Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet News

NY Times on VoIP, Skype Profile and the FBI 192

Posted by Hemos from the the-next-big-thing? dept.
securitas writes "The New York Times Business section published a longish profile of P2P VoIP startup Skype, founded by the people that brought you P2P file-sharing client Kazaa. Previously the domain of geeks everywhere, this is significant if only because it seems to signal that VoIP is starting to garner mainstream consumer interest and serious business interest. The article discusses Vonage and a Daiwa Securities telecom report that says Skype 'is something to be scared of, and is probably set to become the biggest story of the year.' Critics dismiss it as hype. But Skype faces a potential court battle with the FBI. 'Because traffic over Skype is strongly encrypted and distributed over wide-ranging sources, it could hamper authorities' ability to wiretap.' An FBI spokesman says, '... it is something that we are looking into.' Of course last week's Minnesota federal court ruling that exempts VoIP from traditional telecom legislation doesn't hurt the case for VoIP. The text of the ruling is expected to be available this week. Read the previous Slashdot stories on Skype and the Vonage vs Minnesota case for some background."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NY Times on VoIP, Skype Profile and the FBI More

NY Times on VoIP, Skype Profile and the FBI

Comments Filter:
  • Is anyone else reading this article running into a massive flood of 500 Server errors?

    I started seeing these about 48 hours ago, and they've gotten to the point where it's just about impossible to read Slashdot.

    Is this just me (i.e. ISP set up flaky transparent proxy) or is it affecting others as well?

  • Privacy first. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13, 2003 @09:02AM (#7198689)
    "But Skype faces a potential court battle with the FBI. 'Because traffic over Skype is strongly encrypted and distributed over wide-ranging sources, it could hamper authorities' ability to wiretap.' An FBI spokesman says, '... it is something that we are looking into.' "

    Since when does the FBI have the right to wiretap it's citizens? I have the right to privacy when it comes to my communications.

    • Re:Privacy first. (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I guess it started in 1968 with the "Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act" and then electronic communication was added in 1986 with the "Electronic Communications Privacy Act." Most recently the "Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 ... requires carriers to design or modify their systems to ensure that lawfully-authorized electronic surveillance can be performed."

      Does that answer your question? Please provide relevant laws for your so called "right of privacy." Don't bother sa

      • When quoting and amendment to the Constitution how about doing us a favor and quoting the whole thing.

        Amendment IV [cornell.edu]

        "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    • Actually, you really don't have a right to privacy, not Constitutionally anyway. The government has no right to inspect you without cause and a search warrant -- but your contact between you and whatever transport companies carry your data are not covered by any Constitutional protections.

      Just like it is my right to restrict your speech on my property, they have the same rights to inspect your data in their system, unless they agree not to.

      • "they have the same rights to inspect your data in their system"? What THEIR are you talking about? The telecom networks aren't the FBI's system, they're the private sector's (at least in most of the world.)

        You've got the rights and powers bits backwards. US courts have let the police get away with wiretapping because they haven't always valued privacy, and because traditional telephone companies were regulated monopolies, the courts have let police get warrants to force the phone companies to cooper

    • The FBI doesn't have a right to wiretap, but they do have the right to try, assuming they have a warrant. Don't expect them to give up easy access to the content of telephone calls without a fight.

      In the past, the government has taken advantage of "choke points" in the communications infrastructure to do traffic analysis and intercepts. They have also used the regulatory apparatus of the FCC to mandate the inclusion or exclusion of features in type accepted equipment.

      The FBI's nightmare is a secure peer

    • Since when does the FBI have the right to wiretap it's citizens? I have the right to privacy when it comes to my communications.

      But not until they present reasonable suspicion to a court of law, whereupon the court will grant a wiretap warrant. At that point, they can force your telco to wiretap your phone, they don't physically go in and hardwire it themselves. The telco must accomodate for this, both for landlines and cell phones.

