Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

96 comments

"Made available?" (1)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 3 years ago | (#36596794)

I can only assume they mean "made available" on computers supplied to them. No reason they couldn't already be using this on their own computers. Although, I do wonder what kind of restrictions the IT staff has at the Capitol building.

Re:"Made available?" (1)

SeeSp0tRun (1270464) | more than 3 years ago | (#36596858)

It was previously unavailable on the Federal Internet. It's a need-to-know basis kind of thing.

Re:"Made available?" (2)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36599534)

The congressional internet is not the federal internet.

The real deal here is that now Skype is owned by a company that can install all the backdoors that the Feds have wanted over the years.

Re:"Made available?" (1)

gedw99 (1597337) | more than 3 years ago | (#36599804)

exactly.

skype was properly protected from prying government eyes. MS will open the flood gates, and in return get more uptake from the government sectors.
Corporates with anything to hid will run back to blackberries

g

Re:"Made available?" (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#36601620)

skype was properly protected from prying government eyes.

[Citation--- you know the rest.]

Surely there's some Open Source tool they could use? Of course SIP and strong encryption are easy to put together, the real benefit of Skype is the phonebook service mapping names to their Internet locations. All other OSS video solutions I'm aware of require knowing an IP addy/domain name/URL for your destination.

Re:"Made available?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36596886)

It isn't free once you go beyond 2 computers on a teleconference, so maybe it means they are buying a license for them to use "Group Video":

Description of Skype's Group Video Feature [skype.com]

Re:"Made available?" (2)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 3 years ago | (#36597230)

Anthony Weiner is up for it!

Re:"Made available?" (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36597392)

Anthony's Weiner is up for it!

FTFY

Re:"Made available?" (1)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 3 years ago | (#36597288)

FTA:

Members and staff can now use popular video teleconferencing services within the House network to communicate with constituents.

Skype says that their engineers have worked with the Congressional network security team to ensure the security of the communication channel.

I would assume they have a very strict IT policy, with every single network app needing pre-approval. At least, that's what I'd require, and lock incoming and outgoing ports down to the bare minimum with the heaviest security and packet filtering and require only encrypted channels. I think the concern here was verifying encryption... and they had to wait for Weiner to resign since I'm sure they have a "no weiners on Skype" policy.

Re:"Made available?" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36597768)

The following policy announcement is still in effect (since early 2006) at a federal work site I am closely aligned with. It's not one of the traditional three letter agencies hyper concerned with security. Acronyms have been replaced for non-bureaucrat readability.

[Federal Agency] Policy on The Use of Skype Internet Telephony Software on [Federal Agency] Computers and Networks

Internet telephony, also known as Voice over IP (VoIP), has greatly increased in popularity and use over the past few years. One particular implementation of VoIP, Skype, has been identified to include unacceptably high risks for [Federal Agency]. Skype uses proprietary peer-to-peer network technology that effectively bypasses firewall protections. Also, due to the way Skype functions, a [Federal Agency] computer running Skype and the [Federal Agency] networks to which it is attached could be used to facilitate communications between other external, non-[Federal Agency] Skype users, which would be a misuse of [Federal Agency] resources.

Because of these unacceptable risks, the use of the Skype VoIP software is now prohibited on [Federal Agency] computers and networks.

To enforce this restriction, [CIO federal equivalent officer] will provide [Federal Agency] [acronym for the largest type of agency subdivision] with lists of hosts that have been identified as running Skype. Skype must be uninstalled from each of these hosts. Users should contact [IT Support] or their local support if they need assistance. Two weeks after the initial list is distributed, any computers detected running Skype will be removed from the [Federal Agency] network immediately, and will remain off the network until [CIO federal equivalent officer] staff or an [acronym for the largest type of agency subdivision] IT Security Officer has verified and documented (through an incident report) that the software has been uninstalled. Further, desktops managed by [CIO federal equivalent officer] through [internal computer setup and procurement office] will be configured to prevent users from running or installing Skype.

Re:"Made available?" (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36599574)

Congress is not a Federal Agency. They do pretty much what they want.

Seems odd (3, Insightful)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36596804)

But I guess now that Microsoft owns it, doesn't sound too surprising

Re:Seems odd (5, Interesting)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#36596822)

Especially since they applied for a patent for listening in on online conversations...

