[Macworld]

Post your comments for Skype calls' immunity to police phone tapping threatened here

[Warning]

Bogus reason. Criminals have tons of ways to communicate, many with encrypion options.
This is simply just the ongoing ploy by certain governments (mostly Europeean and North American), to strip everyone of their rights to privacy.
This does nothing to the criminals but does everything to the honest citizen just like copy-protection/DRM on software.

[EPonj]

Skype is free while other encryption options often requires expensive hardware.
Anybody can get very quick access to skype.
If you accept that your land and mobile phone might get recorded, I don't understand why it would be different with Skype.
Now, I would understand your concerns about privacy if we hadn't given it away a long time ago...

[Warning]

I don't accept that my land line or mobile phone might get recorded.

I haven't given it away...you and others have. I certainly take many measures to secure my communications, secure my computer data, secure my identity on the internet.

While I'm from the generation that is currently using Facebook like crazy, I'm appalled to see how irresponsible and tech-un-savvy my generation is. Looks like everyone around me is ready to broadcast their entire lives to everyone else.

[gloopstick]

Actually, EPonj, I don't recall giving away my privacy, though it's been TAKEN away lots of times. That doesn't mean we don't have the right to complain about it.

Our land lines and mobile lines are subject to tapping because it's possible to tap them. Somehow, governments extrapolate from there to conclude that people DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT to keep a conversation private. If I want to have a private, secure conversation with somebody, whether it's on Skype or via letters written in secret code, or via a face-to--face conversation in an obscure Sanskrit dialect, then I have a right to do so. The First Amendment says I have a right to free speech. It doesn't say I have a right to free speech as long as I allow the cops can listen in and take notes.

The government wants to be able to tap our Skype calls because the government would find that very convenient. That doesn't mean they have the right to do it, or that Skype has an obligation to help them. Speaking in a way the government can't understand is NOT against the law.

[EPonj]

Warning I was trying to dig a little bit deeper into your thoughts but I actually agree with you. And when it comes to facebook I couldn't agree more.

Gloopstick makes a point too. I also cherish my privacy and don't like the way it's being taken away in the last few years. But let's face it: have your calls ever been tapped? likely not, because the have no reason to as long as you are an "honnest citizen" (aka "good sheep"). Same will apply with VoIP tapping.

The problem will arrise when we sheeps wake up and enter rebellion, but that's not likely to happen either as long as we have too much work and a TV.

[folklore]

Warning said:

I don't accept that my land line or mobile phone might get recorded.

Your right to privacy does not include the right to conceal illegal activity from the government. That is what a warrant is - it gives the government the legal authority to intrude into your privacy based on evidence that you have committed a crime. Warrants require specific knowledge that a specific person has engaged in a specific crime.

And, for what it's worth, law enforcement wiretaps are really, really rare. They're expensive to maintain and are subject to strict reporting requirements (to the issuing judge). How common wiretaps are for intelligence gathering, I don't know. Espionage is not my area.

[Warning]

Except that now many governments don't require any warrants to tap your lines. How do you feel about that?

[folklore]

Warning said:

Except that now many governments don't require any warrants to tap your lines. How do you feel about that?

Many governments - even western democracies - don't recognize a right to privacy at all (e.g., the UK). The US is therefore somewhat odd in that we do have a right to privacy.

But we're getting off topic. Questions over whether any individual wiretap (or group of wiretaps) is justified are entirely separate from the mere technical ability to effect a tap. Obviously, there are times when we want government to have the ability to conduct wiretaps (e.g., counter-espionage, counter-terrorism, criminal investigations). During those times, we don't want government to hit a technological brick wall.

[mambok]

I alway have a hard time understanding how people like you think.
"If you've got nothing to hide, you are safe" kinda arguments...
Bullshit, I say. Nowadays, it is easier than ever to collect information.
Bringing up criminal intent is beside the question. There is a fundamental
right to privacy that I don't think is respected in the least anymore.

And what the hell do you know about the cost of setting some clusters of
computers in "listening mode" ad hence collecting all things they come across.

The scare politicians are spreading around them is alarming. All in the name of fighting crimes...

[folklore]

mambok said:

I alway have a hard time understanding how people like you think.
"If you've got nothing to hide, you are safe" kinda arguments...

I never said that if you have nothing to hide if you are safe.

What I said was that there are times when we want government to have the technological ability to conduct wiretaps. There are lawful, perfectly legitimate reasons for that technological ability to be used. I used the examples of counter-espionage, counter-terrorism, and criminal investigations. I never engaged in over-hyping threats. Spies, terrorists, and criminals really do exist - and governments have a legitimate interest in disrupting them.

Again, arguing about when government uses wiretap technology is an entirely different kettle of fish than discussing whether government as the technology to do so. We likely agree that recent activities of the US government over-reached. However, that does not render any use of wiretapping illegitimate.

[gloopstick]

Folklore wrote:

"Your right to privacy does not include the right to conceal illegal activity from the government."

Specifically, it's the 5th Amendment to the Constitution that gives us the right to conceal our illegal activities from the government. It's the "Right Against Self-Incrimination." The relevant text reads:

"No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself[.]"

