Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: Are There Secure Alternatives To Skype? (theguardian.com)

How can you make a truly secure phone call? An anonymous Slashdot reader writes: I have a Windows 8.1 phone and mostly use it for Skype calls and chats. A bit of browsing every now and then, and checking public transportation schedules... What can I do to be able to securely chat and place audio/video calls? What do you think is the best device to buy and what apps to use on it?
Skype for Windows Phone will stop working in 2017, and Skype's privacy was already suspect after Edward Snowden leaked evidence of Microsoft's secret collaboration with the NSA. But are there any good alternatives -- especially for a Windows Phone user? Leave your suggestions in the comments. What are the best secure alternatives to Skype?

237 comments

  1. Alternatives: Yes by jandersen · · Score: 1, Troll

    There are loads of alternatives to Skype, that offer similar (but not identical) functionality. The one I use is WeChat, not because it is better than the rest, but just because it is what the people I care about use it. It can do the usual things: chat (text etc) and calls (w or w/o video). No doubt there are many others. As for security: surely you are joking? How would these companies operate, if they couldn't get their cold, clammy hands on the info you send?

    1. Re:Alternatives: Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      WeChat is built to gather data and send it not only to the company, but direct to China's government. No

    2. Re:Alternatives: Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      You are kidding, right? WeChat is owned by Tencent which has tight connection to te Chinese government. It's worse then Skype in terms of security

    3. Re:Alternatives: Yes by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 3, Funny

      Tencent? Pffft!

      Let us know when 50 Cent releases his own videochat client.

    4. Re:Alternatives: Yes by stealth_finger · · Score: 2

      99 problems but a web chat client aint one.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    5. Re:Alternatives: Yes by Wycliffe · · Score: 2

      You are kidding, right? WeChat is owned by Tencent which has tight connection to te Chinese government. It's worse then Skype in terms of security

      The original poster said security of any of them is a joke. That being said, the question that needs to be asked is who are are you trying to be secure from? If you're a drug dealer in the USA then having a secure client controlled by a country who is not likely to share with your local government is probably not a bad solution. The chinese government is not going to be too concerned about domestic crimes in the USA. Personally, if I was worried about security, I would opt for fragmenting my communication over multiple channels. It's much harder to intercept communication if you email an encrypted video to someone and then text them the encryption key via a burner phone. Even unencrypted, if the message is fragmented over 4-5 distinct channels then piecing it back together becomes much more difficult because you first must gain access to all the different channels. For the average person though, your best bet for a single channel is still probably to not look for the most secure solution but instead look for the most secure solution by a party in opposition to who you want to be secure from.

    6. Re: Alternatives: Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol you nerd. That was a jay z song not 50 cent.

      On another note jay z once famously said "I'm about a dollar what the fuck is 50 cents?"

    7. Re:Alternatives: Yes by sir-gold · · Score: 2

      This assumes that the CIA hasn't already hacked these Chinese services, for no reason other that being a Chinese communications service, especially when there are certain to be Chinese government-mandated back-doors already in place just waiting to be exploited by the CIA.

      This is part of the argument against mandating encryption back-doors in the US, that goes beyond US spying: if you build a back-door for someone, eventually someone else will find it.

      "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" doesn't work when your new 'friend' is already their own worst enemy.

    8. Re: Alternatives: Yes by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Lol you nerd. That was a jay z song not 50 cent.

      Close enough.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    9. Re: Alternatives: Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually that was an Ice-T song that Jay Z made an inferior version of a few years later. Jay Z has done that more than once.

  2. ToX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Tox is a alternative, no sure if it is ported to windows phone...

    1. Re:ToX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks. I don't really care whether it's going to be on Windows phone or some other device. I'm looking for a secure device-app combination. It could be Tox on iPhone for instance.

      I tried http://tox.im and got a blog and something about litigation. Do you what is up with that? Are the guys behind the Tox IM being sued, or is it the other way around?

    2. Re:ToX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Wrong site.

      https://tox.chat is the correct one.

    3. Re: ToX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll second Tox/qTox. I made a couple minor contributions last year, and everything seemed to be in pretty good shape. They definitely do not have an OS X focus, which is why I just fixed a UI issue myself, but it's nothing major.

  3. Maybe Ring? by mistersixt · · Score: 2
    1. Re:Maybe Ring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't support Windows Phone.

    2. Re:Maybe Ring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I expected that link to show me a picture of a different kind of "ring".

    3. Re:Maybe Ring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lots of stuff support Windows Phone, so if he is serious about his requirements (in this case, chat security) he will have to switch to Android.

  4. Network Effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Options are plenty. But the point is how you can persuade all your contacts to switch to the niche app of your choice with you.

    1. Re:Network Effect by Dex+Hex · · Score: 2

      Maybe using an application (like Jitsi, as other posters already suggested) can interoperate with other messengers. You can register a SIP address and then chat with any other user that has a SIP address, no matter what their comm client is. At least in this manner you won't have to convince all your friends to switch to just that one client that works best on your platform (but you would still need to convince them to move from Skype, securely configure some new software client that works on their device, have them register a SIP address... so still far from doable).

      While on this subject, I'm not aware of how good SIP security is. Also not sure which SIP providers are considered secure and honest to respect their terms of service and privacy policies. I guess it also depends on how competent where the client developers in implementing the security features.

    2. Re:Network Effect by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Use Pidgin/Adium with OTR. Then use any service. Just expect that they're going to intercept any and all communications out of your house if they want to, which honestly isn't the biggest problem with privacy. What is the problem is that Google, MS, et al are all cataloguing and storing everything you say. So if they can't read it, you're already 99% covered.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    3. Re:Network Effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you really need to chat with a bunch of people using different apps, you need a bunch of VMs in which to run them (since most are not trustable). Including Skype.

  5. You can't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Simply put, there is no such thing as a truly secure phonecall.

    Any "easy" solution coming out of or running through the USA needs to be "insecure" thanks to CALEA - Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act - but even if this were not an issue, the endpoints can still be bugged and systems hacked.

    You may be able to get a fair part of the way there by setting up your own infrastructure (ie something which runs over a VPN and/or ZRTP) - Maybe look at Silent Circle for an ?easy? partial solution to your woes.

    1. Re:You can't by warm_warmer · · Score: 1

      Simply put, there is no such thing as a truly secure phonecall.

      Any "easy" solution coming out of or running through the USA needs to be "insecure" thanks to CALEA - Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act - but even if this were not an issue, the endpoints can still be bugged and systems hacked.

      You may be able to get a fair part of the way there by setting up your own infrastructure (ie something which runs over a VPN and/or ZRTP) - Maybe look at Silent Circle for an ?easy? partial solution to your woes.

      Truth. The thing most people forget is that the NSA and similar organizations use brute-force decryption as a last resort. As the FBI has demonstrated very publicly several times over the last year that hacking the endpoint is the preferred method of intercept (after CALEA) because it's so much easier.

      Windows Phone, iOS, and Android (yes, including Black Phone) all have so much surface area and so many insecure third-party dependencies that it's all but impossible to lock them down. So if someone really wants in, you're going to get hacked no matter which phone or app you're using.

  6. Signal, WhatsApp, etc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Signal is open source. Use Signal if you want real security.

    WhatsApp is closed source but uses the same encryption in Signal. Use it if you need something people already use.

    In either case, turn on security notifications and learn what they mean, and verify your contacts by reading out their fingerprint over the voice connection.

    Telegram's encryption is kinda broken. Therema's encryption is broken. iMessage only works on iOS and it's slightly broken. I donno if Allo does voice, but you must turn on encryption manually, so it's probably broken if you imagine the user can be tricked.

    1. Re:Signal, WhatsApp, etc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Tox is better than Signal. It's peer to peer, so no servers needed. It also does video calls, has clients available for more platforms and it's completely open source without proprietary components.

    2. Re:Signal, WhatsApp, etc by Lennie · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm sure we'll eventually see if WhatsApp really is using the Signal system correctly all the time. I mean this is Facebook they even follow you around even if you've never even signed up for Facebook.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    3. Re:Signal, WhatsApp, etc by Dex+Hex · · Score: 2

      Tox looks promising but it's not quite there yet from looking at their site. Their mobile device clients look buggy / under heavy development. I hope they get their soon though.

    4. Re:Signal, WhatsApp, etc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My greatest gripe with them is that they don't have persistent group chats with a saved history. We ended up making a Slack group.

    5. Re:Signal, WhatsApp, etc by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 2

      OpenSSL is open source. Very secure. Pay no attention to that gaping hole in my heart that has blood squirting out of it.

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    6. Re:Signal, WhatsApp, etc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their mobile device clients [tox.chat] look buggy / under heavy development.

      Which client and in what way do they look "buggy/under heavy development" specifically? Have you even used any of them?

    7. Re:Signal, WhatsApp, etc by Dex+Hex · · Score: 1
      Sorry, I stand corrected. I saw this

      Note: Tox is still under heavy development — expect to run into some bugs.

      in their download page (https://tox.chat/download.html) and I got confused and blamed the clients. Good thing that you caught it. Both the Android and iOS clients seem to be in really good shape.

    8. Re:Signal, WhatsApp, etc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With all of the scrutiny and attention that OpenSSL is getting these days, and all of the continuous audits and huge improvements it's getting because of that scrutiny and attention, you're damn right it's secure. We expect no less from the de facto standard ssl stack of the internet and in fact the entire universe.

