[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: What is the matter with the "http://people.debian.org/~rafael/skype-amd64/"?



On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 01:55:57PM +0400, James Brown wrote:
> Becouse it I think it needs to build new system of internet telephony
> like skype but running under open sourse programs and protocols.
> I think it need that new open-source built VoIP network system will
> operate on a peer-to-peer model, that user directory will be entirely
> decentralized and distributed among the nodes in the network, and use
> encrypted connection insluding connetion with the exit node when making
> calls to ordinary telephones.
> I think that building such system will protect anonymity and privacy of
> people and independence each of us from goverments, corporations etc.
> control, becouse we will be able to call each other without any state or
> corporate control over our telephone calls.
> But now it is not exist any such VoIP system based on open sourses.
> I really don't trust skype but I know that today any secret services of
> Russia cannot establish real control skype-connections. I know it from
> the officers of the Russian FSB which really interested (on corruption
> base) to find one user of skype and didn't be able to do it.
> But I am not sure that tomorrow the skype team or the US' security
> services (which perhaps execute control over the skype team) will not
> give information about skype users and their contacts to the Russia
> authorities.
> Furtherinafter, I (and each of us, I think) want to  be able  having
> connections with other people  absolutely  free from any control neither
> only Russian authorities  nor any state secret services and any
> corporations and groups of people existing in the world.

The fact skype is p2p is part of why I hate it.  It is a complete
nightmare to try and deal with on company networks.  Trying to allow
skype (because some people insist on it being amazingly useful) while
blocking other p2p traffic is very very hard.

-- 
Len Sorensen


Reply to: