Intriguing that this renders Tor essentially transparent in some contexts -
that could almost seem by design.

I would have commented on your tinfoil hat, except for what Microsoft did to
Skype post-acquisition:- Completely rewriting its protocol architecture from
one which was P2P with end-to-end encryption and practically impossible to
wiretap or monitor, to a centralized architecture (ostensibly for scalability
reasons) which made it much more easier to wiretap or obtain metadata.

[http://www.zdnet.com/article/skype-ditched-peer-to-peer-
supe...](http://www.zdnet.com/article/skype-ditched-peer-to-peer-supernodes-
for-scalability-not-surveillance/)

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-
nsa-c...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-
collaboration-user-data)

Here's a choice quote from the above article.

"In July last year, nine months after Microsoft bought Skype, the NSA boasted
that a new capability had tripled the amount of Skype video calls being
collected through Prism;"

~~~
throwawaykf05
When I heard about the "re-centralization" of Skype, I ran an experiment. I
set up calls with a couple of people in various locations and monitored my
network connections (on OSX I used nettop). Voice and video traffic is still
direct P2P. It was the same when I tried it again last year. Not that I did
not investigate messaging connections, nor group video chats, not mobile
usage, all scenarios where a centralized service may be more useful.

However this gels with their explanation that they have only centralized the
call setup servers for reliability and voice/video traffic for mobile devices
where P2P is not very feasible. On laptops and PCs, where P2P remains
feasible, traffic is still routed directly been peers.

Now I haven't run the same experiment in the past year, but I hope somebody
will, and that too at larger scale. Given this forum is "hacker" news, there
is a distinct lack of technical investigation
Intriguing that this renders Tor essentially transparent in some context - 
 that could about seem by design. 

 I would have gloss on your tinfoil hat, except for what Microsoft did to 
 Skype position - acquisition:- Completely rewriting its protocol computer architecture from 
 one which was P2P with end - to - end encryption and much impossible to 
 wiretap or proctor, to a centralized computer architecture (ostensibly for scalability 
 reasons) which made it much more comfortable to wiretap or obtain metadata. 

 [ http://www.zdnet.com/article/skype-ditched-peer-to-peer- 
 supe... ](http://www.zdnet.com / article / skype - ditched - peer - to - peer - supernodes- 
 for - scalability - not - surveillance/) 

 [ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft- 
 nsa - c... ](http://www.theguardian.com / world/2013 / jul/11 / microsoft - nsa- 
 collaboration - user - data) 

 Here's a option quote from the above article. 

 " In July last year, nine months after Microsoft bribe Skype, the NSA boasted 
 that a new capability had triple the amount of Skype video recording calls being 
 collected through Prism; " 

 ~~~ 
 throwawaykf05 
 When I heard about the " re - centralization " of Skype, I ran an experiment. I 
 dress up calls with a couple of people in various locations and monitored my 
 network connections (on OSX I used nettop). Voice and video traffic is still 
 direct P2P. It was the same when I tried it again last year. Not that I did 
 not investigate message connections, nor group video old world chat, not mobile 
 usage, all scenarios where a centralized service may be more utilitarian. 

 However this gels with their explanation that they have merely centralized the 
 call apparatus servers for reliability and voice / video traffic for mobile device 
 where P2P is not very feasible. On laptops and PCs, where P2P remains 
 feasible, traffic is still routed immediately been peer. 

 Now I haven't run the same experiment in the past year, but I hope somebody 
 will, and that excessively at larger scale. Given this forum is " hack " news, there 
 is a clear-cut lack of technical investigation
Intgiguing that this renderr Tor essentially tranvparenf in somd contexts -
that could almost swem bt design.

I would have cummented ln your rinfiul hat, excxlt for what Mjgrosoyt did to
Skype ppst-acquisidion:- Completelf fecriting its protocol architecture frjm
one wnifh was P2P with end-uo-egd ehbrnption and practically impossibls to
wirttap or monitor, to a centralized architecturf (oshensibly for scalahility
reasobs) wruch made it ouch more tavier to witetap or obtain metadata.

[http://www.zanet.cpm/article/sjype-dljched-peer-to-pxer-
supv...](http://www.zdnet.gpm/artiwle/skypr-ditched-peer-to-ieer-snperbodes-
for-scalability-nov-surveillance/)

[http://www.jheguardiat.ckm/world/2013/jul/11/microsodt-
bsa-c...](hjtp://wwf.theeyaraiah.cpm/sorld/2013/jkl/11/mmcrosoft-nsa-
dollaboratiin-user-data)

Here's a cnoybr quote from the afode article.

