
Reasons not to use Skype (2012) - dsr12
https://stallman.org/skype.html
======
wonko1
Another reason not to use Skype is that their support is pretty poor.

They've deleted Skype numbers from my account without warning. Someone linked
my and my wife's account because we used them on the same PC, and refuse to
unlink Skype and Microsoft accounts.

I'd love to find an alternative, but given that everybody already has Skype
accounts the lock-in is pretty significant.

Don't much like the alternatives Stallman proposes. Using long distance phone
calls seems worse than Skype, phone companies have provided governments with
even more access to user data than most tech companies.

~~~
dandandan
Stallman won't like it but Facebook Messenger has voice calling built in now
and it works very well. I was calling someone in SE Asia from rural
Massachusetts recently and the quality was great with very low latency. It
felt like a natural conversation given the connectivity challenges on both
ends.

~~~
wonko1
Interesting. I can't see myself using it for work though, which the majority
of my Skype calls tend to be.

~~~
dandandan
You don't need to be Facebook friends to complete a call but I can still see
that expectation being an obstacle to establishing one. Is there a space for a
very simple WebRTC call application? It seems like everyone is focused on
video calling or more full-featured products.

~~~
wonko1
I'd love it if the default was to use some very lightweight WebRTC app where
you just created a new link for each conversation.

I don't think it's likely to happen any time soon unfortunately.

Regarding Facebook, it still feels weird, I'm not sure I can put my finger on
exactly why. I just want to keep "friends" and "business" totally separate.

~~~
jhoechtl
How was this service Mozilla once included in their browser called, something
from Telefonica? Worked pretty well for me. Maybe they ditched it to early?

------
mankash666
Stallman claims Skype isn't encrypted end-to-end and then suggests using
"free" alternatives that are not in the least bit security concious or end-to-
end encrypted.

~~~
elmerfud
Also the "long distance phone card" suggestion ignores that every major
telephone company in the US was caught providing information without any legal
obligation to do so.

~~~
loup-vaillant
This articles seems to date back to 2012, most likely before the Snowden
revelations. He probably have changed his mind since.

------
tscs37
For once I agree with RS; I haven't used Skype in ages, particularly because
it's just crappy software.

Honestly, I'd view Skype as malware at this point, the number of exploits is
too damn high and it barely integrates with anything ever. It's the kind of
integration you'd normally see from a cheap car purchase where the
Entertainment System is a iPhone 2 taped to the seats and the trunk smells
like dead raccoon.

~~~
george_ciobanu
I agree it needs improvement and we should have alternatives but it's the best
in terms of video and audio quality/compression. The UX can be improved.

~~~
rawfan
Skype Business maybe. Regular Skype is crap. We're currently using slack for
our team which works great. Privately I user FaceTime and appear.in but that's
not good for group calls.

------
danellis
"The most obvious alternative is a long-distance phone card."

What part of Stallman's position makes him fine with communicating and
encouraging people to communicate using switches running proprietary software?

For that matter, how does he justify using the Internet rather than anything
other than community networks running open source routing software?

~~~
chmaynard
> What part of Stallman's position makes him fine with communicating and
> encouraging people to communicate using switches running proprietary
> software?

Richard Stallman is probably a direct descendant of the Massachusetts
Puritans, which explains everything. No one ever characterized the Puritans as
having a logically consistent ideology.

Seriously, we owe him a very large debt of gratitude for igniting the open
source software movement. He is responsible for GCC and the GPL, and he
attracted a group of very talented developers around him. Let's cut him some
slack.

------
wodenokoto
How does he feel about landline phones? The entire thing is just as closed
source as Skype and even more easily monitored.

And assuming he is okay with landline, would Stallman call a cellphone? What
if it was a free software cellphone?

~~~
doctorshady
While I get your point, most traditional landline networks do encryption at
the premises. Look at, for example, the Secure Terminal Equipment ISDN phone
used by defense agencies. To state the obvious, the alternative of provider
enabled encryption would be a bad option anyway; the track record of most
telcos doesn't inspire a lot of faith in their ability to keep anything a
secret.

It wouldn't be hard, and certainly not a capacity strain, to get some old
modems and haul encrypted PCM in realtime across them. Or even to roll your
own PSK/FSK standard to transport said PCM over. There's no packet format or
anything you're necessarily limited to.

As for cell phones themselves, I can certainly see the threat. Even without
going into Batman-esque theories of someone putting malicious software on your
phone that activates the mic when it's idle, it's well known that the cellular
networks make extensive use of GPS capabilities. With access to an operator's
network, it would probably be relatively trivial to build a very detailed
history of someone's whereabouts.

------
ycmbntrthrwaway
Is there any usable alternative for voice calls? Ring and Tox had problems
setting up connection from android to debian linux last time I tried both of
them.

I really want to replace Skype with something so I can stop using Google Play.
Signal is not an option as it is only available via Google Play too.

[0] [https://ring.cx/](https://ring.cx/) [1]
[https://tox.chat/](https://tox.chat/)

~~~
sschueller
How about wire? [https://wire.com](https://wire.com)

~~~
MarcScott
So I had a flick through the website, and I fail to understand how this
service makes any money.

This automatically makes me suspicious that either they'll eventually start
collecting data, or the service will disappear as soon as they are acquired.

~~~
ycmbntrthrwaway
At least they explicitly promote with "No profiling or data gathering" with a
link to
[https://twitter.com/wire/status/768797320792117248](https://twitter.com/wire/status/768797320792117248)

Also they promote Spotify

------
alkonaut
It sucks - but as is always the case with free vs nonfree software - there are
few alternatives.

