Under the DMCA, you are compliant if you remove infringing content *when asked to by the supposed 'owner'*. YouTube does.
In any case, it's a bit of a diversion away from the core message: if ye want to chat about biohacking or whatever with friends, use Jitsi, not Skype or Google Whatever. Don't trust companies to protect you; even if they wanted to, they can be forced to betray you easily enough.
Jonathan Cline <jncline@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, May 17, 2013 11:52:10 PM UTC-7, eleitl wrote:On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 04:38:48PM -0700, Jonathan Cline wrote:
> Because the open source clients are peer-to-peer: therefore are safer (more
> private and secure). They don't go through a central server (like
> Microsoft-Skype does now). Originally, skype was peer-to-peer,
> specifically by design (including to ensure privacy, specifically), but as
> part of the Microsoft acquisition, Skype apps now route traffic through
> Microsoft central server(s). Skype was originally written to behave like
> a torrent client (in fact, by the same hackers; see Kazaa) where traffic
> patterns/routes are indeterminate and encrypted, i.e. conversations would
> be inherently untraceable and secure (private) between only the parties
> involved. Too bad that Microsoft has twisted the technology into
> unusability (history repeats itself!).
As a company you're required to comply with all kinds of regulations
and off-the-record pressure and will be shut down or fined if you
don't comply.
The above is not really true in the real world. Corporations only need to appear to follow the law -- they don't need to actually follow it. If corporations really followed the law, then youtube would not exist. Youtube's original founders (Napster) apparently revelled in the idea of it being used for video piracy and music piracy. In the early days of youtube the site was primarily stolen music videos and stolen music tracks for fan-made videos. Youtube apparently ignored copyright law and only said it was complying with the law, when it was obvious that it was not. After the acquisition by Google, there were more promises of compliance, and some apparently random enforcement, yet still today nearly the entire site is an example of music piracy. Other video sites which did strictly comply with the law (vimeo, blip, ..) were not as successful as youtube for obvious reasons (copyright violations resulted in instant video takedowns and account removal, so they weren't as popular), and as a result these companies were not acquired by Google. Google has apparently been able to avoid the off-the-record pressure you refer to, and basically keep up it's illegal practices. Copyright law is law. Good law or bad law, it is law. Perfect example of a corporation internally ignoring the law while publicly claiming compliance.
So there is no reason to believe that, if Microsoft really wanted to, they couldn't somehow maintain that Skype needs to remain completely encrypted, anonymously-routed, peer-to-peer technology, and as a result, ensure privacy to the end users, or only for internet chats & calls which don't terminate to the FCC-regulated PSTN. Obviously this privacy is not important to Microsoft. In fact, Microsoft probably wants to spy on chat links and chat conversations and voice conversations, much like Google wanted to spy on all available wifi networks while roaming around the streets of Europe with their mapping cars. It's data, for the big data machines to use.
## Jonathan Cline
## jcline@ieee.org
## Mobile: +1-805-617-0223
########################
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
0 comments:
Post a Comment