · Score: 1

      They did actually. It was quite a show from what I've read.

    2. Re:the 21st century is a bitch by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      'a likely and uncontrolled fall in profits for the core telecom operators,'

      Yeah, I bet the horse shoe manufacturers lobbied hard against the introduction of the self-propelled carriage too.

      Actually, that's a fundamental part of economic theory - companies use regulation to limit competition and maintain higher profits.

      By making it more difficult for competitors to enter you protect your market. A highly regulated industry tends to be a profitable one.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  5. Russia's most powerful business lobby? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 3, Funny

    Would that be the Russian Business Network?

    1. Re:Russia's most powerful business lobby? by dragonturtle69 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Putin, friendly with the RBN? Nah, can't be true.

      I do find it interesting when governments want encryption, then want to deny it to their populace. Hmm, sorta like guns. You don't need encryption unless you have something to hide. You don't need guns unless you want to commit a crime.

      --
      "What luck for the rulers that men do not think." - Adolph Hitler
    2. Re:Russia's most powerful business lobby? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you need guns to defend yourself against someone committing a crime with a gun.

    3. Re:Russia's most powerful business lobby? by dragonturtle69 · · Score: 1

      Including the governing criminals.

      --
      "What luck for the rulers that men do not think." - Adolph Hitler
  6. Skype is open to taps by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Interesting

    German police let that one slip, so did a few other arrests.
    http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Skype_and_SSL_Interception_letters_-_Bavaria_-_Digitask
    http://arstechnica.com/software/news/2008/01/bavarian-government-caught-looking-for-skype-backdoor.ars
    The rest of Russia's problem is what? A revenue drop from its diaspora?
    But they do have a point, the way the "Skype" codec is moving into many free and closed applications.
    The Russians miss the good old days when they could track a sat phone and send a guided bomb down (Dzokhar Dudayev)?
    But then the NSA did help with that one :)

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:Skype is open to taps by markringen · · Score: 1

      it's a hoax, that russia can't get in. they want the Russian mob "which still exists" to use skype..

    2. Re:Skype is open to taps by pushing-robot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Between the rumors of back doors, and the fact that Skype is an Estonian company whose service was then bought by a large American corporation, it's easy to see why Putin's old-guard party would have some major misgivings about the service.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    3. Re:Skype is open to taps by AHuxley · · Score: 1
      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:Skype is open to taps by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      In 197/80s CIA makes Soviet sky light up with defective pipeline hardware.
      In 2010's CIA makes Soviet Tier 1 optic network go dark with defective VOIP software :)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    5. Re:Skype is open to taps by acid06 · · Score: 1

      Did you really those you posted?

      There's no tapping going on Skype per se. Their "Skype-Capture-Unit" is just a trojan which also records audio, video and text. Skype traffic is encrypted and they don't break its encryption at all.

      The "suggested method" of enacting such traps is to send the trojan by email or directly installing it in the victims computer.

      In other words: everyone who manages to keep their systems virus-free, should be safe.

    6. Re:Skype is open to taps by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      But what is virus-free on windows?
      Thinking back to:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Lantern_(software)
      ...antivirus vendors have (or would have) whitelisted Magic Lantern, rendering their antivirus products, ..., incapable of detecting ..
      Microsoft is the *virus* as Skype might be safe end to end, but its the end points and the IP thats the useful parts.
      When skype traffic is encrypted between two users, why not a *default* trusted party as well?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    7. Re:Skype is open to taps by rxmd · · Score: 4, Informative

      German police let that one slip, so did a few other arrests.

      http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Skype_and_SSL_Interception_letters_-_Bavaria_-_Digitask

      I don't think you've read that document. There's even an English version. While it's not improbable that Skype does have a backdoor of some sorts, the document doesn't prove anything about that.

      They talk about two pieces of software. Their "Skype Capture Unit" is a trojan installed on the computer of the person under surveillance. If you have a trojan on your target machine, you can listen to anything, Skype or otherwise. The point of the name is probably to be able to sell the police other "Foo Capture Units" in the future. The other piece of software is a generic MITM attack on SSL-encrypted connection, nothing specific to Skype.

      --
      As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)
    8. Re:Skype is open to taps by frednofr · · Score: 2, Informative

      This paper describes a side channel attack (basically a trojan listening to the sound card when skype is active), not a real attack where skype traffic would be intercepted and decrypted.

      If you're smart enough to know how to avoid getting a trojan on your computer, you're fine.

      If the encrypted traffic of Skype was compromised, the FSB would probably know about it.

    9. Re:Skype is open to taps by markringen · · Score: 1

      and not using skype.

    10. Re:Skype is open to taps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you really those you posted?

      No, he accidentally all of them.

    11. Re:Skype is open to taps by cool_arrow · · Score: 1

      Interesting product. Do you know what kind of "strong encryption" it uses?

  7. Security by StreetStealth · · Score: 1

    Yup, we can't listen in at all, especially to you confounded anti-Putin dissidents! You can go ahead and discuss anything you want over Skype, and there's no way we'll target you, intercept your call, use it to find some obscure law you've broken, rustle up some evidence, and send you on a whirlwind tour of the Russian justice system!

    --
    Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
  8. Well by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

    Are we sure Russia is no longer communist?