    9. Re:Signal, WhatsApp, etc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think we can meaningfully call Signal secure, now that you have to go through their server and provide your metadata to Google to use it.
      Still looking for alternatives.

  7. Not in the classic sense of "secure" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But if you're not a spy or terrorist, and don't work in R&D for a high tech company, you might not worry too much that there are people who can access your chats with your wife and your mistress. Social network web sites, chat programs and VoIP clients aren't chosen for their technical merits. Use what the people use with whom you want to communicate.

    1. Re:Not in the classic sense of "secure" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. I don't want anything to do with people who don't care about privacy.

    2. Re:Not in the classic sense of "secure" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude mentioned a Windows phone. Let's not move the goal posts, mkay?

    3. Re:Not in the classic sense of "secure" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody said otherwise. You might want to go get your eyes checked.

    4. Re: Not in the classic sense of "secure" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the sumnary mentions the possibility of switching phones as well. The submitter is asking for a secure device-app combination.

    5. Re: Not in the classic sense of "secure" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please come back when you guys have taken your autism meds. "Windows phone" puts the "secure" requirement in perspective, regardless of a purported willingness to switch devices. I'm not even talking about the complete lack of a secure mobile platform. The original point stands: Methods of communication are chosen from the methods used by the people with whom you want or need to communicate. The only other option is to refuse communication. Overcoming network effects is not a viable option for someone who asks Slashdot for a better option.

    6. Re:Not in the classic sense of "secure" by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      or maybe you want to minimize anyone's digital dossier of you in case the future does alter such that information that is benign today becomes not so benign.

    7. Re: Not in the classic sense of "secure" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So when asked about complex topics we shouldn't bother with explanations under the assumption the person won't understand or won't want to change? Maybe you'd benefit from these people not having the opportunity to choose? I never understood this kind of willful ignorance, never mind the situations where people like you defend it.

    8. Re: Not in the classic sense of "secure" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you want a solution that enables communication? Then the answer is no, there is no secure alternative to Skype, for lots of reasons, not the least being that there is no secure platform to run it on, and that your security depends on the way other people use their shiny toys. Note the level of threat we're talking about. A fundamental "I don't want anything to do with people who don't care about privacy" approach makes you a hermit and - this is the important bit - doesn't solve the problem: You still haven't got a secure alternative to Skype. All your mental security masturbation is like a gate without a wall to put it in. You're the willfully ignorant, because you refuse to recognize the nature of the problem: Don't try to use technical solutions to solve social problems.

    9. Re:Not in the classic sense of "secure" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are lots of good reasons for privacy, but you can't have privacy and communicate with "normal" people, at least not if you want to protect your privacy from the kind of threat that makes a person ask for a "secure alternative to Skype". If the question is only for an alternative because Skype will be EOL soon, then use whatever the other people are using. That's not going to provide "truly secure phone calls" though. If you really want "truly secure", then no, there is no such thing. If your life depends on keeping attackers with unlimited funds from getting into your phone calls, then don't make phone calls.

    10. Re: Not in the classic sense of "secure" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the sand boxing used on the Windows phone is some of the strongest of the mobile platforms. Combine that with the lack of users and there's been little incentive to develop exploits. This isn't the same OS as the desktop but even desktop Windows has some serious security and is damn hard to break. This of you too stupid to realize that Windows has grown up from its XP days and continuously evolved need to get out of your parent's basement. Windows is ahead if Linux on several fronts when it comes to security....

    11. Re: Not in the classic sense of "secure" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently its automatic spell correction functionality still sucks though.

    12. Re: Not in the classic sense of "secure" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A fundamental "I don't want anything to do with people who don't care about privacy" approach makes you a hermit and - this is the important bit - doesn't solve the problem

      It solves the problem in the best way possible: by distancing myself from morons and keeping me in contact with higher quality people. I'll choose quality over quantity any day.

      Oh and there are numerous communications methods that are vastly superior to Skype. I know because I use them on a daily basis.

    13. Re:Not in the classic sense of "secure" by johanw · · Score: 1

      Yeah well, I can ask for Symbian but that's a dead platform too.

  8. Check the EFF Secure Messaging Scorecard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Electroic Freedom Foundation created the Secure Messaging Scorecard to help answer this question. The biggest problem with this scorecard is it mixes desktop and mobile apps together without really indicating which type of app they are. But both Signal and Silent Phone are available for Android and iOS. Either of these might be worth considering as alternatives for the types of things you current use Skype for today.

    1. Re:Check the EFF Secure Messaging Scorecard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully the new version of the scorecard addresses this.

    2. Re:Check the EFF Secure Messaging Scorecard by Dex+Hex · · Score: 3, Informative

      Unfortunately that version of the scoreboard is outdated and new one is underway but there is not even a draft published. Nevertheless, I had a look at several of the most promising looking software listed there and trying to figure out if there is even one that is currently secure enough.

    3. Re:Check the EFF Secure Messaging Scorecard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Viber is, since this summer, end to end encrypted.

    4. Re:Check the EFF Secure Messaging Scorecard by danbob999 · · Score: 1

      The biggest problem with this scorecard is it mixes desktop and mobile apps together without really indicating which type of app they are.

      Why is that a problem? Why would I want to use a protocol why isn't available on both desktops AND mobiles? Being artificially limited to only one platform sounds like a PITA.

    5. Re:Check the EFF Secure Messaging Scorecard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EFF = Electronic Frontier Foundation

    6. Re:Check the EFF Secure Messaging Scorecard by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      The biggest problem with this scorecard is it mixes desktop and mobile apps together without really indicating which type of app they are.

      Why is that a problem? Why would I want to use a protocol why isn't available on both desktops AND mobiles? Being artificially limited to only one platform sounds like a PITA.

      Interpreting the parent post as an English sentence, it would seem that the problem isn't with the mixing, but, rather, with the lack of indications as to which platform(s) the app is for. While you might only be interested in apps available for both mobile and desktop, it's conceivable that others may only want an app for one or the other and, therefore, a platform indication may be useful to their research and selection.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    7. Re:Check the EFF Secure Messaging Scorecard by danbob999 · · Score: 1

      But why are messaging protocols that exist only on desktop or on mobile even considered in this list? Why would someone WANT to artificially limit his messaging possibilities to only a fraction of the population?

    8. Re:Check the EFF Secure Messaging Scorecard by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      But why are messaging protocols that exist only on desktop or on mobile even considered in this list? Why would someone WANT to artificially limit his messaging possibilities to only a fraction of the population?

      The protocols themselves are probably platform agnostic, but the user interface and/or OS/library support may not be. In addition and more likely, if it's a standalone application, the developer may only have experience coding for mobile or desktop. For example, I can easily code just about anything in several languages for Windows, Linux and Unix and cross-platform, but don't have any experience writing for Android or iOS - even in Java, I'm not familiar with the mobile libraries and classes. Just my $0.02.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  9. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No there arent. Every single messenger out there sucks in one way or the other. Be it no e2e cryptography, lack of essential features, lack of native clients for certain platforms or combination of all those.

    Matrix - mobile and web clients, no native clients for desktop, e2e (axolotl) still not fully implemented. Group chats are first class citizen though. Federated. Opensource.
    Telegram - nice clients on all platforms, very questionable security, can not run own server, requires mobile number to register. Server is closed source, cant run own server. Clients are opensource.
    Tox - p2p messenger. Group chats are very basic. e2e crypto. Development has stalled. Mobile clients drain battery too fast due to p2p nature of messenger. Opensource.
    Wire - e2e (axolotl) crypto, desktop client is electron app that SUCKS. Still lacks essential features, went opensource recently.
    Anything else is in hands of companies we do not trust.

    My bet is on matrix because it is federated, opensource and protocol is mobile-friendly. Once e2e is done there will be security we need, then we just need a native client. IMHO matrix comes closest to fulfilling secure messenger requirement.

    1. Re: No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That "wire" app is pretty decent in my opinion. Swiss based and open-source they have my vote

    2. Re: No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Open source? Where do they talk about this?

    3. Re: No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only the client is open source. The server is closed, proprietary garbage and thus untrustworthy.

    4. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure if they are going to include voice options or not (I think so), but you should look into this one.

      https://darkmail.info/

      The developer was the founder of Lavabit, which is fought tooth and nail against the government and when he eventually lost, he declared to all his customers that lavabit was compromised.

      When a court demanded he hand over his certificates, he decided to print them out on a 4pt font, and handed that to the government.

  10. Alternative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://alternativeto.net/software/skype/

  11. Re:Why the obsession? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    D-Donald? This is a long way from Twitter, sir.

  12. Re:Why the obsession? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If they care so little about what we do then they wouldn't try to spy on us.

    Little kids like you don't understand the importance of privacy because you don't work or have any sensitive personal data. All you do is listen to music, play video games and watch porn, which is why you mentioned those things specifically. When you grow up you might come to appreciate privacy, if you have any left by then.

  13. Inherently Insecure by ytene · · Score: 4, Informative

    You mention the need for "secure chat", but don't express "how secure" you would like that to be. As others have posted, if you're connected to the internet (and your question is worded to imply that you're looking at Voice Over IP (VOIP) solutions, then there is pretty much no secure option out there... An Agency like the NSA could record all your data packets and brute-force them pretty quickly, if they so chose.

