Belgium says Skype is a telco & must pay fine for not allowing eavesdropping on calls

["Dave Farber" <farber () gmail com>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Kimi Wei <kimiwei88 () gmail com>
> Date: November 22, 2017 at 7:29:35 PM EST
> To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
> Subject: Belgium says Skype is a telco & must pay fine for not allowing eavesdropping on calls
>
> Why does this seem like a terrible perversion of justice to me?
> ~ Kimi
>
> https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2017/11/17/skype-faces-fine-after-refusing-to-allow-eavesdropping/
>
> Skype faces fine after refusing to allow eavesdropping
> 17 NOV 2017 
> by Lisa Vaas
>
> Skype’s looking at a €30,000 ($35,000) fine from a Belgian court that wants to eavesdrop on conversations – something 
> that Microsoft-owned Skype said is 1) technically impossible and 2) shouldn’t apply because the laws are for 
> telecoms, which it isn’t.
>
> Skype lost an appeal of the fine in a Belgian court on Wednesday.
>
> According to the Belgian newspaper Het Belang Van Limburg, the trouble began in 2012, when Belgian authorities came 
> knocking, wanting to listen in on conversations that an organized crime gang conducted mostly on Skype.
>
> According to public prosecutor Tim Van hoogenbemt, Skype only complied with part of the request. In other words, it 
> only handed over metadata: e-mail addresses, user histories, account details and IP addresses. But when it came to 
> the content of conversations, Skype said it was “technically impossible” to listen in, the prosecutor said.
>
> Belgian law stipulates that telecoms have to hand over certain calls to investigators at the court’s behest. Skype 
> knows that full well, Van hoogenbemt said. His office emphasized that the calls took place in Belgium, involved 
> Belgian speakers, and that of course Belgian laws apply.
>
> Skype offers services in our country, so it has to know the legislation. And therefore also know that the court can 
> request eavesdropping measures. They had to provide the equipment for doing something like that.
>
> Besides the argument that eavesdropping on conversations is technically impossible, Skype claims it’s neither an 
> operator nor a service provider, but only a provider of certain software. According to Reuters, Skype also argued 
> that Luxembourg, where Skype and its servers are based, could block any eavesdropping arrangement set up to monitor 
> Belgium-originated calls.
>
> On Wednesday, the court didn’t buy any of it. The judgement, which came out at a court in the city of Mechelen, in 
> the Belgian province of Antwerp, Flanders, said that Skype was “indisputably” a telecoms operator and that references 
> in Belgian law to “telecommunication” included “electronic communication”.
>
> This certainly isn’t Microsoft’s first skirmish over law enforcement that wants to pry open private communications. 
> The case is reminiscent of Microsoft’s fight with the US over emails stored on servers based in Ireland. At this 
> point, US v. Microsoft is headed to the Supreme Court.
>
> However the Supreme Court rules, it will have massive implications for US-based communications companies that serve 
> countries all over the world.
>
> The Supreme Court will hear the case sometime next year.
>
> As far as Skype’s troubles in Belgium go, Reuters reports that Microsoft isn’t giving in just yet: it’s considering 
> further legal options.
>
>
> Kimi Wei
> kimi () thewei com  @kimiwei
> facebook.com/thekimiwei
> 862-203-8814



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/18849915-ae8fa580
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-aa268125
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-32545cb4&post_id=20171122211641:55B7A9D2-CFF4-11E7-926F-8732C1699C12
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com