    1. Re:Well by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      This is a political lobby for corporate interests, just like you get in America. It's pure capitalism --- at least how capitalism has turned out to work in the end.

    2. Re:Well by Nephrite · · Score: 1

      It's funny you brought up the topic, but yes, most, if not all, today Russian officials and "politicians" are former members of the Communist Party. I don't think they changed much. Hell, Putin himself is a former KGB officer!

    3. Re:Well by kendoran · · Score: 1

      It's not pure capitalism. It's mixed economy. With pure, proper capitalism, the government wouldn't be able to take any part in the matter - unless there was fraud, theft, etc.

    4. Re:Well by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      Yep, that's why I said, "...how capitalism has turned out...".

    5. Re:Well by sjames · · Score: 1

      The argument is that since the government always sets the rules the market plays in, capitalism will inevitably spawn entities with enough economic power to influence government. Those entities will inevitably use that power to get the rules changed in their favor.

      It's just a special case of the general observation that pure anarchy tends to devolve into a variety of nation-states over time.

  9. rubbish ebay by markringen · · Score: 1

    rubbish ebay lets governments-in on key-sniffing... i think this is a way to get some people by using their own stupidity of false security. Skype if you want to be secure isn't secure not as long as it's run by a company as Ebay, and isn't transparent about it's sourcecode... anyone thinking skype is a shield against governments "police" is an idiot...

  10. well, at least they're honest by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Some blathering about security is to be expected, but it's interesting that, unlike when this sort of stuff happens in the US or Europe, they actually came out and said the real reason: "concerns of 'a likely and uncontrolled fall in profits for the core telecom operators' ". I.e., ban it because it would hurt our profits.

    1. Re:well, at least they're honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So obvious - its not about security, its about Telco's profits. Just face the facts and get with the times. Russian citizens, fight this please.

    2. Re:well, at least they're honest by ceeam · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unfortunately, Russian citizens can't and *do not want* to fight shit.
      After 1998-1999 humiliations and since Putin came to power the public consciousness has been conditioned so that nowadays words like "liberal", or "human rights defender", or such are considered virtually as profanities and you wouldn't want to call yourself as one in the crowd.
      And I guess this won't change now until people start starving or being killed en-masse. If even then.

    3. Re:well, at least they're honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, Russian citizens can't and *do not want* to fight shit.

      ,s/Russian/American/g

      After 1998-1999 humiliations and since Putin came to power the public consciousness has been conditioned so that nowadays words like "liberal", or "human rights defender", or such are considered virtually as profanities and you wouldn't want to call yourself as one in the crowd.

      ,s/1998-1999/2001/g
      ,s/Putin/Bush/g

      And I guess this won't change now until people start starving or being killed en-masse. No, probably not even then.

      Fix'd to reflect the state of BOTH countries.

      *sigh* anyone wanna join me for a hemlock cocktail?

    4. Re:well, at least they're honest by CarpetShark · · Score: 2, Funny

      it's interesting that, unlike when this sort of stuff happens in the US or Europe, they actually came out and said the real reason: "concerns of 'a likely and uncontrolled fall in profits

      It's great how that at least never happens in the west. Imagine if, just because of greed and redundant business models, the RIAA et al were allowed to bitch about lost income.

  11. Why Do We Need To Spread This FUD??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are we spreading this FUD??? Big bad Russia trying to exterminate Skype. If you actually read about what they are talking it's nothing special. They talk about VOIP services in general and they talk about Skype because it's the biggest VOIP provider. They do mention ICQ too... You can make VOIP calls with ICQ too. ICQ isn't really popular here, but in Europe the defacto chat client that also has voice calls. The bottom line... no phone or cable company anywhere in the world likes Skype because they loose money. Why make this a political issue? As for not being able to tap Skype calls... again, it's a concern for all governments... including the US.

  12. 256-bit? by skeeto · · Score: 1

    fear that law enforcement agencies have thus far been unable to listen in on Skype conversations due to its 256-bit encryption.

    Don't they mean 119-bit encryption? :-)

  13. I have to wonder... by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have to wonder, what do the governments think they have to accomplish by removing free speech? Do they really think that it will let them hold on to more power? I mean, with increasing freedom of religion you see an increase of lack of religion (atheism, agnosticism, etc). Give enough people unrestricted freedoms and they will tend not to use it, tighten down those freedoms and you have a large amount of people wanting to test every limit of it.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:I have to wonder... by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

      Except that's not how the human brain works. All they see are threats to their power and money-making operations. Thus you end up with disgustingly cowardly episodes where a gang of men will kidnap a woman who has been speaking out for human rights and shoot her full of bullets. Governments like Russia's aren't interested in thinking long term. They can't afford that. They're just trying to grab all the money they can and keep anyone else, like pesky human rights watchers, from spoiling their fun.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    2. Re:I have to wonder... by Nyder · · Score: 1

      I have to wonder, what do the governments think they have to accomplish by removing free speech? Do they really think that it will let them hold on to more power? I mean, with increasing freedom of religion you see an increase of lack of religion (atheism, agnosticism, etc). Give enough people unrestricted freedoms and they will tend not to use it, tighten down those freedoms and you have a large amount of people wanting to test every limit of it.