    Having said that, it might be possible for us to brainstorm the sort of attributes that would help to make your VOIP calls less insecure. The collective wisdom of slashdotters might then be able to suggest some alternative products for you to consider. Things to look out for might include:-

    1. A solution that uses a central server only for the purpose of establishing the IP address of your chosen call recipient, then allows all communication to that recipient to happen directly, point-to-point. There is no need to route call traffic through central servers (unless you want to listen in). Ahem. Skype.
    2. A solution that not only uses the latest approved encryption algorithms, but which makes the swapping of an algorithm a relatively easy process [think user-selectable option, addition of a library file with the algorithm code]. The upgrading of key strength/entropy parameters should be even easier...
    3. A solution that includes, within the encryption stream, random white noise padding (to make it much harder to determine the precise amount of data being exchanged) might be nice.

    And so on...

    I did think about including an option that said, "For each legitimate call channel that you set up using the central register of logged-in users, pick three more logged in users at random and simultaneously exchanged random, encrypted data packets with those users too." Unfortunately, there are multiple issues with that. First, what if one of those random users really was under surveillance by a three-letter-agency. Using the "association" rules, that agency would then start monitoring you *real* closely... and second, running four calls for the cost of one might actually degrade your network/audio performance if you happen to be on a slow link.

    Bottom line; there is no easy answer to your question, but please don't consider using Skype and "secure" in the same statement... ;)

    1. Re:Inherently Insecure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pipe the output of sox through openssl and then through netcat to another machine, reverse on other side. Works for me and is secure.

    2. Re:Inherently Insecure by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      An Agency like the NSA could record all your data packets and brute-force them pretty quickly, if they so chose.

      Mod negative infinity: conspiracy theory

    3. Re:Inherently Insecure by Dex+Hex · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right: "how much security" is a fundamental question before considering solutions. My "secure enough" phone could be decryptable by 3-letter governement agencies, but not from a random criminal without state-sponsored resources.

      Concerning privacy, conversations and contacts should be invisible to mass marketing siphons and their partners. Again, I don't expect that a state-sponsored organization won't be able to eavesdrop if they decide to, and it doesn't really matter.

    4. Re:Inherently Insecure by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Re. point 1: Would routing stuff through a central server not make it harder to trace where the call is going? They can then listen in on the call traffic itself, but that's why you want point-to-point encryption. You can also opt to re-encrypt the streams between each client and the central server with another unique key pair, which (combined with padding) will make it harder to determine who is communicating with whom, the more total traffic there is.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    5. Re:Inherently Insecure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the NSA does actually exist.

    6. Re:Inherently Insecure by commlinx · · Score: 1

      1. A solution that uses a central server only for the purpose of establishing the IP address of your chosen call recipient, then allows all communication to that recipient to happen directly, point-to-point. There is no need to route call traffic through central servers (unless you want to listen in). Ahem. Skype.

      I'm not so sure with mobile devices that's as easy as it sounds. I'm not aware of the situation in other countries but in Australia you normally sit behind NAT and don't get a publicly routable IP address. I once inquired with with a carrier if it was possible to get one so I could VNC into an embedded system using a dynamic DNS arrangement and the answer was it was only available as an add-on option for corporate accounts, and that meant having a minimum of 500 phone services.

    7. Re:Inherently Insecure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conspiracy theories are all the rage, these days.

    8. Re:Inherently Insecure by asylumx · · Score: 2

      All the conspiracy theorists are planted by the government in order to keep us distracted from what's really happening in the world! Wake up, sheeple!

    9. Re:Inherently Insecure by swillden · · Score: 4, Interesting

      An Agency like the NSA could record all your data packets and brute-force them pretty quickly, if they so chose

      There's no evidence that the NSA can break properly-implemented modern cryptography. In fact there's considerable evidence that they cannot, including both Snowden's statements, and the fact that the NSA recommends it for classified US government data, among other things.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    10. Re:Inherently Insecure by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      It's not completely developed yet, but Tox is usable, video and text. It's not bulletproof security, but can't be worse than Skype.

    11. Re:Inherently Insecure by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      Pretty funny. Can you think of a reason why they can not make it to a selected target?

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    12. Re:Inherently Insecure by randallman · · Score: 2

      "An Agency like the NSA could record all your data packets and brute-force them pretty quickly, if they so chose"

      So, you're claiming AES has been broken?

    13. Re:Inherently Insecure by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure with mobile devices that's as easy as it sounds. I'm not aware of the situation in other countries but in Australia you normally sit behind NAT and don't get a publicly routable IP address. I once inquired with with a carrier if it was possible to get one so I could VNC into an embedded system using a dynamic DNS arrangement and the answer was it was only available as an add-on option for corporate accounts, and that meant having a minimum of 500 phone services.

      That sucks, on the other hand getting scanned from all over the world sucks as well.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    14. Re:Inherently Insecure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Almost certainly has been broken, if it didn't have a backdoor to start with, considering where it was built. Stated without any evidence, of course, like all conspiracy theories.

    15. Re:Inherently Insecure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you using? ROT13?

      It would take until the sun burned out for any of the 3 letter agencies to break my encryption.

    16. Re:Inherently Insecure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oblig: https://www.xkcd.com/538/

    17. Re:Inherently Insecure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can probably do it on their smart phones, I'm sure that is why Obama got that fancy new secure phone a while back.

    18. Re:Inherently Insecure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some string, and tin cans is probably more secure than anything digital.

    19. Re:Inherently Insecure by Dex+Hex · · Score: 1

      It's not a matter of what I'm using. It's a matter of having no control over the device and the software being used.

      I did not build them, therefore I don't know if they are actually doing what they claim to be doing.

    20. Re:Inherently Insecure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is a cartoon, I'm talking about real life where they wouldn't dare try to kill me because I would kill at least one of them first and hits would be put out on their families. In addition, I don't have my passwords memorised.

    21. Re:Inherently Insecure by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --You could use a "jump server" - setup a cheap Linux cloud server on digitalocean or the like, SSH into that with X forwarding, install vncviewer on the Linux side, and vnc from there.

      --Or if I'm misunderstanding and the embedded system was behind NAT, you might setup ssh -> digitalocean with port forwarding and keepalives (from the embedded side), and get back in that way with the cloud server acting as the middleman. That way you shouldn't have to open firewall ports.

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    22. Re:Inherently Insecure by ytene · · Score: 1

      Actually, I didn't mention any specific algorithm. In fact, you'll see that one of the design criteria I suggested was to have a product that could be quickly migrated from one encryption scheme to a replacement.

      This is because we've learned, thanks to Edward Snowden, that much of what we thought we knew about the security of western encryption schemes was entirely wrong.

      We learned that it doesn't have to be an attack directly against the algorithm itself, but could be against the PRNG. Subsequently, we've learned that it could be an attack against side channel data. Or the acoustics of circuit interference. Or power fluctuations of components performing compute work.

      So what I'm actually saying is: work on the premise that whatever product you use is going to have to employ an encryption scheme of some kind. Rather than think purely about the product's human interface layer, take a good, long hard look at that implementation of security, and make sure that you pick one which is agile, which can swap from one scheme to another the moment we learn that the scheme it is using has been broken. If you design-in the idea that your solution of choice is going to be compromised, you'll be much less surprised when it actually happens...

      I make no claims, warranties, complaints or recommendations for AES or any other contemporary algorithm.

    23. Re:Inherently Insecure by ytene · · Score: 1

      Please forgive my pedantry - I don't mean to challenge the validity of the passwords that you're using. However [and please bear in mind that my qualification to the OP that they need to determine their *requirements* first - and I don't know yours either ] I'm still not certain that our existing cryptoschemes will prove to be robust against quantum computing.

      I'm aware that the NSA have already published guidelines concerning potentially quantum-safe algorithms, but I haven't as yet seen a robust peer-review that agrees with their recommendations. [Any pointers gratefully received]. I'm also not aware as to whether or not our existing schemes are now all demonstrable defect-free. [ We have, after all, seen recently disclosed issues that point to vulnerabilities in MD5, SHA-1 and in PRNGs]. OK, the hashing examples are a bit weak, because although they are relatively simple to implement, they are extension attacks that can be easily defeated with fixed-length data blocks...

      But my point is that unless you're pretty much the greatest cryptographer on the planet [and I know for a fact that I am *not*], then I consider that the relative merits of different schemes, solutions and configurations pale in comparison to agility - the simple ability to move away from one scheme to another in the event that your current scheme is demonstrably broken.

      Even this is false security: if I broke an encryption scheme, why should I tell you? And, assuming I did have the means to do this, and was trying, you can bet that I'd also be recording any interesting-looking exchanges protected with that scheme, so I could crack them when I had my solution ready.

      Lastly, bear in mind the subject of the request. This is VOIP communications between two individuals. Anyone wanting to understand the value of the communication would get as much value [if not more] from the meta-data as they did from the call itself.

      It's all relative...

    24. Re:Inherently Insecure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've seen too many movies, kid.

  14. Tox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Completely P2P and encrypted. See tox.chat

  15. Re:Why the obsession? by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 1

    I'm rapidly approaching middle age and I still enjoy music, video games, and porn.

    That said I also appreciate the importance of privacy, so they call this wisdom. :-)

  16. Skype is deliberatly insecure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Before Skype was sold to MS, they were working on a way to implement encryption. Guess what the first thing MS ditched after purchasing?