      I suspect exactly the same will be the case with IP to normal phone too.
    • I figure, if the FBI has a warrant, I've no problem with them trying to wiretap my phone. But if they think for one second that I am required by law to make it easy for them, they've got another thing coming.
  • I can see that the FBI is going to see this as a major security comprimise for the US. What I'm curious about is if this VoIP in the long run will end up running off of a P2P type network, and if so, how will the company make money off of it? Some form of advertisement?
    • The best promotion for international terrorism has been the US foreign policy of the past few decades. Just last week The US government looked the other way as Israel violated the territorial rights of one of its neighbours. This is exactly the kind of attitude that has infuriated most of the Arab world since the second world war. Anyway, nobody needs the FBI's permission to do terrorism. The vary nature of terrorists is that their least concern is FBI approval for their actions. So probably the better orga

  • Rhyms with "hype"? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by heironymouscoward ( 683461 ) <heironymouscowar ... m ['oo.' in gap]> on Monday October 13, 2003 @09:04AM (#7198699) Journal
    Despite that, VoIP still has one problem: voice is simply less flexible useful than text messaging, for most people.

    IMHO, voice is only useful when I'm away from my desk, and this will only work when VoIP marries Wifi, and since widespread Wifi is still going to be a pipedream for at least a year or two, there sits VoIP.

    I predict the next generation of small mobile VoIP handsets will be extremely popular with business travellers, and pretty much ignored by the general population.

    • Re:Rhyms with "hype"? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by cwernli ( 18353 )
      For additional info see this [shirky.com]. It's an excellent writeup on the issues you're raising.

    • Eh ? VoIP when you are away from your desk.... so what you really want is some form of device that enables you to talk away from your desk....

      Like a mobile phone ? Which already uses a digital network to encode the messages, hell why not run VoIP over 3G networks ? Even at 9Kbps you could get something intelligable over GRPS. And as for your "prediction" it misses the point that

      MOBILE NETWORKS CHARGE FOR DATA, where as home networks charge for bandwidth, there is a BIG difference. WiFi does not exist
      • Actually, I think the business traveller is one of the few people who is assured access to Wifi or other broadband on demand: in airports, hotels, and company locations.

        Internal phone systems? People still call from desk to desk instead of sending an email? I'm impressed.

        Anyhow, my "business case" is not that, but an argument against VoIP actually becoming a big thing quickly.

        And another argument against it: the ink cartridge factor: most people will not pay the up-front costs just to get cheaper calls
        • Internal phone systems? People still call from desk to desk instead of sending an email? I'm impressed

          Umm I'm assuming this is some form of gag. I actually find that business gets done much quicker if I speak to people than if I send an email. Sure email comes in useful lots of times, but nothing beats a quick phone call to make sure everyone is clear.
          • You are right up to a point.

            We structure our communications like this:

            1. emergencies: phone

            2. normal business: web-based workflow

            3. random shit: email

            Email is too unreliable for the business, and phone are too interruptive for normal work. Oh, and there is a category zero too:

            0. personal: mobile.

            The most evil form of "communication" I have ever experienced is the conference call. It is almost as bad as PowerPoint.

          • Umm I'm assuming this is some form of gag. I actually find that business gets done much quicker if I speak to people than if I send an email. Sure email comes in useful lots of times, but nothing beats a quick phone call to make sure everyone is clear.

            My experience is pretty much exactly the opposite. If something is discussed via phone, everyone involved has a slightly different recollection and some people just forget it entirely.

            On the other hand, when it's done via email, the issue tends to blip

      • Actually, VoIP with the G.723 codec is rather clear, and only weighs 5.3Kbps (that is, 5.3 kilobit/s). much less that the 3G data rate.
    • Despite that, VoIP still has one problem: voice is simply less flexible useful than text messaging, for most people.

      Maybe for you. I don't type that fast. At two-finger hunt and peck, voice is much faster and easier.

      And forget it when I'm typing one-handed. I mean, I can't even hit the shift key to type capital letters when I'm having cyber... Uh, nevermind.

      Look, let me just say that there are just some situations that really call for a hands-free telephone, and leave it at that, ok?