      Less people are into religion because it's become pretty obvious that they are man made and not real.

      but otherwise I agree with what your saying.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    3. Re:I have to wonder... by getuid() · · Score: 1

      They think something along the lines of "The internet must not become a law-free space! We must not allow for villains to be able to do their deeds unhindered in this 'internet'!", and, tragically, they actually believe it.

      You see, up until recently, "free speech" was only "free as in law permits". If police was to read your snail mail, they did it -- all it took was tearing the envelope apart. If they wanted to listen to your phone conversation, they did it -- all it took was tapto your line. All they had to do is justify it in front of the law one way or the other...

      Now, thanks to advanced digital encryption, if you choose to have a private conversation, it is *truly* private. Simply "ripping the envelope" and justifying it afterwards won't do it anymore... What we have now is truly FreeSpeechByTechnology, not FreeSpeechByLaw.

      Now. From your point of view, the change is small: You previously thought you could communicate freely (because law guaranteed you to), now you still think you can communicate freely (because technology guarantees you to).

      But from the legislative/executive point of view, the scenario changed dramatically: previously, they could, if they chose to, listen to your conversations. Because laws can be broken, bent, or re-designed, in case that it seems fit. However, now, whatever happens, law enforcement cannot listen to your conversations, because proper encryption cannot be broken.

      That's what governments are thinking... But that's not the interesting question.

      The interesting question is: You understand why even the most liberal western governemnts react as they do at the perspective of not being able to snoop on your communications. Now, what do you learn from this fact about the way the used to be able to snoop on you prior to you being able to properly defend against that? What does it tell you, that, in whatever extent they used to snoop your communications, it makes them this scary to loose that ability, that they feel the need to pass the legislation they do?

    4. Re:I have to wonder... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Dude, RTFA sometimes!

      It is not the government, it is the cell carrier lobby - the same one that already forbids VOIP over cellular networks in the USA.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  14. In soviet russia by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    definately they do different than in america, where Windows should be seen as threatening national security (think in a digital pearl harbour, where the defenses have a big sign over saying "Come and attack here"). Anyway, calling something threat to security because protects citizen privacy is not very nice, if something have to motivate citizens to use even more secure communication protocols is hearing government complaining about how hard is to spy on them.

    1. Re:In soviet russia by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      MS is like Enigma or Crypto AG for the young and dumb.
      They love you using it :)
      Sneak and peek with 1 click thanks to Bill's understanding of what the CIA, DIA, NSA, FBI have needed over decades. :)
      A massive set of software holes on any brand of hardware.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  15. Kremlin fears even unarmed middle-aged women. by reporter · · Score: 5, Interesting
    That the Kremlin (and the thugs who run the place) fear Skype is not a surprise. The Kremlin fears even unarmed middle-aged women who try to protect Chechen children.

    According to a shocking report just published by "The Economist", "it was the kind of scene she had described many times. On July 15th at 8.30am, as she left her flat in Grozny, Natalia Estemirova was forced into a white Lada. She shouted that she was being kidnapped, but those who heard were too scared to report it. By the time her colleagues had found out, she was dead, murdered by three bullets in her chest and a control shot in the head.

    There was a mark from a man's hand on her shoulder, where she was grabbed, and a bruise on her face, where she had been hit. Her wrists bore the marks of bindings. Ramzan Kadyrov, the authoritarian Chechen president, considered her an enemy. And she died as one. She documented hundreds of similar cases in Chechnya, supplying witness statements and photographs, forcing prosecutors to investigate and the media to write about kidnappings, torture and killings, often conducted by people in official uniforms. Much of what the world knew about Chechnya came from her and her colleagues at Memorial, a heroic group which started by documenting Stalinist crimes but continued to trace their modern-day consequences, especially in the Caucasus."

    Natalia Estemirova was born to a Chechen father and a Russian mother. She was a history teacher. One day, upon seeing the dying bodies of Chechen victims killed by Kremlin-backed militia, she swore to help the victims of gross human-rights violations in Chechnya.

    She did indeed help the victims by documenting their tragic lives and condemning the Kremlin and the Kremlin-backed government in Chechnya. Allied with Anna Politkovskaya, Estemirova obtained the only conviction of a Russian thug for brutalizing and killing a Chechen.

    When the Kremlin-backed government of Chechnya killed Estmirova, it killed the soul of Russia. The evil in the Kremlin rivals the worst evils of Chinese society.

    Buddha may forgive Vladimir Putin, but I cannot. God damn him.

    1. Re:Kremlin fears even unarmed middle-aged women. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      I'm so sick of your pro-chechen propaganda. Oh yeah, evil Putin's militia kills history teachers. Do you seriously believe this crap? Just think one minute why Putin would ever need it. On the other hand, chechens and other "oppressed" minorities commit murders and other lesser crimes even in Moscow and are being set free on regular basis.

      take this
      http://www.lenta.ru/articles/2009/04/27/race/
      (in short: chechens drive several cars on Moscow central streets, firing traumatic guns at random people and cars, seized and was releazed with no charge)

      or this
      http://pioneer-lj.livejournal.com/1221802.html
      (in short: chechens kill some russians, the police doesn't interfere, people create meeting to make the police arrest the killers, was severely suppressed. The chechen criminals are not affected)

      Both articles in Russian.

      and so on, and so on...

      Posting anonimously because you are brainwashed by anti-putin propaganda and unlikely to even check the facts. I myself don't like Putin or Medvedev but for exactly opposite reason than you: chechens are killing russians and Putin doesn't do anything to make it stop.