Re:Seems odd (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 3 years ago | (#36597642)

Well that would be a good thing. It would be nice to know the backroom deals that our congress critters make.

Amen! But .. (1)

Weezul (52464) | more than 3 years ago | (#36600426)

I'd imagine they selected Skype over some well managed SIP implementation that archives all their phone call specifically because Skype isn't nearly so practical to archive.

Re:Seems odd (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#36597856)

Especially since they applied for a patent for listening in on online conversations...

Name one enterprise-grade VoIP client and service that doesn't give your employer the ability to listen in on calls.

Re:Seems odd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36600560)

Polycom.

Re:Seems odd (2)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 3 years ago | (#36597564)

I'm sure Microsoft paid good money to become the official videoconferencing system of the US Congress.

countertrolling & the trolltalk.com crew (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36597834)

Mod him up & cheat the moderation system - here's how they downmod others (here is where countertrolling explains what he's doing while he trolls others to his fellow trolltalk.com friends):

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2245866&cid=36491652 [slashdot.org]

And, here's where his "troll mechanics" for downmodding others is explained in detail by someone that got sick of it happening:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2271908&cid=36579618 [slashdot.org]

As far as bogus up moderations, the trolltalk.com bunch (tomhudson, countertrolling, & others) collectively "team up" to upmod one another, in teams, as favors to one another.

(Talk about low, and bogus!)

Re:Seems odd (1)

handsonsites (2318216) | more than 3 years ago | (#36598654)

how can i go to heaven, just guide me.

Bunch of smarties, those guys. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36596810)

Re:Bunch of smarties, those guys. (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#36596850)

Hey, companies have a right to find out if the bri^H^H^H money paid to lobbyists is working or not!

Re:Bunch of smarties, those guys. (1)

andrea.sartori (1603543) | more than 3 years ago | (#36597002)

Exactly.
But hey, if you look at Microsoft's LIS draft [conceivablytech.com] , you'll see that there is nothing to worry about, and/or nothing a Congress member will worry about, or understand.
(And just to quote TFA from yesterday: "A request for clarification we sent to Microsoft has remained unanswered so far.")

Just curious... (2, Insightful)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 3 years ago | (#36596812)

I wonder how many people are going to find a reason to complain about this? And i wonder how many of those people would have complained if the announcement had been made before Skype was purchased by Microsoft?

I ask this because i admit that my initial response was "oh look, the government is buying into the Microsoft monoculture once again" before i stopped myself and realized that wasn't very fair.

Re:Just curious... (3, Insightful)

Idbar (1034346) | more than 3 years ago | (#36596942)

Well, my first thought would be that the use of Skype to reduce costs will translate into calls made from laptops on airplanes. Congressman will not stop traveling or cut their spending, they will just use it to the arsenal of tools that can be used to consume the tax payer money.

Re:Just curious... (1)

GuldKalle (1065310) | more than 3 years ago | (#36597210)

My first thought on yours is: "Who would want to spend all their time on a plane using Skype?" Then I saw your sig, and got puzzled.

Re:Just curious... (1)

Shompol (1690084) | more than 3 years ago | (#36597984)

Great countries were not made of people complaining.

Just look at the countries where people complaining had been promptly executed. Those were the greatest countries! For the executioners, at least.

Re:Just curious... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36598006)

Exactly. What money doesn't get spent one year, will be taken away the next. The goal is to keep spending it, otherwise you might lose it later on.
 
My grief is that either Representative Democracy doesn't work, or with the cap we don't have enough representatives to accurately represent us. It would be nice to make the lobbyists really have to knock door to door like the rest of us to get what we want.

Re:Just curious... (1)

smelch (1988698) | more than 3 years ago | (#36601424)

The problem isn't representative democracy, the problem is a bloated federal goverment. People like to look at people who are opposed to big federal programs as anarchist/libertarians who believe in no government, when in reality the problem is that the country is too big and too diverse to operate with so much power and so many programs going on at a FEDERAL level. Notice how when you step down to state and local governments it is more representative of the people it.... represents. That's not an argument to get rid of representative democracy, it's an argument to stop doing everything as a federal mandate.

