I was inspecting Skype terms and condition
http://www.skype.com/en/legal/tou/#15
[...]We will process your personal information, the traffic data and
the content of your communication(s) in accordance with our Privacy
Policy:http://www.skype.com/go/privacy.;
i think we are having a misunderstanding here.
any sort of opt-in or opt out doesn't work in the account takeover scenario,
which is
very common these days.
the bad guy will always have a relationship through the buddy list, which is
exactly
why they are using taken over accounts.
the
Mark Seiden:
i think we are having a misunderstanding here.
any sort of opt-in or opt out doesn't work in the account takeover scenario,
which is
very common these days.
the bad guy will always have a relationship through the buddy list, which is
exactly
why they are using taken over
On 19/05/13 00:29 AM, Ethan Heilman wrote:
Actually I think that was the point, as far as anyone knew and from the last
published semi-independent review (some years ago on the crypto list as I
recall) it indeed was end2end secure.
Skype has never claimed it is end to end secure ...
I
[3] E.g., as John reported, a clear case of non-intelligence low-bar
availability for a routine prosecution of some random journeyman level
scumbags. John, if you're still suffering our questions, was your case
civil or criminal?
Criminal, US vs. Christopher Rad.
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 6:06 AM, Ben Laurie b...@links.org wrote:
On 17 May 2013 11:39, d...@geer.org wrote:
Trust but verify is dead.
Maybe for s/w, but not everything:
http://www.links.org/files/CertificateTransparencyVersion2.1a.pdf
Which requires s/w. Infinite loop detected.
:)
More
On 20 May 2013 17:35, Nico Williams n...@cryptonector.com wrote:
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 6:06 AM, Ben Laurie b...@links.org wrote:
On 17 May 2013 11:39, d...@geer.org wrote:
Trust but verify is dead.
Maybe for s/w, but not everything:
(i know that at least jake and ian understand all the nuances here, probably
better than me.)
bus still, i would like you to consider, for a moment, this question:
suppose there were a service that intentionally wanted to protect recipients of
communications
from malicious traffic? when i
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Mark Seiden m...@seiden.com wrote:
any mechanism to do this (that i could think of, anyway) presents a possible
risk to
those communicants who want no attributable state saved about their
communication.
either these are privacy freaks (not intended
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Adam Back a...@cypherspace.org wrote:
Actually I think that was the point, as far as anyone knew and from the last
published semi-independent review (some years ago on the crypto list as I
recall) it indeed was end2end secure. Many IM systems are not end2end so
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Jeffrey Walton noloa...@gmail.com wrote:
The original Skype homepage (circa 2003/2004) claims the service is
secure: Skype calls have excellent sound quality and are highly
secure with end-to-end encryption.
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Nico Williams n...@cryptonector.com wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Jeffrey Walton noloa...@gmail.com wrote:
The original Skype homepage (circa 2003/2004) claims the service is
secure: Skype calls have excellent sound quality and are highly
secure with
James A. Donald:
On 2013-05-20 7:49 PM, Mark Seiden wrote:
i think we are having a misunderstanding here.
any sort of opt-in or opt out doesn't work in the account takeover
scenario, which is
very common these days.
No one on my buddy list has been taken over, or if they have, they took
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:46:55AM +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
On 2013-05-20 7:49 PM, Mark Seiden wrote:
i think we are having a misunderstanding here.
any sort of opt-in or opt out doesn't work in the account takeover scenario,
which is
very common these days.
No one on my buddy list
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Jacob Appelbaum ja...@appelbaum.net wrote:
James A. Donald:
...
Zombie computers are seldom of high value.
Some malware is designed to keep people communicating, under heavy
watch; it is not always designed to abuse a system the traditional
manner befitting
James A. Donald:
No one on my buddy list has been taken over, or if they have, they
took care of it before I noticed.
On 2013-05-21 10:55 AM, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
That is - how would they notice and if they were being logged, how would
*you* notice on your end?
I would notice, because
James A. Donald:
James A. Donald:
No one on my buddy list has been taken over, or if they have, they
took care of it before I noticed.
On 2013-05-21 10:55 AM, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
That is - how would they notice and if they were being logged, how would
*you* notice on your end?
I
On 2013-05-21 3:08 AM, Mark Seiden wrote:
(i know that at least jake and ian understand all the nuances here, probably
better than me.)
bus still, i would like you to consider, for a moment, this question:
suppose there were a service that intentionally wanted to protect recipients of
On 2013-05-21 4:50 AM, Mark Seiden wrote:
you can advise whatever you fancy, but skype, google, microsoft are unlikely
to agree to any such thing unless your client is a Really Big company who
pays them a lot of money. and why should they even bother their lawyers?
pretty much, their service Is
Gmail only keeps in the clear what you leave in the clear.
s/a hostile act/less useful to power users than filter but notify
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 8:48 PM, James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote:
On 2013-05-21 3:08 AM, Mark Seiden wrote:
(i know that at least jake and ian understand all
On 2013-05-21 12:41 PM, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
James A. Donald:
James A. Donald:
No one on my buddy list has been taken over, or if they have, they
took care of it before I noticed.
On 2013-05-21 10:55 AM, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
That is - how would they notice and if they were being logged,
21 matches
Mail list logo
