SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The BBC reports that the last remnants of Windows Live Messenger (previously known as MSN Messenger), which was discontinued last year but is still active in China, will soon be shuffled over to Skype:
Microsoft's Windows Live Messenger will be switched off in China in October, marking a final end to the 15-year-old service.
Originally known as MSN Messenger, it was launched in 1999 but was switched off for most users in 2013, after Microsoft bought rival Skype.Users in China continued to use the old service but will now be transferred to Skype by 31 October.
A number of Chinese Windows Live users received emails from Microsoft on Thursday, Chinese newspapers reported, informing them of the planned closure.
The emails told users they would get free Skype credit when they migrated over to the new service, the newspaper said.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by keplr on Sunday August 31 2014, @01:40AM
Skype might as well be called NSA Messenger. Microsoft has fully cooperated letting the Skype network become fully surveilled by the US Government. NSA gets a copy of every message, every call--audio and video, and every connection between every user. It probably turns your webcam on 24/7 if the model allows function without the status indicator LED being on. Many aren't built with the LED hardwired to the power of the camera.
It's not just the Skype network. The program itself has to be assumed to be malicious. Every device that Skype is installed on becomes remotely exploitable by NSA. Skype is a universal backdoor giving them full access to your device. This is possible, and would be trivial to do, so it's dangerous to think that it hasn't occurred to NSA and been executed. And MS doesn't just begrudgingly cooperate when forced to. They believe in the NSA's mission. They have happily worked with them for decades; above and beyond what they're required to do by law. And part of MS's mission is to make sure that NSA malware is spread as far and wide as possible. Hence, Skype everywhere.
Tell people this, and recommend Tox [tox.im]. It's not paranoia anymore. Our worst fears have been confirmed.
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by nick on Sunday August 31 2014, @04:18AM
The linux version of this now requires pulseaudio, expect a systemd dependency in the future. Maybe just paranoia but I trust Red Hat about as much as Microsoft.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Monday September 01 2014, @08:42AM
Dude I really hate to burst your bubble but Linux has been the corporations property for quite awhile now. Think Linus is paid for by the community and does what the community wants? Nope he knows where his bread is buttered which is why if a kernel change can benefit servers or benefit desktops but not both it will ALWAYS go to to the server side, because that is where the money is. Then of course there is Pulse being rammed down everybody's throats when it was barely alpha quality and I would argue to this day is waay too fragile for something as important as sound, and of course we now see systemd being rammed home and hijacking even basic things like error calls when its ever growing sprawl is the exact opposite of the *nix "small tools to do single tasks" philosophy...face it the corps done got Linux and if its a choice of what RH wants or want the community wants? Well I seriously doubt RH will have to sweat the outcome.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 01 2014, @09:11AM
servers are where linux belongs
i'm reminded of this informative dialog: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-22EpQOm8c [youtube.com]
ps: debian++
o'soylent rules!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 31 2014, @07:20AM
What takes you from possible to actually happening?
That's funny, it sounds like paranoia.
How much do you really know about Tox?
If that's your worst fear, I'd say you've had a very sheltered life.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by anubi on Sunday August 31 2014, @07:28AM
This is an excellent example of what we are going to get when we allow anyone to get their hands in our business. Doesn't make any difference what kind of business it is. Any time a hand has to be paid in order to get it to sign off or process anything, we are just setting ourselves up to be held hostage for anything the hand might want.
Any time you can, try to involve as few hands as possible in your affairs - every hand you eliminate from your affairs is just one more hand powerless to toss a monkey wrench into your plans.
One of the main reasons I still stick with a lot of my old stuff is the new stuff is so laced with "registrations" and "automatic updates" along with agreements I must let the thing call home all the time that I simply cannot trust it anymore. Basically, I see this new stuff mostly for bilking highly paid executive types who have no idea how this stuff works and are under the illusion that they can recover anything lost by legal means, that is if they are even aware of the bilking going on.
I would say the hardest people to try to talk to on corporate information security are the men who have their position from who they know and have strong personal contacts which keep their authority intact. I end up talking myself blue in the face to someone who has no idea what an "and gate" or a "flip flop" is, and the mayhem one can cause by simply injecting a few instructions at the assembler level. These guys do things on the handshake level and seem to think lawyers can fix any jam they get into - as if delegation of responsibility will minimize the risk of malicious code. No..... the only way to keep bad things from happening is to know how your stuff works. You get too complex and you only open yourself wider to hostile code vulnerabilities.
As far as I am concerned, our computational infrastructure has grown way too complex as a result of copyright and patent law, which makes everyone hide how the stuff works. I was hoping back in the 70's ( when I first got into computers with an IMSAI 8080 ) that computational methods would be like the cars of the day - where just about any "shade-tree mechanic" could fix a car. There was no big secret about what made them go. Many of the parts were interchangeable. As far as I am concerned, HTML was about the last decent development in the computer arena. Yes, it had a few bugs in it ( IFrames notably ). It would allow networked web pages to have text, audio, video, and data. Problem is our Congress went all a gaga over patent/copyright stuff as well as upholding "hold harmless" stuff for all the problems left in the wake of trying to implement security of imaginary property copyright by obscurity.
Actually I see this whole computational mess we have today as the result of Acts of Congress on behalf of Men of Greed.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]