Re:Just curious... (1)

Chris Tucker (302549) | more than 3 years ago | (#36598160)

"Great countries were not made of people complaining."

See: The Declaration of Independence for a list of complaints that resulted in the American Revolution.

Are you Michelle Bachmann, by any chance?

Re:Just curious... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36598246)

Case in point, the US is not a great country. It's a country where it's obsession with taxes is leading to deteriorating infrastructure and no collective will to pay for fixing any of it. Civilizations that don't maintain their infrastructure generally collapse. The US had it's brief moments in the sun, but realistically it was an ascendant superpower from say 1900 to 2005. It's already in decline.

Re:Just curious... (1)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | more than 3 years ago | (#36601882)

Same here. I'm always reminded of an old IBM commercial(?) which featured this businessman in his office where some tech was installing a new video conferencing system and explaining how great it was and how it was going to save the company lots of money because they wouldn't have to pay for this guy to travel all over the place. Meanwhile, he's looking at the pictures on his wall of all of his trips around the world and obviously thinking, "This sucks."

Trust me: There will still be "fact-finding" trips to Afghanistan (with a stop-over in Fiji, of course)...

Re:Just curious... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36596950)

Wellll my problem isnt that ms owns skype now, but rather that they just introduced the patent to evesdrop on skype calls. I prefer my elective representatives use stronger security but hey what do i know?

Re:Just curious... (1)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 3 years ago | (#36597104)

Well i'm not suggesting that the decision should be accepted blindly either, just that we should be judging it on the technical merits, not based on the very recent (especially considering the pace at which the US government works) acquisition by Microsoft.

Re:Just curious... (0)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | more than 3 years ago | (#36597106)

Wellll my problem isnt that ms owns skype now, but rather that they just introduced the patent to evesdrop on skype calls. I prefer my elective representatives use stronger security but hey what do i know?

Yes, what do you know? The patent was filed 2 years ago. That article was just someone with too much time connecting tangentially related dots and drawing wild conclusions.

Re:Just curious... (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36601108)

Wellll my problem isnt that ms owns skype now, but rather that they just introduced the patent to evesdrop on skype calls. I prefer my elective representatives use stronger security but hey what do i know?

Isn't that the opposite of transparency?

Re:Just curious... (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#36602208)

Transparent to whom? The people or blackmailers?

Re:Just curious... (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36602376)

Who are the blackmailers? Do you mean another gov't agency, or do you mean the mob or something...?

Re:Just curious... (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#36602970)

Whoever intercepts the phone calls, and decides which calls to put on wikileaks and which to hide.

If you want to make their phone calls readable, you have to have a mechanism where they're ALL published in the open, and not merely readable by whoever can hack an Autonomous System carrying their call.

Re:Just curious... (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36603194)

Whoever intercepts the phone calls, and decides which calls to put on wikileaks and which to hide.

Wouldn't that discourage a bunch of bad behaviour?

Re:Just curious... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36597136)

Complain? I just find it funny that yesterday there's a story about Microsoft patenting eavesdropping tech and today an announcement that US Congress will use Skype to communicate.

Re:Just curious... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36597146)

my initial response was "oh look, the government is buying into the Microsoft monoculture once again" before i stopped myself and realized that wasn't very fair.

It's more fair than you think. Even before the MS purchase, Skype was a monoculture just as bad: a nonstandard voip protocol with one single implementation, not interoperable with anything else, with a userbase almost entirely sustained by network effects. People "need" Skype because they want to talk to other people to use Skype (who in turn installed it in order to be able to talk to other people who use Skype).

Total lock-in and total dependency, and that's before Microsoft. There is nothing even remotely unfair about blaming them for getting the taxpayers into another dangerous and expensive monoculture, because that's exactly what it is.

Freedom freaks, security specialists, interoperability illuminaries and cryptography councilors have been flaming Skype for many years. And all for reasons that can probably be summed up by the descriptive adjective "microsoft."

Re:Just curious... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36597524)

Skype is a total platform lock-in. I'd rather use FaceTime, which is available on Mac, iPhone, iPod touch and iPad.

Re:Just curious... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36597168)

it isn't curious, it's business as usual. This has everything to do with MS buying Skype. Why else would they have paid so much if they didn't have a plan to make it back? The plan is:

buy popular stable product that the government won't use because it it's certified.
group into existing products that are certified.
license to Government officials.