    2. Re:Kremlin fears even unarmed middle-aged women. by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So the first guy was drunk and waved a gun around and then pay'd the corrupt cops ... the second an organized crime shoot out again with corrupt cop protection? The fact that money overrides racism in Russia is interesting, but in the end it's just plain old corruption ... it doesn't really say anything about the leanings of the government quite like a political assassination.

    3. Re:Kremlin fears even unarmed middle-aged women. by Cyberax · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't think it was government who killed her.

      Chechnya is a bit like Iraq - it's a mix of different clans (they are called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teip ), warring with each other. Some of these clans are pure savages - there were documented cases when people were kidnapped and enslaved by them (even in the USSR). Kadyrov is only a leader of a very authoritative clan, but he's definitely not the single power center there.

      I don't think he ordered to kill her. Why should he? Cynically, nothing Natalia Estemirova could have done would be able to harm Kadyrov. He's got backing right in Kremlin. Probably, he'd be able to get away even if he was caught eating babies.

      So it's all much more complex than you think (I have relatives from Checnhya and know a bit about situation there).

    4. Re:Kremlin fears even unarmed middle-aged women. by martas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The evil in the Kremlin rivals the worst evils of Chinese society.

      I have to disagree. China's got nothing on Russia when it comes to oppression, human rights violations, and the constant terror under which ordinary citizens live. The way I see it, the Chinese government may be oppressive, and in its attempts to keep its opponents quiet it does commit human rights violations, but Russian society is simply saturated with corrupt, violent criminals, with no remorse or compassion whatsoever. No victim and no crime is out of bounds for the Russian government and Russian mafia, which are often indistinguishable. So, I'll say it again - China's got nothing on the degenerate monsters which control every aspect of life in Russia.

    5. Re:Kremlin fears even unarmed middle-aged women. by ultranova · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't think he ordered to kill her. Why should he? Cynically, nothing Natalia Estemirova could have done would be able to harm Kadyrov. He's got backing right in Kremlin. Probably, he'd be able to get away even if he was caught eating babies.

      Anyone who opposes a dictator harms him simply by breathing. A dictator stays in power through fear; if someone defies him and stays alive, she shows that it's possible to oppose him and stay alive, thus encouraging others to do the same. A dictator can't afford opposition to form. It's an either-or position: you either wield absolute uncontested power or you don't.

      That's why dictatorships always descend into seemingly insane levels of savagery and evil. A dictator simply can't stay in power if he loses the grip of terror on his subjects. All who dare oppose him must die, not because they alone could do anyone, but because they are someone others might look up to and take an example from. And that death must happen in a manner that makes it clear that it was a murder, yet gives the people a chance to lie to themselves about who did it.

      "The statecraft of the Seven Empires is a mazy, monstrous thing," said Brule. "There the true men know that among them glide the spies of the Serpent, and the men who are the Serpent's allies - such as Kaanuub, baron of Blaal - yet no man dares seek to unmask a suspect lest vengeance befall him. No man trusts his fellow and the true statesmen dare not speak to each other what is in the minds of all. Could they be sure, could a snake-man or plot be unmasked before them all, then would the power of the Serpent be more than half broken; for all would then ally and make common cause, sifting out the traitors." - Robert E. Howard, The Kingdom of Shadow. Isn't it fun when life imitates art?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    6. Re:Kremlin fears even unarmed middle-aged women. by Cyberax · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Anyone who opposes a dictator harms him simply by breathing."

      Kadyrov is not an idiot. He's a shrewd politician and won't do anything without clear advantage for him.

      And there are lot of people opposing Kadyrov now. He hasn't got absolute power and if you think he can just come and shoot everyone he doesn't like then you're stupid.

      Also, so called "human rights groups" like "Memorial" have almost no power and influence in Russia, they are gnats. And that's because they've managed to thoroughly alienate themselves by supporting almost exclusively only Chechens during the war in Chechnya and other events (like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis ).

    7. Re:Kremlin fears even unarmed middle-aged women. by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      "Anyone who opposes a dictator harms him simply by breathing."

      Kadyrov is not an idiot. He's a shrewd politician and won't do anything without clear advantage for him.

      And there are lot of people opposing Kadyrov now. He hasn't got absolute power and if you think he can just come and shoot everyone he doesn't like then you're stupid.

      Also, so called "human rights groups" like "Memorial" have almost no power and influence in Russia, they are gnats. And that's because they've managed to thoroughly alienate themselves by supporting almost exclusively only Chechens during the war in Chechnya and other events (like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis ).

      Kadyrov may be shrewd, but it is common knowledge he considered Natalia Estemirova to be his personal enemy (and said so publicly). Considering what he has been responsible for so far, killing someone you don't like seems more like an afterthought to me. True, he can't shoot *everyone* because there are other factions that also have weaponry. But a lone, unarmed and isolated human rights activist doesn't sound like a hard target to me.