    I use Jitsi/XMPP, personally.

  17. Go Mumble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a piece of software called Mumble, which is free open-source software and you can host your own server if you wish. The encryption is certificate based and very strong. No video by default, though, but I think there was a plugin available even for that.

  18. Re:Why the obsession? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm rapidly approaching middle age and I still enjoy music, video games, and porn.

    And are those the only things that you do?

  19. Re:Why the obsession? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Chill out and let them do their work to catch terrorists, don't draw unnecessary attention to yourself (like by being paranoid), and you'll have no trouble.

    Who were they listening to when the terrorists were in San Bernardino? Because they missed that one completely. Not to mention all the mass shootings taking place in the US even using Stingray. If they're work is to catch terrorists... I'm afraid they're failing really bad. The only logic that I find from that, is that surveillance is not to catch terrorists. And if it truly is, the three letter agencies need to fire all the staff, top to bottom, and start hiring competent people.

  20. Re: Why the obsession? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why did you even bother responding? You obviously don`t care and thus know nothing about the topic. Whether it is due to laziness, incompetence or true apathy your attempt to discredit and bring other people down is completely unwarranted.

  21. NSA my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    don't take yourself so damn important, ha ha ha
    paranoid wussies

    1. Re:NSA my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you've been locked away in your mommy's basement for the past three years when it was proven that the NSA has been illegally spying on all US citizens.

    2. Re:NSA my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cry me a river....ha ha ha

      but yea, go ask Eddie "Vlad's pawn" Snowden for advise on how your protect your precious highly classified skype conversions

    3. Re:NSA my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop whining.

      I don't use Skype...nor do I live in the USA... That pretty much destroys any little argument that you thought that you had.

  22. Re: Why the obsession? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You obviously don`t care and thus know nothing about the topic"

    no he does not care because he apparently DOES understand today's world, and does not live in a Jason Bourne / Snowden / Wikileaks paranoia mindset

  23. Again? by SeaFox · · Score: 3, Informative

    If we could not ask the same questions every month, that would be great.

    1. Re:Again? by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Ha, okay so apparently that link is from 2012. But this was just talked about recently, the story topic was some supposedly secure messaging app that wasn't that secure, or so opaque that it was really relying on security by obscurity and "trust us" mentality rather than evidence of how it was secure, but it touched off the same "where to next?" comment threads.

    2. Re:Again? by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      No, but this time it's different, they actually found a Windows Phone 8.1 user!

    3. Re:Again? by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Wow you have 2012 every month? Are you using the Mayan calendar?

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  24. Re:Why the obsession? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The only reason they want to listen in on everyone is control/power and the fabricated reason is terrorism (which if true means that they are admitting defeat to terrorists). That's why they throw a childish tantrum if you even try to legally record one of them (see: public "illegal" wiretap excuse).

  25. Secure Messaging Scorecard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Version 1.0 https://www.eff.org/node/82654

    A new scorecard will be coming out soon https://www.eff.org/secure-mes...

    Skype is one of the worst performing ones.

  26. Re: Why the obsession? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember that before you close the door to the bathroom or close your curtains. I mean if you're doing nothing wrong, then you should have nothing to hide.

  27. Two Tin Cans And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... a length of string. What the heck...

    ******
    Do you have any idea how much your phone company spends each year just on maintenance?
    - No, I've never thought about that.

    Well, I guess many people don't. But those billions of miles of wire and all those exchanges... Why, just the maintenance on our thousands of offices and buildings... Not to mention our rolling stock: The cars and trucks, the airplanes and satellites...
    And then all those fine people who are on the payroll to take care of all that...
    Now, wouldn't it be just grand if we could get rid of that old-fashioned hardware.
    - What's this about?

    There's another thing that's gonna come as a surprise to you. There are quite a few people who actually dislike the phone company.
    -Why have you kidnapped me?

    And because of this irrational dislike of their own publicly owned company, they often don't pay their bills and sometimes even damage the equipment.
    Would you look over here, doctor? Now, to look at that hand, you'd never dream you're also looking at a miracle in communications, would you?
    Well, let's take a closer look. Thanks to the science of microelectronics, you are looking at a telephonic receiver and transmitter.
    We call it the Cerebrum Communicator or the CC for short. This dandy little device can actually perform every function of the old-fashioned telephone and more.
    And it does it without any costly maintenance. Without telephone poles, without wires, without exchanges, without anything in fact, except another CC in another location.
    And now you're probably wondering why have we made it so small. Because it will be in and powered by your own brain.
    Fantastic? Well, not quite, no.
    We merely inject the CC into that part of the bloodstream which leads to the brain. Technically speaking for you doctors, we inject the CC into the internal carotid artery. The bloodstream carries it directly to the cerebrum where it lodges comfortably in the anterior central gyrus, which for us laymen is simply that part of the brain where intellectual associations take place.
    Can you imagine the ease, the fun, with which you can place a call? Why, all you have to do is think the number of the person you wish to speak with, and you're in instant communication anywhere in the world.
    -Would you like an opinion of a qualified psychiatrist on all that I've just seen and heard?

    Yes, sir, I sure would. We're always interested in the opinions of qualified people. I mean, after all it's your phone company too.
    -You're a megalomaniac, and The Phone Company is psychotic.

    Getting back to our problem: We realize the public has a misguided resistance to numbers. For example, digit dialing.
    -They're resisting depersonalization.

    And so Congress will have to pass a law substituting personal numbers for names as the only legal identification and requiring a prenatal insertion of the Cerebrum Communicator. Then a tax could be levied and paid directly to The Phone Company.
    - It'll never happen.

    Well, it could happen if the president of the United States were to use the power of his office to help us mold public opinion and get that legislation.
    - And that's where I come in?

    Yes, that's where you come in. Because you are in possession of certain personal information concerning the president which would be of immeasurable aid to us in dealing with him.
    -Well, you will get not one word from me.

    Oh, I think we will.
    ******

    Theodore J. Flicker's "The President's Analyst", 1967. (He also gave us Barney Miller...)
    Paranoia about the control and monitoring of Telephone Calls goes back four decades, with as it turns out, some justification.
    I just no longer use the telephone any longer. I haven't much of any interest to say, and since most people now seem to know this, they just never bother call me any more.

    1. Re:Two Tin Cans And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I know that it is bad form to reply to one's own post, and this has caused no end of trouble in the past, (Ahem, "APK", Ahem...), but I forgot to add a link to the delightful animated clip from that movie:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUa3np4CKC4

      This was a parody of the "Instructional Animations" spread through schools throughout the Land during my youth, in 16MM Film, not Video, which would be quite surreal to many, many now under the age of 55 or so.
      Done gleefully by one of those very same Animation Houses.

      Also, a "-ing" went walkabout in my original post towards the very end.

  28. WeChat = Tencent = Chinese Communist Party by He+Who+Has+No+Name · · Score: 5, Insightful

    WeChat is a Tencent product, and Tencent is partially state-owned by the People's Republic of China. So I can guarantee you that anything you do in that program - in fact, probably anything you do in any device with that program installed, or any device linked to your WeChat profile with social media or other links - is going straight to a national surveillance agency. Just not an American one.

    That being the case, I have to seriously question the credibility of anybody suggesting WeChat in the context of basically anything.

    1. Re:WeChat = Tencent = Chinese Communist Party by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 0

      That being the case, I have to seriously question the credibility of anybody suggesting WeChat in the context of basically anything.

      Why? He uses WeChat because people he wants to talk to, use WeChat. Why is that not a valid context to suggest WeChat. Use whatever your friends, family, people you want to talk to, use, is the best damn suggestion in this thread.

    2. Re:WeChat = Tencent = Chinese Communist Party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      The context here is an Ask Slashdot requesting a secure alternative to Skype. So that's your "why".

    3. Re:WeChat = Tencent = Chinese Communist Party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "secure alternative" is in the subject and the body of the post... not sure how you overlooked that.

    4. Re:WeChat = Tencent = Chinese Communist Party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you bother to read the summary?

      What can I do to be able to securely chat and place audio/video calls?

    5. Re:WeChat = Tencent = Chinese Communist Party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I take it the the article was "too long" and you "didn't read"? Which is why you missed the point entirely.

    6. Re:WeChat = Tencent = Chinese Communist Party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? He uses WeChat because people he wants to talk to, use WeChat. Why is that not a valid context to suggest WeChat. Use whatever your friends, family, people you want to talk to, use, is the best damn suggestion in this thread.

      The Force is weak with this one my friends.

    7. Re:WeChat = Tencent = Chinese Communist Party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose if your friends were jumping off of a cliff, you would too.

    8. Re:WeChat = Tencent = Chinese Communist Party by jandersen · · Score: 2

      WeChat is a Tencent product, and Tencent is partially state-owned by the People's Republic of China. So I can guarantee you that anything you do in that program - in fact, probably anything you do in any device with that program installed, or any device linked to your WeChat profile with social media or other links - is going straight to a national surveillance agency. Just not an American one.

      I know that - give me some credit, I am after all able to find the keys on my keyboard - and I didn't say I recommend it, only that I use it, as do most Chinese, apparently, or at least those that I know; and I used it as an example of what kind of functionality one should be able to find with little effort in a large number of apps. And as I did point out, it is not realistic to expect things like anonymity or security from a free tool that, for it function, relies fundamentally on all traffic passing through the servers of any business, whose main business is to mine the traffic. Seriously, you guys are out there, if you can't even read to the end of a comment before screaming in paranoia.