      (Did I mention that
    • VoIP still has one problem: voice is simply less flexible useful than text messaging, for most people.

      never heard of nextel have you.

      I press a button and talk that tiny "text messaging packet of voice goes from me to you, you hear a beep and my voice out of your phone.

      IT's so stinking popular that verizon has now implimented it cince the patent expired.

      voip is more more efficient than any text message. I can speak faster than you can type with your two thumbs on your phone's keypad.

  • Wait a minute... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Entropius ( 188861 ) on Monday October 13, 2003 @09:05AM (#7198700)
    First, the FBI does not have the right to demand that new systems go out of their way to support snooping--maybe they do legally, but they shouldn't morally.

    Second, there are already encrypted real-time internet communications protocols: Secure AIM comes to mind. If this technology gets blocked because it "can't be wiretapped", then something's fishy: it won't let The Terr'ists do anything They couldn't already do.

    Wow, sometimes I wonder about this country.
    • Or perhaps Secure AIM is not as secure as you're led to believe...

      (puts on tinfoil hat...)

    • Re:Wait a minute... (Score:3, Informative)

      by Malor ( 3658 )
      The article's lead-in was deliberately inflammatory. The actual quote was:

      Paul Bresson, an F.B.I. spokesman, said, "It is legal; it is a concern; and it is something that we are looking into."

      This is journalism of the caliber of talk radio; leaving out the important part "it is legal" to highlight the dreaded imminent threat. Probably helped get it chosen as a story, since putting one to the Feds is always popular in the geek crowd, but it's still irresponsible.

      • Disclaimer: I work for a large telecom company, but this is my rant, not theirs.

        Inflammatory is good. The FBI, NSA, and their ilk have tried very hard to prevent private use of encryption, and folks like the EFF, academic crypto community, cypherpunks, Netscape, and VPN makers have done great work in stopping that. But in fact the Feds, mainly the FBI, have been trying very hard to interfere with end-to-end communications because it is hard to wiretap.

        The CALEA wiretap laws are an immense pain in the ass

    • Furthermore, the company behind Skype is Swedish, and based in Stockholm. I just don't see any way for the FBI to exert pressure here and I think the article overstated the danger.

  • Only in the long term (Score:5, Interesting)

    by alen ( 225700 ) on Monday October 13, 2003 @09:06AM (#7198708)
    Long term VOIP is the way to go and I can see the traditional phone number going the way of the DoDo bird. People will find others through directories such as those on IM. That is why MS is so big on Passport. They know that in the future he who controls the directory controls everythng.
  • Frankly, these guys have a poor reputation: they make a product that is designed to aid breaches of copyright, they use their network to install spyware and possibly worse on their users' computers...

    It's hard enough to keep a clean rep (look at Google), but frankly I'd think twice before installing anything with the label "Made by the Guys who Brought You Kazaa!".

    • Closed-Source Crypto Can't Be Trusted. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by billstewart ( 78916 ) on Monday October 13, 2003 @02:11PM (#7201146) Journal
      There's absolutely no way to trust crypto that you can't inspect. It doesn't have to be GPL-compliant politically-correct Free Software, but you really do need to be able to see the source and the documentation. The problem isn't just that Kazaa has done spyware in the past, though that certainly doesn't increase their trustability. The problem is that with closed-source systems that deliberately don't implement standards, there's no way to tell how much security they're trying to give you whether they've done it competently or not.

      For instance, Skype says they're using 256-bit AES to encrypt your voice. That's a really good start, but how do they exchange keys? Is there a way to steal the keys? Is there a way for a man-in-the-middle attack to get both you and the person you're talking with to pass your voice calls or key exchange messages through the attacker? Since it's a supernode-based system, there's a very convenient place to _locate_ a MITM... How do you even verify that the directory entry for the person you're trying to talk to is really theirs? Since Skype's documentation hypes the fact that it's using AES, and doesn't mention public key, that strongly implies there's no public key infrastructure to help you.