PROFIT

Re:Just curious... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36597176)

I wonder how many people remember the new Skype wiretapping module announced a few days ago.

Re:Just curious... (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 3 years ago | (#36597352)

I wonder how many people are going to find a reason to complain about this?

I had a different take: "They're just now figuring out Skype is useful? I've been using it for years, and yet they have the temerity to tell me how to run my business?"

Re:Just curious... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36598142)

How is that not fair? Skype was around for YEARS before MS bought them -- but a mere month (or WEEKS?) after the acquisition, suddenly the government sees the light about using that particular product for video teleconferencing? What's particularly disturbing is that they're doing it now after all the press about Skype's encryption being hacked. There are a dozen other video conferencing packages out there, some free, some not. The timing of this announcement is just fishy.

Re:Just curious... (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36598192)

I'm not complaining, because they're not my government. If they were, I wouldn't be posting on Slashdot, I'd be complaining directly to them. My complaint would have nothing to do with Microsoft (I keep forgetting they own Skype now), I'd be complaining that they were buying a proprietary communications tool, using a protocol that has not been peer-reviewed for security, without a second source, and giving a commercial entity the benefit of government-backed network effects, distorting the market considerably.

See article about Microsoft eavesdropping (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36596816)

Alright!

At least... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36596820)

...we'll all be able to eavesdrop on their conversations.

Re:At least... (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#36596872)

+1 Funny

Skype for Congress (1)

Snarky Jones (2317960) | more than 3 years ago | (#36596862)

Great! Now when they get nothing accomplished they can blame it on the dropped call!

That combined (1)

Grand Facade (35180) | more than 3 years ago | (#36596876)

with Microsoft's recording/monitoring policy will make some interesting scenarios.

I'm going to complain. (2)

jra (5600) | more than 3 years ago | (#36596892)

Because allowing the Skype PtP client on to office computers makes them insecure, and probably uncontrollably violates the Congress firewalls in the process.

Morons.

Re:I'm going to complain. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36596914)

whatever you say, moron

Re:I'm going to complain. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36597370)

whatever you say, moron

>implying your not a moron as well

Re:I'm going to complain. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36597448)

The person who says moron is the moron.

Also, it's "you're".

Re:I'm going to complain. (2)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 3 years ago | (#36597402)

I doubt they're using the stock version. The federal government does have the budget and gravitas to demand special things and Skype must be falling over backwards to accommodate them just for the PR alone. Until we have more details, its a little presumptuous to think that they have the stock version.

Re:I'm going to complain. (1)

tokul (682258) | more than 3 years ago | (#36600702)

its a little presumptuous to think that they have the stock version.

Skype without firewall punching. that would be something new. Who cares if you have stock or non-stock version, if software you are using is network security nightmare.

Re:I'm going to complain. (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 3 years ago | (#36605290)

Most likely they aren't doing p2p like typical skype, but have a dedicated super-peer. I'd be very surprised if they were.

Re:I'm going to complain. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36597624)

Yeah, the guys at Microsoft who are worth billions and have been in business for decades never thought of this. Not at all.
 
Moron.

Re:I'm going to complain. (1)

pherthyl (445706) | more than 3 years ago | (#36599000)

>> Because allowing the Skype PtP client on to office computers makes them insecure, and probably uncontrollably violates the Congress firewalls in the process.

Can you provide a link that discusses this in detail? I'd like to know what about Skype is inherently insecure.

Re:I'm going to complain. (1)

digimortal_uk (849308) | more than 3 years ago | (#36603420)

>> Because allowing the Skype PtP client on to office computers makes them insecure, and probably uncontrollably violates the Congress firewalls in the process.

Can you provide a link that discusses this in detail? I'd like to know what about Skype is inherently insecure.