      I don't fear WeChat any more - or less - than Skype or whatever else there is with similar functionality. There is no such thing as a free lunch - so if anybody gives you something for free, there is a catch. There always is, and you simply have to live with that knowledge, and choose your actions accordingly. Personally, I don't have the imagination to guess what the Chinese government would want to take a deep interest in the tsunamis of low-level trivia that roars through WeChat all the time - it is just not all that captivating, but it is handy to be able to make a free call to family and friends anywhere in the world.

    9. Re:WeChat = Tencent = Chinese Communist Party by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      If someone is looking for a secure alternative to Skype, why would you recommend an alternative that is, at best, no more secure, and more than likely FAR LESS secure? I understand that the compromise is worth it to you, because other people you know want to use it to converse with you, but to recommend this as a secure alternative doesn't exactly strike me as being very helpful at all.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    10. Re:WeChat = Tencent = Chinese Communist Party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PRC pls go

    11. Re:WeChat = Tencent = Chinese Communist Party by He+Who+Has+No+Name · · Score: 1

      Then his friends and family are stupid and need to be ridiculed into migrating to something more secure. Like effectively anything else, including smoke signals and pig latin.

    12. Re:WeChat = Tencent = Chinese Communist Party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why? He uses WeChat because people he wants to talk to, use WeChat.

      The people I talk to, don't use superfluous commas.

    13. Re:WeChat = Tencent = Chinese Communist Party by See+Attached · · Score: 1

      Response to monitoring... Lets feature a non stop Cat Streaming video service over it then? Gotta remind em what's important!

      --
      Time for a new Political party in the US (or two!) One is off the rails Other cant pony up a leader.
    14. Re:WeChat = Tencent = Chinese Communist Party by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      Sure, he can try ridiculing his friends. I doubt he would be successfully, as he would be the weird one, when in many circles literally any person with a cell phone will use WeChat. Should he also try preaching to his acquaintances? Good luck, I say. What next? Ridiculing POTS, and make people convert because it is not secure?

    15. Re:WeChat = Tencent = Chinese Communist Party by He+Who+Has+No+Name · · Score: 2

      If necessary, yes.

      The old adage about everybody except you jumping off a bridge comes to mind, and this isn't the XKCD case where the reason for leaping is nebulous and open to humorous investigation. We've established the mob is stupid. Your choice comes down to telling them they're stupid and why, silently refusing to participate, or leaping just because everyone else is - even though you know it's a stupid idea.

    16. Re:WeChat = Tencent = Chinese Communist Party by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Well depending on who and where he is, he might have much less to fear from the chinese than the american government...
      If you're going to be spied on by someone, might as well have it be someone who has no interest in your activities nor any jurisdiction over you.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    17. Re:WeChat = Tencent = Chinese Communist Party by jandersen · · Score: 1

      If someone is looking for a secure alternative to Skype, why would you recommend an alternative that is, at best, no more secure, and more than likely FAR LESS secure?

      If you go back and read what I originally wrote, you will see that I specifically commented, that there is no app like that, which IS secure. That was really the whole point of my comment - if you want to use a free app, which offers significant benefits, it simply cannot be secure; the company needs to make money, and they offer a free app to bait people into providing them with the data they are after for whatever commercial purpose. If the communications were secure, anonymous, etc, how would they be able to extract information from the data? Your security, as in most other scenarios, must come from the behaviour of the users - you don't use Skype, WeChat, whatever, for things you don't want to be looked over by third parties, but it is OK for sharing holiday selfies and idle chit-chat.

    18. Re:WeChat = Tencent = Chinese Communist Party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That being the case, I have to seriously question the credibility of anybody suggesting WeChat in the context of basically anything.

      You use WeChat to offer misinformation to the three letter agencies and their Governments, of course.

      It can be very useful to have a communications mechanism that you know is compromised.

      Better yet if the Bad Guys don't know that you know that they are listening.

    19. Re:WeChat = Tencent = Chinese Communist Party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know that - give me some credit

      I credit you with being a complete fucking idiot, or maybe just a straight up shill. I'm leaning towards the latter.

    20. Re:WeChat = Tencent = Chinese Communist Party by Gussington · · Score: 1

      That being the case, I have to seriously question the credibility of anybody suggesting WeChat in the context of basically anything.

      WeChat is used by all the Asian hookers around here. So if you want a seriously good time, WeChat is useful.

    21. Re:WeChat = Tencent = Chinese Communist Party by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      Right, if every single person around you continuously keeps jumping off bridges and are fine, you would the weird one to not do it. You dont seem to understand the network effect.

  29. Re:Why the obsession? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not necessarily a bad thing to admit, really. You're only further perpetuating and demonising the stereotype, it's not too different from the crazy Christians who didn't want Little Jimmy touching himself in bed.

  30. WebRTC by Gerv · · Score: 3, Informative

    WebRTC-based services, in the form of e.g. https://meet.jit.si/, are end-to-end secure and decentralised. Not sure if Windows Phone has any browser which supports WebRTC, though.

    1. Re:WebRTC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Depends. If they use media bridge (like jitsi does), they are not end-to-end secure. Stream is decrypted at bridge and re-encrypted to send to rest of the participants. The advantage of this is the fact that you won't need to create full mesh on each client (IIRC it would also be per stream, so for 4 people it would be 3 outgoing video streams, 3 outgoing audio streams, 3 incoming video streams, 3 incoming audio and possibly some other like data channels for text messaging), only the bridge needs to connections to each and this also reduces the bandwidth usage on client. Bridge can also, for example, adjust the quality if some participants have bad connections, that's harder to do on each client side. I don't remember if Jitsi currently supports that or not.

    2. Re:WebRTC by Lennie · · Score: 2

      Also you can easily run your own Jitsi bridge on a device you control.

      Someone should make a simple to install website you can put on your own server somewhere which works like this:

      https://appear.in/

      It probably already exists somewhere.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    3. Re:WebRTC by Gerv · · Score: 1

      Not for ever - they are working on a method of doing bridge-based WebRTC which is nevertheless end-to-end secure - see https://datatracker.ietf.org/w... . AIUI, the way it works is that it established point-to-point encrypted tunnels between the endpoints for key distribution so the bridge isn't able to decrypt the data even if it wanted to, and yet, you don't need N->N transmission of streams.

      Gerv

  31. Roll your own. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Elastix.

  32. I use Oovoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It works great.

    http://www.oovoo.com/

    1. Re:I use Oovoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oovoo is insecure, proprietary crap.

  33. ISIS Offerings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Check out the offerings ISIS and Al-Qaeda has for secure communications. Localization maybe lacking, though. =)

  34. Re:Why the obsession? by epyT-R · · Score: 1

    The last 100 years or so of history would disagree with you..

  35. BlackPhone running Signal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hardware: Get a BlackPhone. I think Boeing is also offering secure phones for corporate customers as well. Unfortunately Windows Phone is no longer relevant and nobody is writing apps for it anymore.

    Software: Use Signal. It supports encrypted messages and phone calls.

  36. DIY by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    Many libs/modules are available that allow you to make a simple chat/video application, including whatever encryption you see fit, even adding some salt to it if necessary. The other party needs the same program. That makes your app even more discreet (by obscurity).

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    1. Re:DIY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many libs/modules are available that allow you to make a simple chat/video application, including whatever encryption you see fit, even adding some salt to it if necessary. The other party needs the same program. That makes your app even more discreet (by obscurity).

      I'm not even sure if this is supposed to be a joke or not. So many malpractices & bad recommendations in one sentence.

  37. Windows Phone? by xororand · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you run Windows Phone or Windows 10 you should say goodbye to any sort of privacy.
    https://www.gnu.org/proprietar...

    As of now there are no commercially available smart phones that respect your freedom entirely. Depending on where you draw the line,
    your best bets are Replicant or at the very least CyanogenMod without any Google Apps.

    F-Droid is a package manager for Android that only contains software that respects your freedom.

    1. Re:Windows Phone? by Rexdude · · Score: 1

      your best bets are Replicant

      Given that their list of supported devices are all no less than five years old and even then with missing support for any feature other than making calls, Replicant is currently a joke.

      --
      "..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
    2. Re:Windows Phone? by LienRag · · Score: 1

      They're a small team, and for most phones the port is quite easy to do (as I've been told, it's above my level anyway) for anyone with any relevant technical skill, so there is just a bit of work needed to have one's phone use Replicant...

    3. Re:Windows Phone? by Rexdude · · Score: 1

      I'd say quite a bit of work, since you'd have to port each component separately and run the risk of bricking it. Strictly for tinkerers only at this stage. It's more like pre-alpha, given the complete lack of several features even on the supported handsets.

      --
      "..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
  38. LINE by lalleglad · · Score: 1

    I have family in Japan, where LINE seems to be popular.

    http://line.me/en/

    It is a Japanese company:
    http://linecorp.com/en/company...

    But it supports English speaking very well, too, and on the major platforms.
    Unfortunately not on Linux PC's yet.

    1. Re:LINE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The .me in the url for line tells me that the website is in Montenegro (in the Balkans), and I would be very suspicious of a Japanese company using a website there. It could be perfectly fine, but my Spidey-sense tingles at the thought.