      As for human rights organizations supporting Chechens: you can hardly expect anyone to cry over the Chechen assaults on the theater, when most of the dead were caused by the Russians gassing the theater in the first place and the assault was a direct result of the Russian invasion. Since Russia considers civilians as "just Chechens" and indiscriminately bombs/shoots/rapes them, there is no reason at all to expect the Chechen resistance to do better. However, I agree that didn't endear them to the Russian public. The alternative would have been to either equate a genocidal invasion, displacing about a third of the population, with a minor incident in a theater, or to say that gosh darnit, Russian lives are worth much much more than Chechen lives and 'we're all in the wrong here'. That won't do. The Russians are the aggressor, and the Chechens have the right to resist.

      Or at least, they had the right to resist until the West discovered it needed the Russians more than the Chechens.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    8. Re:Kremlin fears even unarmed middle-aged women. by Cyberax · · Score: 3, Informative

      'Personal enemy' that's a bit strong.

      "As for human rights organizations supporting Chechens: you can hardly expect anyone to cry over the Chechen assaults on the theater"

      Yet that's exactly what these 'human rights' groups did. I distinctly remember them lamenting about horrible SWAT forces shooting all of the poor helpless sleeping terrorists.

      "when most of the dead were caused by the Russians gassing the theater in the first place and the assault was a direct result of the Russian invasion."

      You have it all backwards. Chechnya proclaimed independency in the early 90-s, after displacing several hundred thousand Russians - living in Chechnya became unbearable for them (there were cases when Chechen bands shot and raped whole families without any reaction from police).

      Then Dudaev openly attacked Russian forces, which caused the First Chechen War. It was ended when Basaev captured a hospital and threatened to kill everyone ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budyonnovsk_hospital_hostage_crisis ). Moscow was forced to sign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khasav-Yurt_Accord giving a de-facto independence to Chechnya as a result of this.

      PLEASE NOTE: Chechnya was a de-facto independent state at this moment, Kremlin had zero power there. So such niceties as public executions according to Sharia law became commonplace in Chechnya.

      And after 3 years of this independence Chechens attempted to invade Ingushetia (a neighbor region). That's how the Second Chechen War began. But this time Kremlin did not stop when Chechens tried to play the same trick with capturing hostages.

      So I fail to see how Moscow can be called an 'aggressor' and how Chechens 'have the right to resist'. They were given independence, and they forfeited it by their own actions.

      I bet you knew nothing about it, right? That's because a lot of conflicts have a much deeper story then CNN tells you.

    9. Re:Kremlin fears even unarmed middle-aged women. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buddha may forgive Vladimir Putin, but I cannot. God damn him.

      Unlike most western religions, Buddhists do not worship Buddha nor is Buddha considered a god. Rest assured that Buddha will not forgive Vladimir Putin since he's been dead a very, very long time.

    10. Re:Kremlin fears even unarmed middle-aged women. by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Kadyrov is not an idiot. He's a shrewd politician and won't do anything without clear advantage for him.

      As I clearly stated, the advantage is in spreading fear. Of course, that doesn't prove that it was him; but he certainly had a motive.

      And there are lot of people opposing Kadyrov now. He hasn't got absolute power and if you think he can just come and shoot everyone he doesn't like then you're stupid.

      Yes, that would indeed be stupid. That's why I said that dictators murder random opponents, to scare the rest into not openly opposing them. If they could rule through raw force alone, they wouldn't need to spread fear.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  16. and this is a bad thing? by neuroxmurf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    After all, in soviet russia, national security threatens you.

    1. Re:and this is a bad thing? by tekproxy2 · · Score: 1

      I guess it's a good thing that it took this many posts before it actually happened. Gotta admire the honesty from the government.

    2. Re:and this is a bad thing? by martas · · Score: 1

      shouldn't it be "you protect national security"?

    3. Re:and this is a bad thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After all, in soviet USA, national security threatens you.

      There, fixed that for you.

  17. In Soviet Russia... by Utopia+Tree · · Score: 2, Funny

    National Security threatens Skype

  18. You NO mess with mother Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You NO mess with mother Russia

  19. Remember, Skype is an Iron Curtain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My dear friends, let us not forget...Skype is a telephone nobody understands.

  20. Pretty stupid but reasonable by teamsleep · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is reasonable for Russia to be worried about security since with Skype they can't track it properly.

    But to stop letting people use Skype or totally disable it because of profits to phone companies is just plain stupid.

    Skype is wonderful for people who can't afford the prices of phones and international/national fees. I don't pay for a single phone bill, my parents put Skype on their computers and same with my friends/siblings. When we want to call, we just log onto our laptop/desktop, press Call and viola. It's a wonderful piece of technology, really is.

    I see their problem with security. Terrorists could use this on laptops and really not be tracked. Except you need Internet and with Internet you can be tracked. :)

    Russia, just track laptops. I'm sure you can do it.

    1. Re:Pretty stupid but reasonable by p.harshal · · Score: 1

      Instead why not get into the activities which flourishes terrorism ? that is the best long term solution IMHO.

    2. Re:Pretty stupid but reasonable by Nephrite · · Score: 1

      But to stop letting people use Skype or totally disable it because of profits to phone companies is just plain stupid.

      Yes it is, but don't underestimate the stupidity of corrupt Russia's government. There was a law proposal lately to ban people from having too much cattle (to protect large agricultural firms' profits, apparently).

    3. Re:Pretty stupid but reasonable by teamsleep · · Score: 1

      Of course, I could believe Russia would do something like that.

