The Latest Leaks Contradict Claims Made In Microsoft's Own 'Law Enforcement Requests Report'
from the protecting-your-privacy-except-for-these-large-exceptions dept
The Guardian's recent revelations of Microsoft's very cozy "teamwork" with the NSA and FBI rendered many of the software giant's statements on privacy completely hollow. Among the details leaked was the surprising amount of access to Skype Microsoft provided to these agencies.
One document boasts that Prism monitoring of Skype video production has roughly tripled since a new capability was added on 14 July 2012. "The audio portions of these sessions have been processed correctly all along, but without the accompanying video. Now, analysts will have the complete 'picture'," it says.This document seems to contradict Microsoft's statement on Skype in March of this year in its 2012 Law Enforcement Requests Report.
Eight months before being bought by Microsoft, Skype joined the Prism program in February 2011.
According to the NSA documents, work had begun on smoothly integrating Skype into Prism in November 2010, but it was not until 4 February 2011 that the company was served with a directive to comply signed by the attorney general.
The NSA was able to start tasking Skype communications the following day, and collection began on 6 February. "Feedback indicated that a collected Skype call was very clear and the metadata looked complete," the document stated, praising the co-operation between NSA teams and the FBI. "Collaborative teamwork was the key to the successful addition of another provider to the Prism system."
Skype received 4,713 requests from law enforcement. Those requests impacted 15,409 accounts or other identifiers, such as a PSTN number. Skype produced no content in response to these requests, but did provide non-content data, such as a SkypeID, name, email account, billing information and call detail records if a user subscribed to the Skype In/Online service, which connects to a telephone number.[All emphasis in the original.]
Perhaps "producing content" means something different to Microsoft than it does the NSA, or the general public for that matter. The leaked documents state "Skype video production has roughly tripled since July 2012" with the agent noting they've been collecting audio all along.
No doubt this discrepancy will be greeted with a semantic discussion, involving different ways of interpreting words like "producing" or "content." Perhaps Microsoft feels providing direct access isn't the same as "producing content." Or maybe Microsoft means it just hasn't produced content for law enforcement, and anything given to the FBI falls outside of its definition of that term. But if the FBI's requests are considered to be outside the definition of "law enforcement," Microsoft confuses the issue early in its report by referring to content disclosed to governments.
It’s insightful, I believe, to look at the governments to whom customer content was disclosed. Of the 1,558 disclosures of customer content, more than 99 percent were in response to lawful warrants from courts in the United States. In fact, there were only 14 disclosures of customer content to governments outside the United States. These were to governments in Brazil, Ireland, Canada and New Zealand.Obviously, Microsoft isn't allowed to discuss much of its work with the NSA and the FBI, but the disclosure here makes it sound as if it's safeguarding the privacy of Skype users, when in reality it's simply holding the door open for the feds.
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: law enforcement, nsa surveillance, skype, surveillance
Companies: microsoft, skype
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YEAH, and Google is lying TOO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: YEAH, and Google is lying TOO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: YEAH, and Google is lying TOO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: YEAH, and Google is lying TOO.
FTFY. Further jokes involving spanking are intended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll tell you where - NOWHERE. The less than 1 percent is just so it doesn't seem like Microsoft is giving them COMPLETE CONTROL and access, but that's exactly what they're doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Kinect cannot discriminate between law enforcement and rogue policy makers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In Microsoft's defense
And sadly, even if Skype had never been bought by Microsoft in the first place, it was already participating in the PRISM program (having joined the program 8 months prior to its acquisition by Microsoft).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In Microsoft's defense
And this fact was not unbeknownst to Microsoft, who purchased it regardless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In Microsoft's defense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In Microsoft's defense
I never trusted or used a proxy called hidemyass either, and I was right about that too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In Microsoft's defense
That is unless there is a secret interpretation of SEC regulations that the public isn't allowed to know about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In Microsoft's defense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which begs the question: Is a stateless corporation possible? What would it look like? Do you have to be a criminal if you prefer to work without government oversight?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I personally giggled while going through this thought process =/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only reason every Skype user needs an account is so that the main server can track IP addresses and match them up with names, so that when you tell it to "call" one of your contacts, it knows what IP address to use. This lets the company easily track all calls.
A secure VOIP app, besides using strong public-key encryption, would require the user to directly enter the IP address of the person they want to contact, and then would connect directly to that address. To do this, the program could use one of the publicly available sites that return your IP address when you access them to tell the user what IP address to give to their friend. Of course, this would require that one person send an email to the other with the IP address to use, if it's changed from the last time they talked, but there wouldn't be one central organization that could track where and when each call was made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who watches the watchers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]