Interesting People mailing list archives
more on Wiretapping Technology vs. Wiretapping Laws
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 19:32:52 -0400
Begin forwarded message: From: Henrik Brameus <blondino () gmail com> Date: August 10, 2005 4:44:32 PM EDT To: dave () farber net Subject: Re: [IP] more on Wiretapping Technology vs. Wiretapping Laws As pointed out below the VoIP companies have, for cost reasons, let go of the control of where a specific call terminates. That means that a company lik Skype might not know where any specific call terminates, or at least has no way of predicting where a call will terminate. On top of that if you want to call using SkypeOut without being traceable you just create a new Skype account, buy $10 worth of SkypeOut minutes, use it and then discard it. That way you are difficult to trace. If you want to do computer to computer voice communcation you would probably use a specialized program in place of Skype or Vonage if you want to keep it secret (think Asterisk or Teamspeak) That way you don't have to rely on any outside provider and the data will just be data. I guess you could add encryption on top of that as well and proxy it over port 80 and it would be impossible to differentiate from people checking pictures on flickr. I believe that all these measure only will affect the privacy of normal people, and that it would have little effect on potential or actual terrorists. They already have much more sofisticated ways of communicating than speaking openly on unencrypted telephone services. Just as wil a lot of the measures in airline securiy I believe that this is a way of making it look as if they are doing something, rather than actually doing something. I think transparency, fairness, openness and information is a much better way to fight terrorist tendencies than to create more controls. Henrik Brameus On 10/08/05, David Farber <dave () farber net> wrote:
Begin forwarded message: From: Brad Templeton <btm () templetons com> Date: August 10, 2005 3:22:46 PM EDT To: David Farber <dave () farber net> Cc: lauren () vortex com Subject: Re: [IP] Wiretapping Technology vs. Wiretapping Laws Much VoIP termination is done by routing the call over IP to a local termination provider in the LATA or even phone CO of the targetPSTN number. In many cases, these termination providers are independententities. Larger VoIP companies have individual contracts with these terminators, more rely on aggregators to have these contracts andhandle the settlements. Some VoIP companies manage their own gatewaysto the PSTN through a small number of chokepoints (this gives you morecontrol over the quality) but almost all of them rely on 3rd parties andaggregators to terminate the calls overseas. There are even bidding markets.
-- "If you're right 98% of the time, why quibble about the remaining 3%?" Henrik Brameus - http://www.benitel.com/ - blondino () gmail com.invalid skype me: hbrameus (IM first to allow voice connection) ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- more on Wiretapping Technology vs. Wiretapping Laws David Farber (Aug 10)