Assuming he meant insecure in the workplace, not insecure in general, then the link is here: http://www.bluecoat.com/doc/644/ [bluecoat.com]

Re:I'm going to complain. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36603658)

From Skype's wikipedia page:
Part of the Skype technology relies on the Global Index P2P protocol belonging to the Joltid Ltd. corporation. The main difference between Skype and standard VoIP clients is that Skype operates on a peer-to-peer model (originally based on the Kazaa software[97])

In order for Skype to get the peer-to-peer model to work, they need to make direct connections between clients if possible. Skype is known for doing port-scanning and firewall piercing to achieve this (they don't call it this publicly, but just check your network traffic or do a google search.). This in itself isn't bad, but attackers scanning for vulnerable clients can now do so significantly faster because they don't need to test for open ports. (Skype is not truly peer-to-peer; they have to deal with firewalls by having some supernodes that accept incoming connections--so firewall incoming connections with a real firewall)

Just as worrisome is the Skype client itself. Because their protocol spec hasn't been officially published, nobody has created an open source clone. The Skype client is encrypted--this serves no useful purpose as it's trivial to get a memory dump after the decryption, but if you look at /proc/*/smaps, you can see that Skype disables the "NX bit" and leaves executable memory also writable. This means it is much easier to run shellcode once compromised.

If they really prioritize protecting their executable from reverse engineering over security, god knows what else they did. Just look at that serious Mac exploit a couple months back: anybody on your Skype contact list had the capability to run executable code on your system. And additionally, the peer-to-peer nature means you are alone--nobody is going to filter malicious packets or kick the infected systems off the network because they inherently can't.

I truly hope that Microsoft has been working on overhauling the Skype client--I'll just say that I trust Microsoft for security more than Skype/eBay, but I am shocked that the Government is going to let this stuff run on our publicly funded systems. Nothing I said is a secret, but maybe the people who made this deal don't do a simple google search.

I hope my system will get to be the supernode that forwards Congress's calls -- I'd love to try out that research that lets you hear an approximate version of calls using the length of each encrypted packet.

Re:I'm going to complain. (1)

Wovel (964431) | more than 3 years ago | (#36605996)

Where does the quote end and your comments begin. I assume after the [97].

Re:I'm going to complain. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36607504)

hit google for that. im too lazy. but skype has been spotted reading through users' private data when it has no reason to. it was reported on slashdot some time ago. oh also i think someone broke the encryption by recognizing phonemes or something in the data stream.

its basically a proprietary phone. a mystery box.

Chinese? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36596952)

How sure can one be that Skype does not have a backdoor?

Re:Chinese? (1)

rbrausse (1319883) | more than 3 years ago | (#36597062)

exactly, the evil commies at Skype Technologies SA in Luxembourg are well known to collaborate with the enemy

Re:Chinese? (1)

Robert Zenz (1680268) | more than 3 years ago | (#36597202)

You mean the evil capitalists in Redmond?

Re:Chinese? (1)

EnergyScholar (801915) | more than 3 years ago | (#36597470)

I live in Luxembourg. Skype employees here are expecting further layoffs.

Egyptians revolution found a skype backdoor! (1)

EnergyScholar (801915) | more than 3 years ago | (#36597458)

I do not have documentary proof, but a friend of a friend knows people who were active in the recent Egyptian revolution. Many had made Skype calls to each other. Purportedly, after gaining access to the secret police headquarters in Cairo (and preventing the remaining secret police from destroying evidence), they found recordings (not transcripts, recordings) of their Skype calls in the secret police headquarters. This strongly suggests the presence of a Skype backdoor. This should surprise no one.

Re:Egyptians revolution found a skype backdoor! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36597686)

.. or a trojan present on the computer of one of the parties. Every Skype call, regardless of the crypto, still starts and ends totally naked in the sound chip (or speakers headphones, if you are concerned with more traditional surveillance)

Alternative... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36597134)

They should consider using chattroulette instead...

Re:Alternative... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36597178)

Congressmen already show enough penis, we don't need to encourage it.

MS Eavesdropping? (1)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 3 years ago | (#36597226)

Didn't MS just file for a patent that would allow them to eavesdrop on Skype [slashdot.org] ? Hmmm, this is not a good combo!!!

Re:MS Eavesdropping? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36597336)

Microsoft won't be doing the ones eavesdropping, leave that to any-and-all 3-letter agencies. That's why they are getting it now, remember NSA_KEY?

Re:MS Eavesdropping? (1)

Subratik (1747672) | more than 3 years ago | (#36597364)

Didn't MS just file for a patent that would allow them to eavesdrop on Skype [slashdot.org] ? Hmmm, this is not a good combo!!!