    4. Re:Pretty stupid but reasonable by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      Furthermore if people saved money by spending less on telecom fees they would have more money to spend elsewhere, on things like food, clothes, basic utilities, computers, and so on. This move to save telecom profits is just plain Luddite, it holds up progress to support some fat rent-seeking leeches on society (I mean "businessmen").

  21. A governemnt by, for and of the Oligarchs by CuteSteveJobs · · Score: 1

    Someone needs to explain to Democracies* the world over that National Security != The Incumbents ability to get re-elected.

    * even Zimbabwe is a Democracy these days.

  22. well, at least they're wires. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK and Skype is carried over what, and owned by whom in Russia? Unless the answer is magic pixie dust, I don't think the Russians have too much to worry about.

  23. USA! USA! USA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not a threat to us as we can listen in on our citizens... Take that commies!

  24. Have you ever made a skype call? by malkir · · Score: 1

    I work at a place where a lot of people call in on their skype lines and I fucking hate the sound quality. It's like i'm talking to someone at the end of a god damn tunnel. You can keep it.

  25. In Soviet Russia.... by p.harshal · · Score: 1

    In American you use skype to call, In Soviet Russia skype gets called!

  26. Politics by Turmio · · Score: 1

    There maybe be a political angle to this also. Skype is originally written in Estonia. Diplomatic relationship between Russia and Estonia is not exactly warm at the moment. I guess that makes "the threat to Russian businesses" particularly "threatening".

  27. Skype is not free speech by Ilgaz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Since when relying on a third party, closed, encrypted platform owned by an American company for communications is free speech?

    As Skype etc. are common "household" names on the internet, we forget the security implications of using such solutions for business. As long as Skype is a closed, proprietary platform, I can agree with any governments (including USA) concerns about Skype.

    Of course, if they claim a problem, they should provide a solution. For example, a trust of SIP providers, sponsoring open source SIP solutions, help open source applications to have Russian support. When they sound like "lets go back to copper", the entire point is gone.

    Don't forget the telecom industry since the beginning is documented, open, standards based. For example, even in the cold war, Russian telecoms used SSN-7 standards documented by AT&T etc.

    1. Re:Skype is not free speech by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      Since when relying on a third party, closed, encrypted platform owned by an American company for communications is free speech?

      It's not. Using a third-party, closed, encrypted platform owned by an American company for communications without government interference is freedom. The speech that takes place over such a system is free speech, at least until the government can prove its being used for something that doesn't fall under such purview. And no, "but but but what if!" doesn't count. I should be able to use whatever system I choose for my communications, and I should be free to encrypt or not encrypt such communication as it pleases me without having to justify those actions in advance. That is freedom.

      You can insert a Soviet Russia joke here if you would like, but it would probably be entirely too accurate.

      we forget the security implications of using such solutions for business

      I don't agree with your premise, but whatever security implications there may be for businesses should be evaluated and dealt with by those businesses.

      If my information is sensitive to my business, then I need to evaluate that as part of a counter-balance against (presumably) the cost-savings involved in going with a solution like Skype. If my communications are sensitive for my government--direct government correspondence, top government contractors like aerospace companies, etc--then the government can be the one to make those evaluations and set their guidelines for the industries they deal with.

      But if you think that's actually what this is about, you're deluding yourself.

      "In a presentation posted on the lobby's Web site, Vice President of TTK, a telecoms unit of state-owned Russian Railways, Vitaly Kotov, called on regulators to stop VoIP services from causing 'a likely and uncontrolled fall in profits for the core telecom operators.'"

      From their own mouths. The only "security" concern they care about is that a Russian industry might lose money to an American company. That's not security in any real sense of the word. When you see that, you can be pretty sure the rest of what they have to say is, at least, fear-mongering and lip service to potential concerns. And that's being generous.

  28. I think you have a different idea of security by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    You are thinking of security in terms of "security of the data," they are thinking in terms of "security of the state." If you read up on the history of the USSR, you find that they were positively PARANOID about any sort of subversive or revolutionary activity. The state had to be protected at all costs. Part of that was monitoring everyone to the maximum extent possible. Read up on Iron Felix, the Checka, the NKVD and the KGB. Scary shit.

    Well, while the USSR is now officially gone, it isn't just as simple as saying "Ok we are free now." Russia still has many of the same people running it. The KGB may be gone in name, but all they really did was make some of the directorates different agencies. More or less the second, fifth and seventh chief directorates have been reborn as the FSB. Also note that Putin, who was prime minister and now president (they have both there) was a KGB agent.

    Russia may be a little more open than the USSR was, but it isn't much and they are sliding back to the bad old days. A non-trivial amount (perhaps even most) of the people running the country seem to be of the mind set that control trumps all.

    So, that's what they mean by security. They want to listen to any and everything citizens do to make sure none of them are plotting against the government. They care not a bit about the security of their citizens data.

    1. Re:I think you have a different idea of security by Nephrite · · Score: 1

      While what you write is right (no pun intended) it is not the case here. Russian officials, to put it simply, are too stupid to know about some internet technologies. It's all about money here, really.

      Fun fact: here in Russia we have to BUY licenses for Linux to present it to police raiding our datacenters. Thank God they cost almost nothing but anyway...

    2. Re:I think you have a different idea of security by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      Fun fact: here in Russia we have to BUY licenses for Linux to present it to police raiding our datacenters. Thank God they cost almost nothing but anyway...