    2. Re:LINE by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      My wife is Japanese and we use Line all the time to communicate with her family. It first launched in Japan but was actually created by a S. Koreans subsidiary (though they had collaboration with Japan, China, US engineers).

      All that being said, it's no more secure than Skype.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    3. Re:LINE by alantus · · Score: 1

      Its Korean, not Japanese.
      And its really crappy btw.

    4. Re:LINE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's proprietary and features no encryption. Fail.

    5. Re:LINE by lalleglad · · Score: 1

      If you follow the links I provided it says the following:

      LINE Corporation is based in Japan.
      LINE Plus Corporation was established in March 2013 in South Korea as a subsidiary of LINE Corporation.

      I don't know what you think is crappy, but my family uses it and it works for voice calls and text messaging over the internet, nothing crappy there.

    6. Re:LINE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its Korean, not Japanese.
      And its really crappy btw.

      I disagree,I use it all the time and don't think it sucks at all. I have used it in the past to make voice calls using my T-mobile free international that is limited to 128kbit, and it actually was usable. The chat works great, and if you want to know about the now default chat security read:
      http://developers.linecorp.com/blog/?p=3679

  39. Re:Why the obsession? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not necessarily a bad thing to admit, really.

    Nobody said it was.

    You're only further perpetuating and demonising the stereotype, it's not too different from the crazy Christians who didn't want Little Jimmy touching himself in bed.

    You really need to learn how to read and stop making things up because I have done no such thing.

  40. Re:Why the obsession? by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why are you people so obsessed with privacy from the government?

    Because we don't fucking trust you, shithead. Haven't you figured that out yet?

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  41. Re:Why the obsession? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NSA is that you?

  42. Only Ennetcom passes the test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ennetcom messaging.... we know its secure because the Dutch police raided the owner's house with a made-up money laundering charge (claiming that the phone were being resold by criminals to other criminals to launder money). If its bad enough for the Dutch police to ignore Dutch laws (which make private conversations legal, and encrypted communications legal) and try to shut it down by throwing any old shit at the company boss, it must be secure.

    NONE of the others listed in the EFF Scorecard were raided or closed by the police, so you can be sure they are all backdoored.

    Certainly Blackberry (on which Ennetcom software ran) jizz your private data to anyone with a fax and photocopy of a police letterhead. The rest do too.

    If they didn't, then the FBI, Dutch police or similar organization would be trying to arrest the owners as a way to force them to backdoor their product.

  43. You cannot make secure phone-calls by gweihir · · Score: 2

    As soon as you involve the phone-system, you are compromised. However, you can have a secure voice-chat, with numerous technologies. If you run your own server, something like mumble may serve. Needs a dedicated client, but security is apparently pretty good. Works on Linux.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:You cannot make secure phone-calls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sure you can with old fashioned encryption:

      "the yellow umbrella is near the night-stand..I repeat...the yellow umbrella is near the night-stand!"

    2. Re:You cannot make secure phone-calls by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Leave it to an AC to say the most naive thing possible. Remember "we kill people based on meta-date"?

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  44. Use a WebRTC peer-to-peer session by roca · · Score: 4, Informative

    Use a Web site to set up a WebRTC peer-to-peer session. I like talky.io, which uses peer-to-peer for one-to-one chats. There are many others, and if you don't like them or don't trust them, you could pretty easily build your own.

    The security properties of peer-to-peer WebRTC are pretty good:
    -- end-to-end DTLS with perfect forward secrecy
    -- all protocols involved are IETF standards and have had a decent amount of public security review
    -- Firefox/Chromium implementations are fully open source that you can build yourself and run on Windows/Mac/Linux/Android
    -- the Web site that sets up the connection could MITM you, but there are many WebRTC sites to choose from and it's pretty easy for anyone to set up more.

    I kinda wonder why governments aren't complaining about WebRTC. It's probably just not popular enough yet.

    1. Re:Use a WebRTC peer-to-peer session by Lennie · · Score: 2

      Yep, governments and others haven't really noticed yet.

      If you run your own server with the website/relay software then it really is full end2end and based on the proper crypto, etc.

      People will figure this out eventually.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
  45. Tox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://github.com/uruk/OneTox

  46. Don't they all have the same problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems to me they all require the same thing. Everyone you want to communicate with has to use the same format. I remember back in the AOL days when Instant Messaging first came about. Everyone either used Microsoft's or AOL's. Today it's like that with Skype, FaceTime, Hangout's or whatever. Communications is designed so people have to use certain apps and technology. Should we just assume that all of them are a privacy issue?

    1. Re:Don't they all have the same problem? by Dex+Hex · · Score: 1

      Maybe using an application like Jitsi allows you to connect with people using other messenger software. You can register a SIP address and then chat with any other user that has a SIP address, no matter what their comm client is.

  47. Viber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least here in Bulgaria, this is easily the most popular one.

    1. Re:Viber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Viber cannot be trusted because it is closed source and relies upon third party corporate servers.

  48. Re:Why the obsession? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You've got that the wrong way around. The question you should be asking is "Why is the government so paranoid about terrorism?"

    Take off the tin foil hat and stop being so paranoid about terrorists, you anti-American, freedom-hating douchebag.

  49. Re:Why the obsession? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NSA is that you?

    I can neither confirm nor deny this.

  50. Secure Coms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no way to communicate over a long distance without the potential for interception by some entity. The only way is to create your own encrypted protocol. For the every day Joe that is impossible unless you are a programmer. All mainstream communications platforms today are susceptible to interception including things like TeamSpeak, Ventrillo, Discord, Skype, etc.. Unless you are a career criminal looking to hide drug codewords or something like that then mainstream telecommunications are fine for you and your friends. Agency spying (looking for terrorists, pedos, drugs) is to be expected almost as a bundled service lol. If you are simply opposed to any type of spying simply due to privacy and you're not doing anything wrong I'm afraid to say there aren't any secure coms out there for you. You would have to program your own for your friends and family and even then I guarantee you'll get nailed continually by traffic from agencies trying to crack your platform. That's just the way it is. Even tin cans and string can be tapped into if they really wanted to lol. Nothing is secure, more over, some platforms are actually government funded and heavily tied into systems like echelon, prizm, or whatever flavor of the year spying program they're using these days... and then there's Windows 10 let's not even get started on that trojan horse.

  51. Re:Why the obsession? by slashrio · · Score: 1

    And how much exactly did 'they' pay you to post this kind of nonsense?

    --
    "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
  52. Re:Why the obsession? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are you people so obsessed with privacy from the government? It's like listening to a batshit crazy cult around here, especially with the earlier story about going off the grid. You people come off like a bunch of nutjobs, paranoid about everything, even when it's completely unwarranted. The government really doesn't care that you listen to really bad music, like viewing gay porn, that you're morbidly obese, eat a ridiculous amount of Cheetos while sitting at your keyboard, and that you'd secretly like to have gay buttsex with your boss. Seriously, you're not that interesting to the NSA or any other three letter government agency. Chill out and let them do their work to catch terrorists, don't draw unnecessary attention to yourself (like by being paranoid), and you'll have no trouble.

    Nah man, that's too sensible. What I'm going to do is encrypt literally everything from my shopping list to book of secret crushes, insist I'm not tracked at any juncture use atleast 2FA on everything, unique 256bit passwords and email address for everything held in a 512bit protected keychain AND THEN get all uppity when I arouse suspicion. These damn 'thorities should take my word for it that I'm a fine, model upstanding citizen, yessiree.

  53. Kerberos integrated Zephyr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Zephyr tools, popular at MIT in the 1980's and 1990's, were lightweight, stable, and Kerberos integrated. The features added then have proven either so "enhanced" with graphical debris that they are unusable and unreliable, or are founded in L33t Hax0rZ R00lZ fanboy code, written by students who got C's in their course work and spent all their time being L33t instead of actually writing or testing their own software.

    The result is Hipchat (Java based. resource sucking and completely unreliable), Twitter (stable and high performing but completely insecure),, a million and one IRC apps all of which have only one person who can actually debug it and their mom keeps refusing to bring them more Cheetos, and a new app every day now as the Dotcom bubble starts re-inflating and napkins show up as business plans again.

    1. Re:Kerberos integrated Zephyr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny...because it is true.

  54. Telegram? telegram.org by ealbers · · Score: 1

    How about Telegram? https://telegram.org/
    or wire?

  55. Re:Why the obsession? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The idea of privacy and security is to require a court to obtain *legitimate* cause to search and/or seizure. We call them "warrants", and despite every branch of government being corrupt, they at least have to get another group to fall for their bullshit in order to breach someone's privacy.

    Unfortunately for the government, encryption has a way of making shit unrecoverable, or so complex that the heat death of the universe would occur before they brute-forced it.

    That, or pray someone used a crappy cipher or hash.

  56. Wire? see wire.com by ealbers · · Score: 1

    wire.com
    telegram.org
    open source, 'secure'...

  57. Wire - Private Messenger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    During the last week I've been testing Wire (https://wire.com), created by some of the original developers from Skype. The video and audio quality is good, and their focus on privacy is strong. Read their Privacy Policy, and, if it convinces you give it a try. It's a relatively new app, so it still has some bugs. It works in iOS, Android, Mac, and Windows (I don't know about windows mobile support). Good luck!