My thoughts exactly... this reminds me of people putting wifi connections in cars that have access to the firmware that deals with the engine!!

Re:MS Eavesdropping? (2)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 3 years ago | (#36597666)

I disagree, it is a good combo, now we might know what goes on the those back room meetings.

Kool Aid (2)

fwarren (579763) | more than 3 years ago | (#36597480)

Congress is drinking the Microsoft Kool-Aid.

WTF??!?! (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#36597536)

They have Tandberg and Polycom Video conference devices ALL OVER THE PLACE at congress. Are these morons simply too uneducated to use them?

Re:WTF??!?! (1)

TheSync (5291) | more than 3 years ago | (#36598562)

The problem is that no one pays $1000 a plate for dinner with 500 people over Skype.

Too bad he resigned now... (1)

Virtucon (127420) | more than 3 years ago | (#36597572)

Think of Congressman Weiner's possibilities for hooking up using live video! The new avenues to pose in his underwear would have been expanded!

Any guess on what his Skype ID would have been? I'm thinking "IAMACONGRESSPERV"

Re:Too bad he resigned now... (1)

Chris Tucker (302549) | more than 3 years ago | (#36598400)

"Any guess on what his Skype ID would have been? I'm thinking "IAMACONGRESSPERV""

Actually, that's the ID of "Diaper" David Vitter [wikipedia.org] (R. Louisiana), Senator and Lawbreaker (Soliciting a Prostitute) in both his home state and Washington, D.C.

Larry Craig's [wikipedia.org] ID is "TOILETAPDANCER" and Mark Foley's [wikipedia.org] is "NAKEDBOYPAGEFAN".

Hope this helps!

Have A Nice Day!

kthnxbai!

Microsoft KNEW this was coming! (1)

Lashat (1041424) | more than 3 years ago | (#36597660)

Now we know why Microsoft paid that price for Skype. They have a new cash cow gov't contract. The purchase by MS (or similar big corp capable of supporting large gov't contracts) may have even closed the Skype deal for Congress. Surely, Congress is most comfortable with the known entity vs. the unknown. (...and don't call me Shirley.)

Great - and let Microsoft listen in (1)

rcpitt (711863) | more than 3 years ago | (#36597712)

in light of Microsoft may add evesdropping to Skype [slashdot.org] this is a really stupid idea - but then in light of some of the other "ideas" that come out of government in general and this one in particular we should be happy they're not actually going to conference in big business purposely.

Well it's about time (1)

nownewstrue (2035416) | more than 3 years ago | (#36597754)

technology saved taxpayers dollars. Hmmmm wonder if this was part of the take-over plan by Microsoft. They knew they were going to get a government contract....

Re:Well it's about time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36598922)

They've already got teleconference software... So... this is just wasting more money.

how fortunate for Microsoft... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36597926)

just weeks after aquisition the US government releases this fiscal good news...

IT really means insider trading...

Why skype... (1)

bugs2squash (1132591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36598924)

Presumably this is only so that congressmen can talk to non-congressmen. They would surely use their own internal system to talk to each other. In general, I would have thought that most non-congressmen would jump at the chance to travel to meet a congressman. So who's travel is being saved here ?

polycom sure missing out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36599424)

this proves why polycom is doomed to failure. it's too complicated for your average person to use, and lots of people end up saying "can't we just use skype??" well looks like congress is actually gonna do just that.

That's why MS bought it (1)

LordAzuzu (1701760) | more than 3 years ago | (#36600508)

Well, actually I bet they were funded by the government.

more money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36600818)

Now that MS owns Skype it will soon be more money siphoned off the government.
#1 Customer [as in *our customers want] == MS themself
#2 Customer == government
Tell your slime-ball congress-critter to cut spending on MS, then maybe grandma and children will not be thrown under the bus.

Oh great! (1)

CodeShark (17400) | more than 3 years ago | (#36600882)

Now that Microsoft is thinking about patenting the ability to let law enforcement folks tap VoIP conversations when wrongdoing is suspected, our beloved congress persons will have to do their dirty deals without using Skype. What Will We Do?

So they get the Eavesdropping feature in their's? (1)

gubers33 (1302099) | more than 3 years ago | (#36601676)

So that Microsoft can listen to the plans?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...