This is the basis of our "right to remain silent" when the cops bust in. It's the basis for the phrase "I'm taking the 5th" while being interrogated by law enforcement, or, for that matter, Congress. It is, in fact, a license to withhold information regarding your illegal activities, ESPECIALLY when the government starts asking questions.

The FOURTH Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures, and reads:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

True story -- Cops once rang my father's doorbell at 3:00 am, accusing him of harboring a fugitive that was seen on his street. My father said he wasn't, but they gave him the hard sell, telling him that he could be arrested and charged as an accomplice, and that it would be better for him if he just let them search the place, "to protect his good name," and to "show that he was a friend of the police," and other veiled threats. My father told them to get lost, and (eventually) they did.

Even if my father had that fugitive in the back room running a meth lab, he had every right to deny the cops entrance, because they didn't have a warrant, therefore showcasing another instance of very legally concealing his illegal activities.

On a similar note, you also have the right to plead innocent in court, even if you're guilty. And you have the right to present alternative theories of the crime in order to cause reasonable doubt amongst the jurors, even if you know you're guilty. (cough OJ! cough)

So... I'd say we have a lot of rights to conceal out illegal activity. Don't be so quick to assume the government has a right to do something. As Americans, we should always be suspicious when the government asserts a right over us. Those laws that allow criminals to conceal their illegal activities are the same ones that protect honest people from an over-reaching government.

[folklore]

gloopstick said:

So... I'd say we have a lot of rights to conceal out illegal activity. Don't be so quick to assume the government has a right to do something. As Americans, we should always be suspicious when the government asserts a right over us. Those laws that allow criminals to conceal their illegal activities are the same ones that protect honest people from an over-reaching government.

I've spent the better part of a decade studying the criminal justice system, so I've not been "quick" to assume anything. :)
I don't disagree with the last bit - that constitutions limit governments with good reason. I'm a staunch supporter of constitutional rights for that very reason. However, the constitution isn't a suicide pact. The framers knew that government has to intrude upon personal privacy in order to maintain order.
The right to privacy that Americans enjoy might incidentally allow some people to conceal some illegal activity. But it is not correct to say that you have a right to conceal illegal activity. If that were the case, then police could not search your home even with a warrant. The right to privacy simply does not entail a right to actively conceal illegal activity from the police.
You're absolutely right that the 5th amendment secures (among other things) your right to not give testimony against yourself. That, however, is a very limited right. It only involves your guilt, and only when there is a possibility of penalty. You can, for example, be compelled to testify against someone else or when granted immunity from prosecution. And even so, your 5th amendment rights do not include the right to lie - all you can do is shut up.
What makes US constitutional law so much fun to study is that what controls is the Supreme Court of the United States. It is SCOTUS's interpretation that matters, not anyone else's interpretation of the text. So it's not enough to simply quote the constitution as if the meaning is self-evident. In order to figure out the substantive meaning of the constitution in the US, one must delve into the caselaw.
I was very specific in my language in my other post and above. Your right to privacy does not include the right to conceal evidence of illegal activity from the police. In modern caselaw, this is one of the key justifications in allowing warrantless canine sniffs of cars (United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983)) and luggage (Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005)). Because the only information that can be garnered from a canine sniff is the existence (or non-existence) of contraband, canine sniffs do not intrude on one's privacy.
More broadly, the 4th amendment warrant "requirement" has had so many exceptions carved out of it that, at this point, it's more accurately described as a warrant "preference." The text supports this, since it protects us from "unreasonable" searches and seizures. Reasonable searches of persons, papers, homes, and effects by the government are... well, they're perfectly reasonable and allowable. And non-searches of persons, papers, homes, and effects aren't covered by the 4th amendment at all. As one could imagine, the definition of what's "unreasonable" and what is a "search" has lead to an awful lot of caselaw.
Exceptions to the 4th amendment warrant requirement include:
1) Attenuation, Silverthorne Lumber Co v. United States, 251 U.S. 285 (1920).
2) Inevitable discovery, Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984).
3) Good faith (the officers were acting on a deficient warrant), United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984).
4) Forums other than criminal trials (evidence gathered in violation of the 4th can be used in parole violation hearings, for example), Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357 (1998).
5) Open fields, Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984).
6) Trash (and other personal property exposed to the public), California v. Grenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988).
7) Canine sniff, United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983).
8) Pen registers (phone numbers dialed), Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979).
9) Aerial surveillance, California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 276 (1983); Dow Chemical Co v. United States, 476 U.S. 227 (1986).
10) At international borders, United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985).
11) Automobiles, beginning with Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (1970), but there are others too numerous to list. Basically, you have a limited expectation of privacy in an auto on a public street - the court has been generally permissive of searches of autos.
12) Probable cause (where police have probable cause to believe a crime has occurred or is imminent, no warrant is required).
The last one there, probable cause, is huge. Included here are the legal buzzwords of exigent circumstances, search incident to arrest, protective sweeps, and plain view (I can provide citations if you want, but it's getting tedious). And some less intrusive non-searches don't even require probable cause - a lesser standard of proof can be used. So-called Terry frisks (the case was Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)) only require reasonable suspicion.
In the case of your Dad, for example, if the police had probable cause to believe that Dad was harboring the fugitive - if police had seen the fugitive from the entryway, or if a witness had seen the fugitive enter the home - then the police wouldn't have needed to ask for permission. They could have simply entered the home.