      Microsoft's original PPTP had at least seven things wrong with its crypto, most of which were related to password handling or crypto key reuse (which is Rule Number 1 for what not to do when you're using RC4 encryption.) Some of their weaknesses were in their fundamental protocols, and some of them in their implementation of their protocols. As far as we can tell, Microsoft was trying to do the right thing, and could afford to hire real engineers, yet they screwed up inexcusably badly. Skype doesn't document their protocols, or their implementation, and at least their marketing people don't understand enough crypto to be able to tell if their engineers have a clue, much less whether there's deliberate spyware included, or who gets to be the spy if there is.

      • From the FAQ on skype.com:

        What type of encryption is used? Skype uses AES (Advanced Encryption Standard) - also known as Rijndel - which is also used by U.S. Government organizations to protect sensitive, information. Skype uses 256-bit encryption, which has a total of 1.1 x 1077 possible keys, in order to actively encrypt the data in each Skype call or instant message. Skype uses 1536 to 2048 bit RSA to negotiate symmetric AES keys. User public keys are certified by Skype server at login.

        Well, that so
        • OK, they've upgraded the FAQ since I last read it, and certifying public keys at login sounds like they're at least thinking about the problem.

          They still should be doing Diffie Hellmann key exchange, so they can do some forward secrecy, with some kind of signature method, and there are still many ways to do RSA wrong (in particular, not getting message padding right, and reusing values if they have small encryption exponents), and they also need to do random number generation correctly (that's one thing t

  • Only 51% of it belongs to the Commonwealth, the rest of it is listed on the Australian Stock Exchange. Well for the time being anyway...

  • QoS (Score:4, Funny)

    by pheared ( 446683 ) <`kevin' `at' `pheared.net'> on Monday October 13, 2003 @09:09AM (#7198727) Homepage
    I lo....vve.. my Voi...ce...over....IP.
    • heh.

      that,and everyone i know who has tried vonnage, said it sucked and dropped it at their first opportunity...

  • I'm saying meteor... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by YanceyAI ( 192279 ) * <IAMYANCEY@yahoo.com> on Monday October 13, 2003 @09:09AM (#7198731)
    "We think the Skype offering (and whatever may follow it) is akin to a giant meteor hurtling on a collision course toward Earth," the report said.

    Other analysts are more skeptical. Eventually, they say, Skype's growth will depend on customers who do not understand peer-to-peer networking or have computer headsets. Moreover, the program works best over broadband connections, which just 16 percent of Americans have at home, according to a May report from the Pew Research Center.

    Hmmm. Nice to try to downplay it, but the music industry sure is in an uproar over something that is mostly only for broadband users who know how to use P2P file sharing...namely the swapping of mp3's...and popular music has a smaller base of interested parties. And I don't see that not having a $10 headset is going to cripple the popularity of this.

    Everyone uses the phone.

  • Accelerated evolution of the net (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Superfreaker ( 581067 ) on Monday October 13, 2003 @09:10AM (#7198738) Homepage Journal
    I use Vonage and it is great, but I have become scared from pending/proposed legislation.

    Looking at the history of the net, everything that lawmakers or big companies try to regulate, only makes that technology evolve faster.

    If Napster had not gotten its butt kicked, then everyone would have been dl'ing just music from a centralized listing server for the past few years, instead, they forced it to evolve into a de-centralized network that you can download everything from.

    Same will happen here hopefully. I used to be scared that they could prevent the free flow of information on the net, but so far, the net has been one step ahead.

  • Whoring-free reg-free link (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13, 2003 @09:11AM (#7198741)
    Support anti-karma-whoring, click this reg-free NYT link [nytimes.com] today!
  • Why can't we just get the google link right out of the gates? Google News [nytimes.com]

  • Errr...Ok, Wait a second. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bowie J. Poag ( 16898 ) on Monday October 13, 2003 @09:17AM (#7198778) Homepage

    Written communication became popular, because it was an improvement over word of mouth. Anyone could learn how to do it. It was free at first, but as it caught on, people payed for the priveledge.