      So who do you buy them from ? Do you have to get something like RH Enterprise ? Or are there local distros packaged just for this purpose ?

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    3. Re:I think you have a different idea of security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      for example (Russian). Holograms do the trick.

    4. Re:I think you have a different idea of security by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      What a delusional way of thinking.

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  29. Soul of Russia feeds on this stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    When the Kremlin-backed government of Chechnya killed Estmirova, it killed the soul of Russia.

    While the killing is tragic, I find that statement humorous.

    The problem with Russia isn't just one man - whether it is Putin or his sock puppet president - being cruel. The whole administration, culture, etc. is deeply corrupt. I challenge anyone to drive across the country... No, half the country... Without being stopped by the "police" (militia) for no real reason and having to pay them directly some fine that they just came up with. And I'm not saying that "This will happen once". It will happen about a dozen times.

    And the people there are fine with it or at least very used to it. Have learned to live with it. Over all politics - or lack of them - is not a light subject for discussion in Russia but if you do take it up there, you won't hear much heated arguments about how things will need to change.

    I was once listening to an lecturer who talked about Russian mindset in Engecon (University of Engineering and Economics in St. Petersburg) and am very willing to agree with her that it well predates the communist era. Their whole history has been full of conquest and dictators. They have never even tried actual democracy and have learned to not really care all that much.

    In fact, nationalism is extremely strong in Russia. I mean, they are willing to take the "We have a great country and must respect and support it and it's leaders, no matter what!" even further than people from USA...

    So, it is entertaining to read "They killed the soul of Russia". Honestly, if majority of Russians cared about this, it would not have happened. While the Militia is pretty cruel, a few percent of people can never oppress everyone else if the majority really hates the situation enough. But they don't. It's not that they feared too much, it is that they care about completely different things.

  30. Organized Crime by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    I would almost accept that law enforcement needs a way to put taps on communications of organized crime syndicates to try and bring them down. But then I realized that without Skype they would just have to hire an IT guy to run an encrypted Asterisk server for their own personal use. Seems pretty trivial for even a small crime group to come up with a few hundred bucks a month to pay for secure communication when they are likely making tens or hundreds of thousands a month.

    Obviously for the lobbyists it is just about money and power. That is the real issue here, not the safety of the community or security of the nation. Oh how very similar are the Russians and the Americans.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:Organized Crime by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Nobody seriously believes the Russian government has any intentions of cracking down on organized crime.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
  31. I would not worry too much by Nephrite · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The deal is simple: mobile phone operators fear to lose their revenues and want to destroy the competition. That's their only motive. But they can't just go to the officials and say "we lose profits, ban skype" So they make up those ridiculous claims about "national security" and "uncontrolled communication channels" Anyway, "the strictness of Russian law is compensated by optional compliance", as the saying goes, so there.

    1. Re:I would not worry too much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The deal is simple: mobile phone operators fear to lose their revenues and want to destroy the competition. That's their only motive. But they can't just go to the officials and say "we lose profits, ban skype" So they make up those ridiculous claims about "national security" and "uncontrolled communication channels

      Well yeah, that's how we do it, but what does this have to do with Russia?

  32. i can't imagine a more disingenuous comment by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    the russians are motivated by loss of profits and loss of snooping ability

    and you wish to frame this as an open source/ closed source argument

    make believe that skype were 100% open sourced (in fact, there are such open source skype-like products out there). you honestly want to represent that the russian attitude would be any different towards open source software?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:i can't imagine a more disingenuous comment by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      As long as it is closed source, non standards based, not published, governments, large companies will always treat it as potential risk.

      It doesn't matter the Russian intentions. I already say if they bitch about it, they should setup a documented alternative, with open market and teach people and companies how to use it.

        I believe anyone using anything other than completely documented, openly encrypted, archived XMPP protocol which is the standard for Internet2 presence for company, government communications should be fired and in fact, sued for possible data leakage.

      Our passwords, account numbers wonders around in some third party server who has no obligation to keep them secret. I don't buy any of their 128bit claims, who the hell knows what happens inside their servers? Nobody. The "open source" you see are either using their official SDK or didn't bother and backward engineered their protocol claimed to be secure because of obscurity.

      Basically, Skype is not PGP Fone or Jabber (XMPP). We should stop treating them as some standard and should stop creating monopolies ourselves. I am not a open source fanatic but when we speak about undocumented communication protocols which fools users as "secure", we should really draw a line. GSM, UMTS, SIPS and even POTS are the standards. Not some eBay subsidiary which eBay themselves doesn't know why they really bought it.

      While I am not Russian, I am not American too so it makes easy to guess their specific issues. No, people aren't obliged to trust some third party company of a foreign country. If the protocol was open, there were completely open source clients and servers just like XMPP, we would have all the right to call them paranoid. Just imagine something. China has huge stocks of money in hand and basically they can buy anything they wish. What if China purchased Skype tomorrow? It is not even possible to think right? Would Slashdot submitters submit "Paranoid USA banned Skype from Govt. offices!" toned articles with free speech icon?

      While speaking about paranoia, I don't believe any "true encryption" exists, at least payable by ordinary people. While I do use TLS/SSL in all my communications, if I was really communicating some "real" secrets, I would just have this mad idea that it would be breakable, somehow, somewhere if needed. I just picture my stupid ISP admin running Wireshark and set my mail program that way. Nothing more.

