‘Revolutionary’ eavesdropping technology patent to help governments monitor Internet chats
November 23, 2012
(Credit: Frederic Guimont/Wikimedia Commons)
According to law enforcement agencies, the rising popularity of Internet chat services like Skype has made it difficult to eavesdrop on suspects’ communications.
But now, Dennis Chang, president of Sun Valley-based VOIP-Pal, has received a patent for a “legal intercept” technology that Chang says “would allow government agencies to ‘silently record’ VoIP communications,” Slate Future Tense reports.
Voice over IP chat software allows people to make phone calls over the Internet by converting analog audio signals into digital data packets. Because of the way the packets are sent over the Web, sometimes by a “peer-to-peer” connection, it can be complex and costly for law enforcement agencies to listen in on them. This has previously led some countries, like Ethiopia and Oman, to block VoIP services on “security” grounds.
Now, with this new technology, suspects whom authorities wanted to monitor could be identified through their username and subscriber data, or by billing records that associate names and addresses with usernames, making not only calls but “any other data streams such as pure data and/or video or multimedia data” available for interception.
Microsoft has filed a similar patent for “legal intercept” technology designed to be used with VoIP services like Skype to “silently copy communication transmitted via the communication session.”
Meanwhile, civil liberties and privacy concerns over increasing levels of surveillance have sparked huge interest in new encrypted communications platforms, deliberately designed to shield users from potential monitoring.
Comments (17)
by Thomas
If I believed in hell, I would wish Dennis Chang a very special place there, as he is complicit in, and profiting by, the further grinding down of American citizen’s fundamental rights and liberties.
by Brian Roberts
Is there ANY intrusive technology that people WONT tolerate?
by Christian Gehman
Thank God Big Brother is watching YOU.
by narcis
but it has been proven that you cannot totally trust goverments as it is made of individuals, “humans” in the negative sens, full of greed and selvishness and that even if they “represent” you they mainly represent sef-interest. Not ALL are “ad” but the ones in command i have strong doubts through experience….why should i leave a trace as an eail ads??
by Art White
The answer to 1984 is 1776.
by Christian Gehman
How little you have heard about the many observations of our current security state’s truly appalling behavior, not only in America but around the world. Snooping into private lives does not create security; peace and prosperity for all create security. And you might refresh your understanding of the current criminal tax regime at http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/ad-lib/2011/apr/10/tax-evaders-wall-shame/ … and keep in mind that blinkered jingoism is not much like patriotism.
by klaatu
“Compliance” (rent the recent movie)
PEOPLE AQUIESCE & who can blame them…
particularly those who are brought up in authoritarian
societies where ppl bow to offset aggressiveness. The ones
who are almost afraid of their military cultures. They create
barriers to keep them contained…for awhile.
by Dan Robinson
I generally assume what I send, and maybe what I type and don’t knowingly send, might be monitored by unknown persons. I’m not concerned about them reading it, just what they may decide to do about it.
by Bri
The government has always had the rights to spy on you if there is probable cause. There is judicial oversight that is supposed to keep the innocent from being abused. Bush changed that to a more direct format. They can get the judicial oversight after the fact. Both systems can be abused. It’s the oversight to prevent wrong doing that needs to be strengthened. People don’t understand the limitations on freedom. You aren’t free to do anything. You can’t just build a structure. It could collapse and kill people, so we have building codes. You can’t just build a bomb or rocket for similiar reasons. You may think that you own your land but in reality it’s more like a condo. There are all sorts of agreements that you make that limit your freedom. It has to be that way. Ultimately the government has immenant domain. In reality it’s not that different from serfs renting property from a king. If you don’t pay your taxes or do something outside of the needs of the society your a part of, you’ll loose your rights of ownership. All these restrictions carry over into every activity that you do. From driving to talking on the phone. There are good reasons for these restrictions. What we need to worry about is the abuse of the governments rights and powers.
by Christian Gehman
Liberty, which is what you seem to be writing about, is the freedom to do what doesn’t injure others. Government snooping injures every citizen in America. Big Brother used to Xray your mail. Now he just snoops your email, your chats, your search history, while merrily siphoning your phone conversations off the fiber links that connect us. There’s neither any indication that the flow of big money in this direction — government snooping intrusions into our private lives — is going to diminish, nor any indication that it makes any of us safer in our homes: so, could it be that the reverse is true?
by Jon Lebkowsky
VOIP != chat.
by Marcos Marin
chat != chat
by ricksittel
The Key words here are: “identified through their username and subscriber data, or by billing records that associate names and addresses with usernames”. As long as you open a new account before you make a phone call, you have nothing to worry about. Only dumb criminals will be caught with this software, really, really, dumb ones
by steve
If you realise that Rick than you should be able to make the leap and realise its probably not for criminals after all.
by Marcos Marin
not yet;-)
by Gorden Russell
Oh, ya gotta love Big Brother. Really! You have got to.
by Marcos Marin
I guess this proves yesterday’s ‘psychotics’ article?=)