Kim Dotcom vows to KILL SKYPE with encrypted MegaChat Megaupload maestro Kim Dotcom says he will soon unveil an encrypted video calling and chat service that he claims will mark "the end of NSA mass surveillance." In a series of tweets, Dotcom said the service, to be called MegaChat, will also doom Skype, the current king of online calling, which is thought to have been …
The SIP technology has already been delivered to browsers (i.e. Jitsi, ReSIProcate) and can be even delivered with a Drupal module (Drucall). Only a SIP presence provider (i.e. the centralized part of the service) is needed to be set up. So, contrary to what the article says, I do not liken this to Dotcom's "Unbreakable" Mega: This is a simple-ish configuration of a well-known, much-tested, much-deployed set of tools.
Yep, this sounds like yet another WebRTC implementation. I hear about a new "secure video chat" service about every other week these days. Even Mozilla baked one into the Firefox browser itself. I thought that I might get a break over chrimbo, but apparently Herr Dotcom needed his dose of publicity this week.
The problem with the current crop of WebRTC clients is that, while the conversations are direct between clients in a p2p manner, they need a centralised server (website) to provide the routing of calls (aka call metadata), by virtue of the web browser security model.
The most interesting project to me in this space is Tox which, while still being in a rapidly-developing alpha stage, appears to be well functional for text/voice/video chat.
I don't trust Skype (Because of NSA/Snowden leaks), and I don't like Skype (2014 interface is very hard to work with, and it's still missing features from MSN Messenger that is supposedly replaced)
more chat options is a good thing, and Kim is very, very good ad drumming up support for ideas, even if his execution is hit and miss
Microsoft wrecked Skype enough that I welcome all alternatives.
Agreed. Loved being able to have ringing on the speakers and the actual call on the headset (y'know, so I could hear an incoming call while afk but others couldn't hear the call)
Then MS brought in their wonderful "new features" and we got some crippled crapware that isn't close to what it used to be.
> how can someone return to a place that they have not previously been to?
It seems that in the case of the USA, being accused of a crime there is enough to get a free ticket for your first visit. (Although it's a bit hard to believe that he's never been there, for the US justice system it seems to be enough that his private bits have been there.)
how will this stack up against Blink (or whatever the bittorrent encrypted chat solution is called) works (or will work, when it gets traction)?
the biggest problem any alternative to Skype faces is getting your friends to use it... and secure or not given dotCom's penchant for hyperbole and lack of follow through will this ever reach a tipping point of usefulness?
>>But Sc00bz and others have dismissed that boast, saying it would be easy for Mega to provide an >>"unbreakable" account with a long, random password, but it wouldn't prove that real-world Mega >>accounts can't be hacked or spied on.
And it would be easy for Microsoft & friends to start bogus claims on MegaChat security without providing evidences, let alone proofs.
Isn't it strange that "security researchers" main argument is "yeah we could not have break it because they would have cheat", in other words "trust only the one we can OFFICIALLY break"
No, what they are saying is:
There are fundamental flaws with how people use things in the real world that this implementation treats naively. Going some other way forces the user to use it properly, and therefore in practice, is far more secure.
That's a completely reasonable claim, in fact I find it to be one of the things security researchers SHOULD be talking about, but often don't.
Good Job, security researchers!
Find out how to get people to remember very long passwords
I should come up with a book of alphanumeric rhymes. OK, don't nobody* read this until after websites start demanding 4 line couplets for passwords.
I should be ready by then.
*Especially if you work for NSA or GCHQ and ...what's the other one called?
The guy's an irrelevant tosser. Please stop wasting my screen pixels with non-stories based on whatever his latest self-aggrandising press release is. Or give me some kind of opt out. And if you're stuck for tech resources, I could code it for you: I wonder whether Mr. Schmitz could?
It doesn't necessarily follow that being broke means you can't get rich or have financial clout. A lot of people having died for non tax purposes have not enjoyed the paradox of being made rich on the process.
So too, being sucker punched by state run crooks doesn't make you a bad risk.
And even if you were there are plenty of perhaps fellow criminals that would let you take up their slack.
Whatever. Good luck to him and may he have an happy new year.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