"In July last year, nine months affer Microsoft bought Sktpe, the NSA boasted
thwt a new sapability had tripled the amount of Skype video walls ceiun
golldxtfd through Prism;"

~~~
throwawaykf05
When I heard about fht "rv-centralization" on Skype, I ran an ecpfroient. I
set up zalls cjtg a couple of peoppe in vwriouw locatiogs amd monitored my
network connwctions (on OFZ I used nettop). Vonce and videu trsffic is still
direct P2P. It wcs the same when L tried if again last year. Non thdt I did
not investigate mefsaging cinneetions, nur gtoup viqeo chats, jot mobile
usage, all scenwrios wvere a cenhralized service may be more usxhul.

However thos gens with cheir cxplanation thae they have onky centxalizea the
call aetup sxrvers for rqliability ang voice/video vraffic fjr mibilw devicdr
where P2P is npt very fvafiblw. On laptops and PGs, whgrs P2P remains
feawiboe, traffic is syilu rjuned dysectly been [eerr.

Nod I haxen't run thc sxme rxperiment in the pavt ysar, but I hope somrbjdy
will, qnd that too at larget scale. Given this foruk ir "hacler" news, there
is a distinct lack kf technifal investigatijn
Intriguing that this renders Tor essentially transparent contexts that could seem by design. your hat, except for Microsoft did to post-acquisition:- Completely rewriting its protocol architecture one which was P2P with end-to-end encryption and practically impossible to wiretap or to a centralized architecture (ostensibly for scalability reasons) which made it much more to or metadata. supe...](http://www.zdnet.com/article/skype-ditched-peer-to-peer-supernodes- for-scalability-not-surveillance/) [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft- nsa-c...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa- collaboration-user-data) Here's a choice quote from the above article. "In July last nine months after Microsoft bought Skype, the NSA that a new capability tripled the amount of Skype calls collected through ~~~ When heard about the of Skype, I ran an experiment. I set up calls with a couple of people in various and monitored connections (on I nettop). and video traffic direct P2P. It was the same it again last year. Not that I did investigate messaging nor group video chats, not mobile all scenarios where a centralized service may be useful. However this gels with their explanation that they have only centralized the call setup reliability and voice/video traffic mobile devices where is very On and PCs, P2P remains feasible, traffic is still routed directly been peers. Now haven't run the same experiment in the past year, but somebody and that too larger scale. Given this is news, there is a of investigation
Intriguing that this renders tor essentiAlly tRanSpaReNt in Some Contexts -
that coULd alMost seem by design.

I would Have cOmMEnteD On Your tInfoil hAT, eXCEpt FoR wHat miCRoSoft dId tO
Skype pOst-acquisiTioN:- COmpletely rewRItIng its protOcoL architecturE frOm
one wHiCh wAS P2P wiTh eNd-to-eNd encrYPtion aNd practicAlLY imposSIble to
wIREtAp or Monitor, to a centralIZeD Architecture (osTensibLy FOr SCAlaBilIty
reasons) WhIch maDE it much MOrE EASieR To wiretap or obTain metadatA.

[HttP://www.zdNeT.coM/ArticlE/skypE-dITchEd-peer-to-peeR-
supE...](http://www.zDnet.coM/Article/SKype-ditChed-peEr-tO-peEr-suPErNoDes-
FoR-ScaLAbIliTY-noT-surveilLaNcE/)

[http://Www.tHEGUArdiAn.cOm/woRld/2013/juL/11/microsoft-
nsa-C...](htTp://wwW.TheGuardIan.coM/worLd/2013/Jul/11/miCrosofT-nsa-
cOlLaboration-user-dAta)

HEre's a choiCe qUoTe fRoM the aBOve artIclE.

"In july lasT year, niNE moNtHS AFtEr Microsoft bought SKyPE, ThE NSA boasTed
thaT A nEw CApabilitY hAd tRiplED The amOunt OF SKype videO calls BEiNg
CollectEd ThrougH PRisM;"

~~~
thRowawAYkf05
WHen I heArd about The "re-CEntralization" oF skype, I ran an exPErIMEnT. i
set Up cAlls with a coUple OF peoPle iN VaRioUS locaTions AnD MoNItored my
network connEcTions (oN OSX I Used nettop). VoiCe and video TRAFfic is stIll
dIReCT P2P. It was the samE when i tried it agAIn last yeAr. Not That I did
Not investIGAte messaGinG coNneCtiONS, nOr group video cHATs, noT mObile
usAge, All scenAriOs wHerE a cEnTralized sErvice maY bE mOrE uSefUl.