  58. Use BBM by Blackberry, Windows version available by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Use BBM by Blackberry and it's available for Windows phone too.

  59. Re:Why the obsession? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    I expect the issue is more to the point, as we have recently found out that our own government had been spying on us, despite the laws that says they shouldn't would make us feel a bit nervous.

    In America there is a good deal of history where we had tried to find the un-americans among us. McCarthyism, blacklisting supposably Communist, Japanese internment camps during WWII are a few examples.

    The danger with this local spying is the fact that we may say something that will get us flagged as un-american then we are watched under a finer detail waiting for a slip up then we can get arrested. Remember Ignorance of a law isn't an excuse, so chances are if you are being monitored under a fine tooth comb chance are you will break some law unintentionally.

    Then it brings up what would get us flagged? A liberal idea may be too radical for the government, a conservative idea may be blocking the direction the government may want to go. A speculation may actually uncover a top secret plan. Some sign of sympathy for the enemy, or not quite following the propaganda that is being shown.

    Now this stuff may not be part of a grand conspiracy. But the government is big, and there are often over ambitious zealots who are in a position to cause trouble. Combined with the fact each group of the government has a narrow focus which may not be inline with the rest of the government's goal.

    Besides there is so much damage of getting falsely accused that even if you are all on the up and up. Getting falsely accused is a major detriment to your life.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  60. Re: Why the obsession? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Terrorism? Is there any single evidence NSA is achieving anything against terrorism? The only evidence we have of their work is that they spy the european MEPs, the european leaders, 56 millions germans, 48 millions italians, 50 millions of french... And the only warning france got before of bataclan came from Algerian services, which are doing mostly Humint....

  61. Re:Why the obsession? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

    All terrorists have to do to surprise us again is attack us with a new technique. While the three-letter agencies are making our lives miserable at airports, one jogger tossing a vial of hacked Ebola into a big-city reservoir could be the next 9/11.

  62. EditorDavid seems to have missed something by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

    From what EditorDavid posted above from the anonymous poster... I quote:
    What can I do to be able to securely chat and place audio/video calls? What do you think is the best device to buy and what apps to use on it?
    Looks to me like the anonymous poster is willing to abandon his Windows Phone so I don't know why the blurb below the poster's quote immediately asked for a solution "especially for a Windows Phone user".

    I get the wish for secure phone calls to a certain extent, but the anonymous poster sure doesn't seem to be doing anything that absolutely requires this kind of security. Is it really worth buying a new phone and software packages to try to get secure calls to Mommy when there are so many people with cell phones that any logical person would realize that every call can't be monitored by The Man?

    1. Re:EditorDavid seems to have missed something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what EditorDavid posted above from the anonymous poster... I quote:

      What can I do to be able to securely chat and place audio/video calls? What do you think is the best device to buy and what apps to use on it?

      Looks to me like the anonymous poster is willing to abandon his Windows Phone so I don't know why the blurb below the poster's quote immediately asked for a solution "especially for a Windows Phone user".

      The editor did a good job presenting it like that. As I understand it, the especially part is added as a bonus, to save the anonymous submitter from buying a new phone if unnecessary. If there is solution that also works on WP and it is secure enough, why not?

      I get the wish for secure phone calls to a certain extent, but the anonymous poster sure doesn't seem to be doing anything that absolutely requires this kind of security. Is it really worth buying a new phone and software packages to try to get secure calls to Mommy when there are so many people with cell phones that any logical person would realize that every call can't be monitored by The Man?

      From the original submission: "... mostly use it for Skype calls and chats." He/she didn't specify, but some of them might be for business (industrial espionage is real, you know). Rather unlikely, it's true, but you never know.

      'The Man' may not be the problem. You're probably right, The Man is overwhelmed by the amount of data being gathered for the entire globe, too overwhelmed to bother spying on a puny win phone user. Criminals are in this business as well though.

  63. It depends by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    If you want the " telephone " experience where you can call anyone, anytime then probably not. Both you and the one you're calling must use compatible systems before you can consider securing it.

    If, on the other hand, you're trying to setup a secure call to a known party then there are ways to accomplish this but requires some prep.

    Example. Grab a flavor of VOIP software you like to use. Build a central server running something like Asterisk on it. Lock down your network, ensure the only means to access it is via a VPN. ( means you have to setup a VPN server )

    Remote user connects to the local network via VPN ( however strong you want it to be ) and the VOIP client will register with the Asterisk server. When all clients are registered, it is a simple matter to dial their extension when you wish to talk to them. Conference calls, multi-way calling, etc. will be available depending on server and client capabilities.

    The entire stream goes over the VPN and can connect from anywhere in the world. Security is based on how strong your VPN is so plan accordingly.

    The weakest link will be the hardware running the VOIP softclient. Best to use something like an Ipod touch or other non-phone based unit.

  64. One World app for Vonage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you have the Vonage VOIP service, you can use the One World app to make calls over Vonage.

  65. Depends on what you want by LichtSpektren · · Score: 3, Informative

    Signal is currently the best solution for secure messages and phone calls. It's an app for Android and iOS, and Chrome has an extension to sync your messages to a desktop chat. But it communicates between phone numbers of course, so if that's not what you want then it's a bit trickier.

    The best totally anonymous desktop messaging protocol I am aware of is Pidgin (Windows, Linux) and Adium (macOS) using the "Off-The-Record" extension. I don't know if there's any good solutions for video chat.

    1. Re:Depends on what you want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After spending hours on checking out a lot of different options, Signal is definitely one of the best I've come across. I would say at the top spot along with WebRTC-based solutions. Haven't tried it yet, but from the info I got on their website, it sounds awesome.

      So these guys are creating an amazing comm software and giving it away for absolutely nothing. What is their business model exactly?

    2. Re:Depends on what you want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For mobile I recommend Conversations with OMEMO.

  66. On Windows Phone? by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 0

    What difference does it make? Windows on mobile phone is dead. It is just decaying in plain sight, rather than being buried - but dead it is.

  67. Re:Why the obsession? by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

    You are certainly ignorant, but I will explain briefly: A good reason is you despite being a law-abiding citizen, you do not agree with the current government and this current government has a history of "disappearing" with people who do not agree with it. And a second good reason is industrial espionage. Right now my country is suffering a coup being helped much by the NSA spying on Petrobras (state oil company) and the politicians who are not sold to the US. It is enough reason to seek communication protected against espionage?

    --
    Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
  68. Re:Why the obsession? by budgenator · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not even that we don't trust,

    trust ; firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something.

    we absolutely trust that if we allow the agents of government a great power to use in a narrow context, against a specific group of bad actors for the general benefit, that they will eventually without fail use that power in contexts never intended and against people never imagined, with only in regard to the benefit of the few power brokers.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  69. Viber & Oovoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Windows Mobile also supports Viber and Oovoo for VOIP calls. Would like to hear other people's experiences with those.

  70. The only secure method... by Glasswire · · Score: 1

    ..for video/audio calls and other similar communications is heavily encrypted endpoint-to-endpoint VPN traveling though ports that won't get blocked.

  71. Re:Why the obsession? by David_Hart · · Score: 1

    It's not necessarily a bad thing to admit, really. You're only further perpetuating and demonising the stereotype, it's not too different from the crazy Christians who didn't want Little Jimmy touching himself in bed.

    Obviously he meant gaming. What were you thinking of... Oh, wait... (grin)

  72. Re: Why the obsession? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Terrorism? Is there any single evidence NSA is achieving anything against terrorism?

    Irrelevant. It's the excuse that the NSA gives for their illegal spying. If they want to play that game, then they can be held accountable for being paranoid assholes who are propagating terrorism.

  73. Re:Why the obsession? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Seriously, you're not that interesting to the NSA or any other three letter government agency. Chill out and let them do their work to catch terrorists

    You'd like to think that; but as one who found themselves labeled a "Hacktivist" in a story in Wired Magazine, accused of being an organizer for some event I had never even heard of, JUST because I happened to write a provocative (to the Gummint) block of "keywords" in a Sig; let me tell you, it doesn't take NEARLY as much as you'd think to be "of interest"...

  74. Re:Why the obsession? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, fuck it. We should just post all of our information online, stop using passwords and leave our houses completely open to all. After all, the government needs to be able to see that we aren't doing anything wrong because it's totally our jobs to constantly prove our innocence...

    So what is your full name, address, phone number, social security number and credit card number? Also, you need to post all of your medical records up along with nude pictures of yourself and your entire family...unless you're trying to hide something.

  75. Re:Why the obsession? by macs4all · · Score: 1

    Why are you people so obsessed with privacy from the government?

    "the Tree of Liberty, it seems, needs to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants."

    250 years of U.S. History, and a few THOUSAND years of collective social history, and still we have to ask a question like yours....

  76. Re:Why the obsession? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only reason anyone requires is "Because I said so". Our personal lives are our business and nobody else's.

  77. Re:Why the obsession? by ruir · · Score: 1

    Then ask a question...why do governments use computers controlled by another country (i.e. by Microsoft)

  78. Wire offer end to end encryption. It's based in Sw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wire offers messaging and audio-video communications. I think one of the main developers was a developer for Skype before Microsoft brought it and left after they were brought by Microsoft.

  79. Twitter plus a one time pad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So I literally use Twitter and a dedicated one time pad. The issue then is not who can see it, but rather, who can decrypt it. The one time pad is as random as random can be, and only with access to the matching pad can it be decrypted.

