Congress May Finally Be Allowed To Use Skype To Talk To Constituents
from the and-these-people-regulate-us dept
Ah, Congress. It's really amazing how the folks in charge of regulating the technology industry basically aren't allowed to use it. Two years ago, we wrote about concerns among some in Congress, that using YouTube violated House rules. Later that year, a slightly misguided flare-up occurred when folks realized that the rules also forbade the use of Twitter (the misguided part was an attempt to turn it into a partisan thing). Eventually these things got sorted out, but basically, it appears that Congressional reps can't use certain new technologies without first getting those technologies approved.The latest on the list? Skype. Despite having been around much longer than either YouTube or Twitter, apparently Skype is not on the approved list. There's now a push for Skype to be allowed, so that Congressional reps can chat with constituents using the communications tool.
The whole thing seems ridiculous. Did Congress also have to get approval before Representatives were allowed to use the telephone? It's difficult to understand why forward-looking elected officials need to get special permission to try out communication tools that can help them better represent their constituents.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: congress, politicians, skype
Companies: skype
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Constituents?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Constituents?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Constituents?
Skype is an appropriate method of communication for Town Hall type meetings, but not for classified conversations. If Congressmen discuss classified subjects via Skype they should be disciplined for disclosing classified material, not for using Skype.
If a Congressman doesn't have the ability to determine what is an appropriate method of communication for a particular topic, I don't want him/her representing me, regardless of political views.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Constituents?
That extra 'e' turns the entire sentence into a very disturbing analogy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Constituents?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Constituents?
If I had to guess, I would say Skype would not be the worst security problem on a Senator's machine, or even close to the top of the list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Constituents?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Constituents?
Yes.
Oh good, I guess there's nothing to worry about. A company assures us their product is totally secure and has no vulnerabilities. I'm sure they would mention it prominently if there were any legitimate security concerns, right?
Right?
Of course since it's closed source we have to decide whether to just take their word for it.
I'm not saying Skype isn't secure - I don't know. All I'm saying is that whether it's as solid as a bank vault or as flimsy as Swiss cheese, Skype's answer to the security question would be the same. So pointing to your own blog as "evidence" of Skype's security is ridiculous. Maybe that flies with the mainstream media, but people around here are a little smarter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Constituents?
the DOD has non-classified equipment, denoted by green stickers, and classified equipment, denoted by red stickers.
they do the same thing with unsecured phones, and secured (cryptographic) phones. in certain circles it's normal for people to work the phrase "this line is unsecured" into the telephone greeting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mikey is a tech moron
Use it all you want at home but do not install it on your government computer or you get fired
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A combination of reasons
1. Can a chain of accountability for communications be maintained? In other words, is there a mechanism for maintaining a copy/recording of the communications made by the representative or senator?
2. Can the communications channel be secured? How easy is it for the representative/senator to distinguish when the channel is secure?
Between these two points, a service like Skype might not serve the public interests very well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A combination of reasons
The biggest reasons for disallowing any particular form of communication centers on two premises.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A combination of reasons
1. Is there a mechanism for copying/recording that? No.
2. Is that secure? No.
Seriously. No one is saying they shouldn't be careful. Just that's it is a useful way to communicate info. If someone is technologically incapable enough to spill national secrets over skype, well that secret wasn't going to stay quiet very long anyway.
You don't ban senators from posting on facebook because they might accidentally mention the 47 trillion dollar super ion beam gun that we just built.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ROFLMAO ... You really have gotten funny recently ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Surprising
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did they ask a hacker?
Also - What is the "business need" to use Skype? (or youtube, or twitter?) They need to quit messing around and pay attention to their work - that is what we are paying them for!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Did they ask a hacker?
Paying attention to constituents is part of their work, and that is part of what they are trying to do. You're not suggesting congresscritters should not talk to anybody, are you? Or do you assume "twitter" and "skype" mean "messing around", and can't be used for "work"? Because I assure you that is not the case.
I'll get off your lawn now. ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is Skype worthy?
First, Congress made its own rules under the Privacy Act, Computer Security Act, Computer Matching Act, and the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. Records entrusted to the Federal Government must be kept safe and revealed only when duly authorized.
Skype uses your computer as a node in a stateless nodal topology, so your bandwidth is shared by any skype user, whether here in the US or China. Congress has the obligation to efficiently use its resources (so they tell us in the Clinger-Cohen Act), and giving away bandwidth to anyone is irresponsible. This means the entire Congressional network is available for anyone wishing to send a Skype session to anyone on the planet, friend or foe.
Skype submitted its encryption to NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) and was immediately cracked "in a trivial effort". So anything you want to share with your Congressman is shared with potentially anyone you'd prefer NOT to share with. Since Sype is P2P (made by the same company that made Napster), that node share and video/audio stream have dubious protection because of the weak encryption and mesh network that allows exploitation of any weak link of opportunity. Basically, Skype states it uses 256 bit encryption, but actually uses 6 sets of 64 bit encryption (according to NIST) which is far weaker. The argument from another poster regarding a conversation on the Hill steps is not a fair comparison because that person has identity credentials available for checking and the scope of the conversation is limited by the knowledge you are in public and subject to overhearing.
In this case Congress is acting in the public's best interest. Skype has a very long way to go before earning our trust.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is Skype worthy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]