    Telegraphy became popular, because it was an improvement over commication by postal mail. Anybody could set it up. At first, it was free, but soon people payed for the priveledge.

    Telephones became popular, because it was an improvement over communication by telegraph--It circumvented the charges normally associated with communication by wire. And anybody could do it.

    The internet became popular, because it was an improvement over communication by telephone. Relaying information from point to point over a public network was cheaper than calling long-distance, and anybody could do it. Soon, people began paying for the priveldge.

    Given our own track record, what on earth makes you think your VoIP service is going to be free? Like any other service, infrastructure is paid for by those accessing it. The networks that make it happen don't build themselves, you know.

    Its a novelty for now, sure, but 10-20 years from now, you're going to be doing the same thing you're doing now. Paying someone to communicate a message over their medium.

    The idea that VoIP is going to remain a free-as-in-beer alternative to traditional phone networks is a pipe dream. Sure, it's a charmingly optimistic to think so, in a cute sort of pat-you-on-the-head sort of way, but..At the end of the day, the one who pays the piper calls the tune.

    • For the same reason that highways are (for the most part) free, that's why. When communications are viewed as a way to improve commerce, it will be free. (just like highways)
      • To extend your highway analogy - we currently pay for highway access (through taxes) regardless of what we're transporting*. If the phone companies ran the highway system, you're going to pay a different fee to drive four people across town relative to just driving yourself. Same distance, same car, same wear-and-tear on the road system. The only difference is that the 4-person transport has more value to you, and the phone company wants a piece of that.

        The "free" part isn't really free, but rather an u

        • Re: Highway analogy (Score:3, Insightful)

          by phippy ( 176682 )
          I totally agree, and am happy to see someone working in that space make comments like that.

          "the transport company shouldn't care what data I send over the pipe" -- this indeed should be the case, but it's increasingly not. I don't want to digress, but priority is being given not to the type of content (video, audio, web, etc.) like it should, but to the actual content itself, these days.
    • Well, you already pay for your broadband (if not, I salute you :), and you will never have to pay for software (in case your SIP client goes commercial, you will be able to switch to another OSS client), so how exactly do you figure you will have to pay more than you already pay today?
    • There's a key difference in VoIP -- it is a very small bandwidth requirement, and other (for-pay) services are driving the installation of very high-bandwidth infrastructure.
      Analogies are hard to come by because it's an environment without many parallels. Certainly it won't be free to get broadband just to use VoIP, but if Charter is able to bill you $100+ for your ultra-premium digital cable TV with 10M internet access, do you think it's worth the overhead to try to meter and bill for an additional buck
      • but if Charter is able to bill you $100+ for your ultra-premium digital cable TV with 10M internet access, do you think it's worth the overhead to try to meter and bill for an additional buck or two of VoIP usage each month?

        But that's not thinking like a telecommunications executive. You're trying to base the price of the service on what it costs the ISP. OTOH, most every business tries to base the price on the value of the service to the customer.

        For example, airlines have figured out fairly reliable w

      • No, VOIP isn't free as in beer, but it's at least cheap as in drinking water. Most of the water you use in your house is for showers, toilets, and dishwashers, and the bit of extra that you actually drink doesn't change the total cost significantly (unless you're one of those environment-hostile Californians who insists on buying it in plastic bottles.) In particular, it doesn't make sense to radically increase the cost of billing to keep track of which bits are VOIP vs. web. A typical VOIP call uses
    • We already have to pay an ISP for the connection and for transferring data over the network. Free in this case means at no additional charge.
    • Since e-mail is an improvement over snail-mail (and possibly phone-alls), do you see everyone paying for it?

      While all the previous improvements you mentioned needed new infrastructure, e-mail and VOIP do NOT!! Introducing new applications on the Internet is easy! That's where the end-to-end, dumb network, smart edge nature of the Internet shines!! And that, my friend is where your analogy breaks down.
    • Sorry, have to disagree, at least in part. We're already paying an ISP to carry our traffic over their medium. They don't care if that traffic happens to be VoIP, nor should they. You don't have to pay extra to your ISP to fire up an AIM voice connection, or to connect to a NetMeeting server, or to play an FPS game for that matter.