    If you think you can hide any communication, you are deluding yourself. Always make the assumption that anything you transmit can be read globally.

    With the one time pad, a non networked device compresses and encrypts the data and then it is sneaker netted to a system with twitter access, uploaded and I simply await the reply.

  80. Off Topic by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

    Actually I'm looking for a good secure / encryption strong tool that works on Linux and Windows, even better if it can do Android. Any Suggestions?

  81. Matrix could be a viable option by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The messaging infrastructure called matrix (matrix.org), could be viable alternative. It appears to be a new federated messaging service that's trying to learn from the problems that XMPP faced. That being said, you can run a private server and not federate. There's a presentation from Jardin Entropique that talks about the privacy and security issues associated with these kind of messaging services here:

    https://matrix.org/~matthew/2015-06-26%20Matrix%20Jardin%20Entropique.pdf

  82. DS-Lite: routable on IPv6, CGNAT on IPv4 by tepples · · Score: 1

    Does your ISP also fail at IPv6? I've read about a lot of ISPs giving each subscriber his own /56 on IPv6 and using carrier-grade NAT only on IPv4. This technique is called DS-Lite (not to be confused with a Nintendo product).

  83. Vsee - Low Bandwidth Secure Video and Chat App by yaznaz · · Score: 1

    Offers end-to-end encryption without a man-in-the-middle listener. Uses open industry standard, FIPS 140-2 certified, 256-bit AES encryption on all control and media traffic. The 256-bit AES session key is only available at endpoints, thus not even Vsee themselves can decrypt the traffic. Check out more at: https://vsee.com/security
    I have been using Vsee for last few years and consistently found it way more robust and tolerant of network and bandwidth issues then any other video application - including connections to high latency destination over mobile/wireless links.
    Primarily designed for healthcare, it is extensively used in remote locations with such as Africa.
    Free, lightweight and without any intrusive advertisements, I am not sure why it does not get more recognition.

  84. Brilliant Logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That logic is brilliant.

    1. Re:Brilliant Logic by swillden · · Score: 1

      There wasn't any logic in my post, merely some statements of fact about the evidence that exists.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  85. Re:Why the obsession? by Hylandr · · Score: 1

    Remember all those AOL users before the world wide web became popular? They got loose and bred.

    Welcome to Web 3.0

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  86. Don't use a proprietary OS? by hackel · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but if you care about privacy, using a proprietary OS is a non-starter. You simply MUST use an open-source operating system. The idea of security on Windows or IOS is absurd. These companies can insert whatever backdoors they wish at any time, and you have no way of knowing or doing anything about it. This isn't a matter of my-platform's-better-than-yours, it's simply the fact that proprietary software and security are not compatible.

  87. Try Linphone by xtronics · · Score: 1

    There are ways to encrypt.

    1. Re:Try Linphone by Dex+Hex · · Score: 1

      Linphone looks good. How about trustworthy SIP public servers / providers? Do you have some in mind that also offer encryption?

  88. Signal App by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://whispersystems.org/
    Use anything by Open Whisper Systems.
    --Edward Snowden, Whistleblower and privacy advocate

  89. PRESUME IT'S A LIE (FBI) (FBI) (FBI) [singing] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is akin to the "Ask Slashdot: What torrent sites do YOU use?" fishing expedition.

    https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/08/05/0329246/popular-bittorrent-search-engine-site-torrentzeu-mysteriously-disappears

    >Skype's privacy was already suspect after Edward Snowden leaked evidence of Microsoft's secret collaboration with the NSA.

    Misleading here. You can't tie the fact that Snowden exposed the NSA/CIA/FBI to merely "Skype is suspect". Slashdot FBI you are all a bunch of homosexual rookies, adept only at butt fucking your mom's faces.

    Skype was purchased by Microsoft, Skype is therefore Microsoft. Microsoft spies for the CIA/NSA so therefore Microsoft is CIA/NSA.

    Do you use CIA/NSA Windows 10 ANNIVERSARY? Do you not get this yet? Did you not get the memo Microsoft sent out saying we will spy on you every way possible now, or could it be they just didn't tell you?

    Skype is like this... your kid runs behind you naked it is leaked to child porn world... which the FBI is in charge of.
    http://thenextweb.com/insider/2016/01/28/how-the-fbi-became-the-worlds-largest-distributor-of-child-sex-abuse-imagery/

    They also hijack sites like Slashdot and kill people in the way. EditorDavid was killed by the CIA though... but the FBI killed Ian Murdock of Debian Linux. He was in the way and they took the quickest route. Debian was a very mature Linux... accepted widely by home users and even on other devices like QNAP Network Attached Storage (NAS)'s etc. They wanted this backdoor more than the San Bernadino shooter's iPhone password believe me. What you have now is fully backdoored Debian Linux.

    They put it all over .onion so you can somehow "discover this profound elite source" as they did with new compromised versions of Tails. (anything 1.5 or later). Most recent news about FBI / Debian involvement is here:
    http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=showheadline&story=1088

    Also.. VERY IMPORTANTLY: http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=showheadline&story=1137

    The Debian distribution has announced an upcoming change in the way it handles the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) package, notably a switch to GnuPG's "modern" branch (currently version 2.1.x). Although the transformation will be transparent to most of us, active GnuPG users as well as developers creating Debian packages that depend on GnuPG will have to pay attention as the switch might affect them: "If you're an end user and you don't use GnuPG directly, you shouldn't notice much of a change once the packages start to move through the rest of the archive. Even if you do use GnuPG regularly, you shouldn't notice too much of a difference. One of the main differences is that all access to your secret key will be handled through gpg-agent, which should be automatically launched as needed. This means that operations like signing and decryption will cause gpg-agent to prompt the user to unlock any locked keys directly, rather than gpg itself prompting the user." See this blog post by Daniel Kahn Gillmor explaining the differences between the three GnuPG branches and also providing a list of features of the "modern" GnuPG.

    See this comment: https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9485881&cid=52651539

    You want to fucking get everybody who downloads Count Dracula arrested for 30 years? Take away their livelihood because their daughter downloaded Taylor Swift mp3's? Guess what Dice you low down scum bitches.

    Registry Registrant ID:
    Registrant Name: Host Master
    Registrant Organization: SourceForge Media, LLC
    Registrant Street: 1660 Logan Avenue Suite A
    Registrant City: San Diego
    Registrant State/Province: CA
    Registrant Postal Code: 92113
    Registrant Country: US
    Registrant Phone: +1.8584545900

    It is not Tucows in Chesterfield, MO like it is preferred suddenly to state on WHOIS.

    1. Re:PRESUME IT'S A LIE (FBI) (FBI) (FBI) [singing] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MOD PARENT UP!

      If this is modded anything less than +5, Interesting take it as an admission of guilt by FBI @ Slashdot.

    2. Re:PRESUME IT'S A LIE (FBI) (FBI) (FBI) [singing] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod this up. Looks like the Slashdot FBI op is a bust!

    3. Re:PRESUME IT'S A LIE (FBI) (FBI) (FBI) [singing] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck debian linux then. i'm sticking with Arch.

  90. Re:Why the obsession? by magamiako1 · · Score: 1

    Those people ARE enemies. Groups filing for tax-free status for dubious bullshit reasons are garbage. None of these groups are doing anything charitable, lol.

  91. PRESUME IT'S A LIE (FBI) (FBI) (FBI) [singing] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trust nothing by Open Whisper Systems. Do not even click that link.

  92. Re:Why the obsession? by magamiako1 · · Score: 2

    I think it's funny how people seem to think that being anonymous is important while simultaneously being pissed off that the government doesn't do enough to "deter cheating" of the voting system, legality of immigration status. In short, MY privacy is IMPORTANT, but YOUR privacy is not!

    Even more amusing is that they all seem to have no problems with private companies hoarding all of this data. We have no Constitutional protections against private entities. Google and Facebook are far more powerful than the NSA, FBI, and DEA combined. But let's not draw any attention to that, shall we? Let's all focus on how the EVIL GUBMINT is STORIN' DATA ON ME!

    Let's pay no attention to the fact that the things you post on social networking or the Internet in general, or the stuff you buy, can be used to build a profile of you that not only controls how much money you're going to spend on something (interest rates), but also whether or not you're hirable at all. You know, things that are truly important to like 99.99% of anyone in the country, earning money and buying goods and services with their money.

  93. Let me see if I've got this right by tehlinux · · Score: 1

    So you plan to reach out to one of the dozen or so Windows Phone users by finding them on slashdot?!

    --
    Most linux users don't know this, but the man pages were named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fsck'ing hates noobs!
  94. Tox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All day - Tox. But of course this post will be buried and not read.
    Tox solves everyone of your problems and concerns.

  95. Skype drop-in replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The best I've found so far is "Wire".
    Everything, be it text/video/voice/phone/doodle is encrypted (End to End).
    The voice calls are amazingly clear and the video chat is pretty clean.
    It's like Telegram tried to turn itself into Skype.

  96. Re:Why the obsession? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WHAT HE SAID !

  97. Re:Why the obsession? by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

    It... it's almost as if you read my mind...
    Oh no, you're one of them! Get out of my head!!! /EndSillyRant

  98. Duo by timkofu · · Score: 1

    Duo son.