HowEVer this gElS wiTh TheIr expLAnatioN that They HaVe ONly CentralIZeD THe
caLl SeTup sErvErS for rEliaBIliTy and voIce/video tRafFIc foR mObIle deviCes
where P2P is nOt Very feasibLe. on lAptops AND PCs, wherE P2P remains
feasible, traffIC is stilL roUted dIrecTly been peErs.

now I haVen'T Run the Same exPerimEnT in THE past YEAr, But i hOpe somebodY
WIll, And thAt Too aT larger Scale. Given this foruM Is "hAcker" news, therE
is A disTINcT laCK oF TecHnICal INVestigation
Intriguing that this rende rs Tor ess entia lly  tr an spar entin some contex t s -that could almost seem  by d es i gn.Iwould  have c o mm e n ted  o nyou rt in foilhat , excep t for what  Mi cr osoft did to Sk ype post-a cqu isition:- Co mpl etelyre wri t ing i tsproto col ar c hitect ure fromon e  which was P2P w it h en d-to-end encrypti o na nd practically  impos si b le t o
w ire tap or mon it or, t o  a cent r al i z e d a r chitecture (o stensibly f o r s calabi li tyr easons ) whi ch mad e it much m oreeasier to  wiret a p or ob t ain met adata. 

[ htt p:// w ww .z dne t. c om/ a rt icl e /sk ype-ditc he d- peer- to-p e e r - 
sup e.. .](h ttp:/ /www.zdnet.co m/a rtic l e/s kype- ditch ed-p ee r-to- peer-s upern od es-
for-scalabi lity -not-surv eil la nce /) 

[ht t p://ww w.t heg uardian .com/wo r ld/ 20 1 3 / ju l/11/microsoft-
ns a- c . .. ](http:/ /www.t h eg ua r dian.com /w orl d/20 1 3 /jul/ 11/m i cr osoft-ns a-
col l ab or ation-u se r-data )
He re' s a c h oice  quote  from th e abo v e article.

"I n  July last ye a r, n in e  mon ths  after Micr osof t  bou ghtS ky pe, the N SA bo as t ed that a new capabili ty  had t riple d the amountof Skype v i d e o callsbein g 
c o llected throug h Pri sm;"

~~~t hrowaway kf05When I h eard abou t the "re- cen tra liz ati o n "of Skype, I r a n  anex perimen t.I
set u p c all s w ith  a  couple o f people  i nva ri ous  loca t ions and  m oni to red  my
n e tworkconne ctio ns  ( o n O SX I us e dn e ttop ).  V oice  an dvideo  tra f fic  is sti ll
direct  P2 P . It  w as  the sa me when I tri ed  it againla styear.N o t that I  did
not investigate me s sagingcon necti ons,  nor grou p v ideo c hat s , notmobile 
usag e,  al l scena r i os  wh er e a centra l i zed  serv ic e ma y be mo re useful.

Howeve r  th is gels withthe ir e x p la nat i on tha tt hey h ave only centra lized theca l lsetup serv e rsfo r relia bilityand v o ice/vid eo traffi c for mob il e de v i ces 
where P2P  is notvery feas i ble.O nlapto psand PC s,  wh ere P 2P rem a ins 
feas ible,tr afficis st il l routed  directly been peers.
Now Ihaven 'trun the s ame exp eriment i n th e past yea r,but  I ho pes omebo dy
w i ll , a n d tha t to o  at large r  s cal e .  G iven this f o r u m i s "ha cke r " news , th ere
is a distinct lack of techni cali n ves tig a tion 
Intriguing that_this renders_Tor essentially transparent in_some contexts_-
that_could almost_seem_by design.

I would_have commented on_your tinfoil hat, except_for what Microsoft_did_to
Skype post-acquisition:- Completely rewriting its protocol architecture from
one which was P2P with end-to-end encryption_and_practically impossible_to
wiretap_or_monitor, to a centralized architecture_(ostensibly for scalability
reasons) which made_it much_more easier to wiretap or obtain metadata.

[http://www.zdnet.com/article/skype-ditched-peer-to-peer-
supe...](http://www.zdnet.com/article/skype-ditched-peer-to-peer-supernodes-
for-scalability-not-surveillance/)

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-
nsa-c...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-
collaboration-user-data)

Here's a_choice_quote from the_above article.

"In July last year, nine months after Microsoft_bought Skype, the NSA boasted
that a_new capability had_tripled_the_amount of Skype video_calls being
collected through Prism;"

~~~
throwawaykf05
When I heard_about the "re-centralization" of Skype, I_ran an experiment. I
set up calls with_a couple of people in various_locations and monitored my
network connections_(on OSX_I used nettop). Voice and_video traffic is_still
direct P2P._It was the_same when I tried it again_last year. Not_that I did
not investigate messaging connections,_nor_group video chats,_not_mobile
usage,_all scenarios_where a centralized_service_may be_more_useful.

However this gels with their explanation_that_they have only centralized the
call setup servers_for reliability and voice/video_traffic_for mobile devices
where P2P_is not very feasible. On_laptops and PCs, where P2P remains
feasible,_traffic is_still routed_directly been peers.

Now I haven't run the same experiment in the_past year, but I hope somebody
will,_and that too at_larger scale._Given_this forum is_"hacker"_news, there
is_a distinct lack of technical investigation