      In other words, we're already paying the piper. There will always be gratis VoIP, as long as there's an RFC and a competent coder somewhere in the world.

    • This is, without a doubt, the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Written communication was only ever "free" if you had a servant to go deliver the letter for you. Now that we don't have servants, you have to pay the post office instead, or of course, you could always drop the letter off yourself.

      I admit that I don't know anything about the history of the telegraph, but the telephone was never cheap. In fact, in its infancy, the telephone was so expensive that some thought it would only be useful as a

    • Basically, you're arguing that I'll have to pay for internet connectivity. I already do that. What does VoIP have to do with it? If they try to stop VoIP, it will just evolve as P2P had to do. If everything is encrypted, then will it be easy to distinguish "good" internet traffic (i.e. Microsoft Longhorn DRM, advertising, selling, consuming, etc.) from "bad" internet traffic (i.e. people trying to communicate, joke, gossip, circulate news, entertain themselves, etc.).

      • Considering that people, to this day, line up and pay hand-over-fist for DSL connectivity----A technology that requires absolutely no physical changes (at the consumer level) to existing telephone infrastructure, and causes no greater strain to the system to have.... ....Yup. I'd say people will ultimately get suckered into paying for it. And people will pay for VoIP too.

        Between the inately human need to have more, and the voice of advertising continually telling people that what they have isn't good enoug
        • don't be so hasty. people don't pay for content, yet the medium (at the "consumer level") is unchanged...the Internet.

          VoIP won't be making money anytime soon, and I suspect it won't ever. If you feel like being educated, I'll explain why.

  • I have the right to free speach (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kfg ( 145172 ) on Monday October 13, 2003 @09:18AM (#7198783)
    That doesn't mean simply the expression of ideas, but also in what manner I express those ideas.

    That includes whatever particular language or encoding system I desire to use.

    If the FBI wishes to to figure out what my speach means, well, that's up to them kid.

    I also have the right to be secure in my papers. Even if those "papers" are digital and I cannot be forced to testify against myself.

    Again, the FBI can go scratch.

    Once upon a time until a judge agreed that there was sufficient evidence that I had actually commited a crime the FBI had no right to even question my speach or papers in the first place.

    Ah, thank God we're fighting for "freedom" now and homey don't play that shit anymore, eh?

    KFG
    • > That doesn't mean simply the expression of ideas, but also in what manner I express those ideas.
      >
      > That includes whatever particular language or encoding system I desire to use.
      >
      > If the FBI wishes to to figure out what my speach means, well, that's up to them kid.

      Yep. Of course, the FBI also has the right to ask Congress to require that your speect be wiretappable. Or rather to use one of the many laws that Congress has already passed to that effect - and merely start enforcing it.

      • "Now looky here boy. Ya ain't under oath. Hell, we ain't even accused ya of a crime yet, so ya can just stuff all that Fifth Ammendment malarky. Ya gots to tell us whether ya did it or not."

        "Bite me."

        "Damn, we didn't count on that."

        KFG
      • You've been listening to Dick Cheney again, haven't you?
      • If your "freedom" only resulted in you being buried under tons of radioactive rubble, I'd be all for it. But when your "freedom" and "rights" have the potential to enable our enemies to slaughter millions of your countrymen alongside you, perhaps it's time to reconsider.

        He who gives up essential liberty for a little temporary security deserves neither liberty nor security. - Benjamin Franklin

        Like it or not, some of us still believe in the principles that this country was founded on. What was used in th
        • > if you look at what the patriot act has been used for, it's being used not in hunting down terrorists, but for cyber-crime and drug lords,

          Patrick Henry didn't say "Give me skr1pt-k1ddi3z hopped up on h4xr03d-sudafed or give me death".

          > The government's tools of data extraction have gotten better; we need better ways to keep ourselves safe. I'm not perfect, none of us are.