  33. Oh, it's that way around.. by kav2k · · Score: 1

    I read the article title and thought that they're concerned with this closed-source protocol with possible backdoors open to foreign agents..
    Well.. D'oh.

  34. The Obvious Answer is... by Stoned+Necromancer · · Score: 0

    Skype's core is made by estonians. Of course Russia feels threatened. ;-)

  35. Ban on *strong* encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there a ban on encryption in France?

    There is a ban on strong encryption. I think the limit of key is 40 bits. In case you want to use something stronger (Internet banking and the like) you can but the key must be given to a trusted third party and revealed to the government if they so ask. Linky.

    1. Re:Ban on *strong* encryption by Fred_A · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is a ban on strong encryption. I think the limit of key is 40 bits. In case you want to use something stronger (Internet banking and the like) you can but the key must be given to a trusted third party and revealed to the government if they so ask. Linky.

      This has changed some time ago.
      Personal usage of crypo is currently apparently free for keys of any size. However export may be subject to declaration or possibly in some cases prior authorisation. GPG and PGP may be used freely.
      See http://www.ssi.gouv.fr/archive/fr/reglementation/regl_crypto.html for a summary (in French, also requires poking at a few other files to make sense of it, typical government site...).

      I don't know what the stance is on key disclosure vis à vis the authorities.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
  36. skype any Gov,s best friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They could always do what the Chinese gov did make them run tom-skype its logs everything and sends the logs to the chinese gov servers ... its BS that if you use skype your safe just about every Gov in the world has a key , there is a somewhat concerted effort to make you feel otherwise.......... Dont Trust The Bastards Skype is a trojan......

  37. Russia now is Germany in 1933. by alukin · · Score: 3, Informative

    Russia slowly but constantly moves to the same destination as Germany where in 1933, believe me or not. It is obvious from Ukraine, where I'm living.

  38. Interesting, but please consider the source... by wighed · · Score: 1

    Really, Pravda? Yes, it means "Truth" in Russian, but if you are familiar with the paper, it's closer to being considered a rag than a reliable source of news information.

    --
    WWJD? (What Would Jonas Do? - Spinward Fringe by Ran
    1. Re:Interesting, but please consider the source... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really, Pravda? Yes, it means "Truth" in Russian, but if you are familiar with the paper, it's closer to being considered a rag than a reliable source of news information.

      Hey, it's always been either the Party's standard, Pravda ("Truth") or the Party-approved "alternative" of Izvestia ("News").

      Hence the old Russian saying: "There's is no news in the Truth, and no truth in the News."

  39. Pot-Kettle-Black by xixax · · Score: 1

    Agreed. No real surprise here. You can almost imagine the alarm if a substantial chunk of US VoIP traffic was being routed via Russian servers. The possible security risk makes it easy to lobby for a domestic solution.

    --
    "Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
  40. Douchebag forgot to post anonymously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ethanol-fueled, wanna DIE?

  41. All brutal corrupt dictatorships hate Skype by Simonetta · · Score: 1

    Nothing new here: All brutal corrupt dictatorships hate Skype. Russia just happens to be the biggest and most technologically advanced brutal corrupt dictatorship in the world. Fascist dictatorships like Russia are designed to transfer the wealth of the society to a small group of very wealthy people.

      What makes a fascist dictatorship different from a corporate state like the USA is that this small group of wealthy people actively try to prevent any wide introduction of new technology among the people that could reduce the amount of wealth that they get from the people.

      Corporate states, on the other hand, actively encourage the people to develop and adopt new technologies in order the new wealth will be created. After new sources of wealth are created, the corporations move in to take them over and assume control over the new wealth source.

      All brutal dictatorships, from a tiny Central African despot cannibal to the vast expanses of the Russian rodina hate new technology. They will always prohibit and delay its introduction until it can be shown without a shadow of a doubt that the new technology will bring in more wealth to the rulers than the old technology can. In any brutal dictatorship, any early-adopter of any new technology, regardless of how benign, is considered a political traitor.

      It's just the way that the world works.

  42. Nice Propaganda by EllisDees · · Score: 1

    Sorry if this has already been pointed out, but they are just plain lying to get these laws passed.

    "The RUIE commission took the decision to form a working group to prepare proposals for legislative control over IP activities in Russia. In that way Russia might follow the example of some countries, such as China, Canada and the United States which have banned or imposed severe restrictions on the use of VoIP."

    I can use Skype without any restrictions whatsoever. If I really want to, I can use zFone an there is no way that the government can listen in to my voip calls at all.

    --
    -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
  43. russian bluffing as usual by javy_tahu · · Score: 1

    now that we "cannot listen skype conversations", you criminals can safely use this. hahaha

  44. Security threatens security by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    This is not an oxy-moron, because whenever you use the word "security," you have to ask, "Whose?" Your security is bad for their security, and vice-versa.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  45. By Jeffrey A. Williams - Not believable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry for the Anonymous reply, but for some odd
    reason my login isn't working.

        Frankly I don't believe this story from
    the Russian government, for what ever that's
    worth.

  46. Mike D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hahahahaha. omg....skype saves our citizens money and offers privacy.....lets shut it down....