signalling level voip privacy & p2p (Re: [p2p-hackers] Is P2P SIP Poised to Out-Hype Skype?)

[Adam Back]

You are talking about current protocols -- and even with current
protocols I think p2p does because without a central server it is
harder to tap -- you have to tap enough points to catch the call
negotiation you are interested in.

But I think one could design a p2p SIP alternative that does protect
privacy.  There has been some work on replyable untraceable email like
nym servers, and mixminion SURBs.

Also at zero-knowledge systems they had a pseudonymous mail system.
Related PET techniques could be used for pseudonymous signaling of
call attempts, without revealing who is intending to call who at the
signalling level.

Adam

On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 07:25:47AM -0400, Saikat Guha wrote:
> > i think there is an important third aspect that Enzo hints at:
> > c) When a centralized solution doesn't provide enough privacy.
> 
> IMHO, privacy and the centralized vs. p2p debate is completely
> orthogonal. 
> 
> If you mean privacy in terms of figuring out what parties are
> communicating (and not necessarily what is being said) -- then P2P does
> not provide any more privacy than a centralized approach [1].