          Then perhaps it's time to start rethinking our priorities and working towards perfection. If we cannot behav

    • You may BELIEVE you have free speech, that is guaranteed by the constitution, but you don't.

      You see, they have passed legislation that nullifies the constitution.. time and time again.

      And no one stood up to refuse to stand for it. Everyone rolled over and took a reduction in freedom for a perceived increase in security..

      Now we are all paying the price... soon even the common man will realize it. And hopefully stand up to fight to regain control.

      Retaining freedom is only achieved thru constant diligence.
    • This is slightly OT but I've noticed people spelling "speech" as "speach" (and one of your responders spelled it "speect").

      Why do people do that? I've never seen it discussed but I'd imagine it's from a fear of Echelon-type systems, so they deliberately misspell the word so Big Brother doesn't pick up on the fact that the citizens are discussing their rights.

      However, if that's the case, don't you think there are human monitors as well, who watch for things like that and can add "words to look for" to t

  • translate voice text voice be better? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by thenarftwit ( 575271 ) on Monday October 13, 2003 @09:30AM (#7198850)
    If PC's were used to translate voice to text (voice recognition)and at the recieving end, translate the text to voice (voice sythesis), wouldn't the resulting data stream be small text packets that could be easily encoded/decoded and/or hidden in creative ways plus the result would be smaller amount of data to send over the net? (thesound may not be the original speaker, but it may sound cool, and also, the computers could interact with the parties as the decoded text strings could now be recognized by computer programs and the computers could resond to you too, sort of like an application where you could talk to and get a response from search engines (or other computer entities (CYC?, like ask.com) on the net?
    • This may seem interesting, but speech recognition would not work because you would end up transmitting the wrong message most of the time with it. It just doen't work good enough to be used like this. Test it yourself. Get AIM, a text-to-speech program, and a speech recognition program and see how accurate it can be.
    • This is an idea that has been thought of before, but currently there isn't enough CPU horsepower to really enable it to work well. First of all, the encoding software would need at least 3 different fuzzy logic/artificial intelligence type systems to properly encode your voice. It has to be able to train itself to your vocal cadences over a period of time (say, by using an introduction paragraph that you read and it knows the words from). Secondly, it has to be 100% certain what words you are saying. Th
      • They've done some work with speec recognition by looking for phonemes rather than whole words. This is a much simpler task and computers can do it with greater reliability. This stream of syllables would be just as bandwidth-saving as word recognition and be even more reliable on the text-to-speech side.
  • That isnt allowed any longer in this world by our governments. What were they thinking?

    When they all goto prison for supporting terrorist activities ( you know.. if you want to encrypt you HAVE to be a terrorist ), i guess that ends Kazaa too. All the RIAA has to do now is be patient.
  • Too late. Even if the FBI/Homeland Security/whomever pushes to have a service like Skype regulated, it is already too late to stop the explosion of encrypted communications. Who is to say that a bunch of radicals cannot create their own messaging application/protocol and use it to communicate, headless of all calls for supervision? Other than blocking protocols universally, or breaking encryption, those agencies are going to have to come to terms with the way things are going to be.

    Instead of trying to c

  • i am phoning over the net for years using icq and MS netmeeting.
  • Probably the most replys will be about the spyware in kazaa.

    This was added by Sharman Networks and was never intended when the original developers made kazaa. They sold it to an interested company (Sharman Networks) which in it's turn abused it.

    Second, kazaa was not intended as a tool for illegal fileswapping. It got abused for that because it was possible.

    That being said, Skype looks promising if they make the crossplatform thing work (SIP and POTS).

    Hopefully they will be able to churn out a Linux and
    • > Second, kazaa was not intended as a tool for illegal fileswapping.
      > It got abused for that because it was possible.

      Rubbish. Even in the original Kazaa, the whole user interface is designed to let you easily find illegal files (having sections for software/mp3/video etc). Hardly ever does anyone download an MP3 completely legimately - if someone's making a program to let people swap MP3's, they know exactly what it's going to be used for.

  • Very Disruptive Technology (Score:4, Interesting)

    by esconsult1 ( 203878 ) on Monday October 13, 2003 @09:49AM (#7198971) Homepage Journal
    This technology has the potential to be extremely dispruptive! With Kazaa's user base, you're looking at potential users into the tens of millions worldwide very shortly.

    Countries like my previous home of Jamaica, who have a telephone monopoly, are already banning VOIP because it cuts into C&W's telephone revenue. In fact, in the past, there have been police and telecom raids on VOIP users there.

    In Jamaica, broadband (including DSL, Wireless Broadband, Satellite Broadband, T1) are being rapidly deployed and the cost is becoming even reasonable. What are the implications of Technology like Skype?

    • No central authority to bill or control calls
    • Any computer user with 56K and upwards can probably use it
    • Not easy (legally) for computer authorities to prevent data transfer between two computer users.
    • Not so easy to block ports, since they change
    • Cannot block IP address ranges
    • Joe sixpack will learn more about VOIP
    The only way around this is to outlaw use of the software and shut down the site, but the cat is already out of the bag. If you really think about this, if this technology catches on, then its a bit bite in the chunk of traditional phone company revenue. Is bandwidth costs going to rise as phone companies depend more on that for revenue?

    At the very least, Skype is going to make introduction of VOIP to the masses super easy. I wish them luck, and I wish that the Phone companies will take their heads out of the sand for a few minutes to see the lay of the land.

  • While some people may complain about it, I have been happy with my first month of using Vonage. I don't make a bunch of phone calls from home typically. In fact, I had really cut back to mostly cell phone usage, but was eating my minutes rapidly on business calls, so decided to give vonage a try to see about the quality and try and dump SBC for good.

    Well, after a month of use, I've been fairly happy with it. There have been a few hiccups in communication, but that was mostly related to using eMule with
  • And I was surprised at the voice quality which I got with a simple dialup connection. It wasn't better than phone as skype claims but it sure was good enough. I could hear everything clearly and the lag was negligible. The only problem was that the connection kept gettting dropped, no idea why, but I still managed to get about 15 minutes call between each drop so it wasn't that bad. So yes this technology does have a future. As far as inability to snoop, I don't think it is relevant. I mean it can only matt

  • Other Encryption (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Monday October 13, 2003 @10:34AM (#7199281) Homepage Journal
    Are we seeing the beginnings of a total ban on encryption? The concept of 'secure communications' is nothing new.

    Remember that we encrypt mail, files, data streams.. even IM messages, already..

    I wonder if the HSD/FBI/etc will start moving to squelch that as well.. ' for our protection '
  • Eventually you will see one pipeline into your home that will provide your TV, HS internet, phone all on one bill. Whether this comes from satillite or a fiberoptic, or even some other kind of WiFI technology is wait and see. But when that happens, VoIP will proably be the standard for voice communications.

    As for the FBI, I guess the NSA still isn't sharing their decryption technology. I always here the, "Don't wiretap me" arguement, but anytime some Mob ring is busted through wiretaps John Q. Public s

  • The government doesnt have this right. If I choose to use heavy encryption then its my business. If I demand powerful encryption from my VoIP provider then they should be able to deliver the goods without fear of a government legal attack.

    We've been down this road before with SSL key-size and other attempts to muzzle crypto. The genie is out of the bottle and the government cannot/shouldn't outlaw something just because it has potential criminal uses.

    Then again with Bush and Ashcroft at the wheel it cou

  • hmmm (Score:2)

    by rnd() ( 118781 )
    I installed skype on my PC, thinking I'd help out with the p2p infrastructure, but there is NO traffic coming across, despite the fact that the client says there are 7K users active...
  • Blah. All services should communicate over encrypted channels. Terrorists will use encryption even if it's illegal, as they don't refrain from planting bombs and killing people. So fuck wiretaps. It won't make me more secure if the FBI wiretaps people.
  • How are these guys planning to make any money? So why not GPL the code if it's soooo free?

Slashdot Top Deals

Garbage In -- Gospel Out.

Close