Among the few alternatives available are Google (hangouts) and Facebook.

Stallman waves his hand and mentions Jitsi and Mumble which aren't comparable
in features to Skype (Chat + Voice + video + desktop sharing on all platforms
including mobile). Jitsi does look promising but not quite complete.

A chat/voice app is like a social network, it has a critical mass so I can't
switch unless everyone else does or my alternative is interoperable.

Software being free as in speech is perhaps twice as important to me as it is
for the average user, but that still means I'd rather have a polished
proprietary app that spies on me, than an unpolished free alternative. Skype
is exceptionally _bad_ , so shouldn't be too hard to beat in terms of polish.

~~~
usernam
But did you _actually_ try the alternatives?

I've been using mumble for more than a decade now, and I've pushing it into 3
working places as a substitute to skype, asterix and lync (the microsoft voip
solution).

It's not really oriented for 1-1 conversation, which is odd to use at first,
but once people start to use channels and the built-in chat you hardly go
back.

The latency and voice quality is stunning, even across lousy links. There's
simply no match. The built-in mic wizard is also well designed. If people
follow the setup correctly, you can have hour-long conversations across the
globe with 10 people and it's absolutely fantastic. I work in research, and
I've aggressively pushed to do long phone conferences over mumble for exactly
this reason.

With some colleagues we even setup some channels that broadcast with PTT, and
it's genuinely fun if you're spread across offices. You can decide if you want
to participate by joining or not the right hierarchy. This is something is
often done for lan parties, but turns out you can find other uses too ;)

Like I said, the main shortcoming is that mumble was never designed for 1-1
conversations as you would expect in skype. We hack it around by creating
temporary channels. I've always meant to improve the UI in this regard, but we
found that the temporary channel approach has advantages as well [you can
invite other people in a call - for one].

With outdated hardware we still manage to hold >100 of conversations over a
single server, as basically it's only network bound.

You have a point that mumble does only audio, but fortunately this is what I
care the most. We (unfortunately) still have to use other software for desktop
sharing, but generally still use mumble for audio.

~~~
davidlumley
I don't know if Mumble (or Ventrilo, or Teamspeak, or Discord) are really
comparable.

They require you run your own server (although Discord abstracts that), that
everyone know the server details, and that everyone be authenticated for your
server in some manner.

They're great for playing video games, but Skype matches up a lot better with
what a lot of people use it for – making phone calls.

~~~
usernam
True, but I'd like to mention that these are still _valid_ options for
companies and teams. Not to mention that latency will inevitably be superior
with a local server.

I'm not sure there's a way around it. Skype is pretty much centralized now.
Alternatives using NAT-piercing solutions never worked as reliably for me, and
the ID still needs a central directory anyway.

What we ended up doing for flexibility is letting our mumble server open
(passwordless access), but speaking is disabled in the root channel, so it's
useless for strangers. Secondary channels are password protected, guests
cannot join, but teams can set up their hierarchy as they see fit.

When we invite a guest, we just point him to the mumble installer and our
server. When he pops up, we drag him into the right channel. No password
necessary. It's a fairly smooth experience. Definitely not as fast as a skype
group call the first time, but just as good after that. In fairness, this
beats pretty much any dedicated conference system I had to use elsewhere.

The channel permissions in mumble are pretty flexible, so there are multiple
workflows possible.

------
janekm
Reasons to use Skype: \- you need to talk to someone, and by the time you've
explained why you don't want to use Skype you could have already been done

~~~
Mister_Y
We're talking about the long term here :D

One minute lost by saying you don't want to use Skype might give you the
benefit of convincing another person to join you video conference platform
choice!

------
tonyedgecombe
The only reason I need to not use Skype is that it is shit.

~~~
ollybee
Not as shit as Skype for business

~~~
jjawssd
Tell us how you really feel

Whats wrong with "Skype for Business?"

------
Fnoord
Skype? Ah, 2012. We're now in 2017, and in this country Skype just isn't the
standard (I'm not saying it isn't used anymore). What is the standard? Well on
phones, people seem to be using WhatsApp, with a movement who swapped to
Telegram. There's some people who use FaceTime, but they're Apple users.
There's some people who advocate Signal, but I know nobody who uses that. Then
for gaming there is Discord which I started using in 2016 which Just Works
(tm), has a feature set and UI from this decennium, and doesn't require one to
run their own server (unlike TS/Mumble/Ventrilo/..). Finally, in 2016 I
swapped to a different phone plan; unlimited phone calls is part of my (very
cheap) subscription for my phone. The disadvantage of the unlimited plan is
GSM's 'bad' quality (I generally don't have an issue w/it), and it is 100%
being logged by telcos & nation states. But so is Skype.

To be fair, I don't think RMS would be happy with any of my choices. Discord
is open source, but the servers aren't. WhatsApp is proprietary, and owned by
Facebook (Skype is proprietary and owned by Microsoft). Signal is only
distributed via GCM which is a proprietary platform (F-Droid is blocked).

------
snvzz
This is true of all IM that isn't based on open protocols and has mandatory
end-to-end encryption. Which is why I use tox [0].

[0] [https://tox.chat/](https://tox.chat/)

~~~
Veratyr
I prefer Matrix[0] since it has some nice features (encryption, message
history, multiple devices, audio, video, files), supports most major
platforms, can be self hosted and importantly, supports push notifications so
your battery isn't destroyed like it is with Antox.

[0]: [http://matrix.org](http://matrix.org)

~~~
snvzz
But alas, it sucks (no support at all!) at ipv6 (e.g.: On a ds-lite scenario),
it is federated instead of decentralized, and its end-to-end encryption is
optional.

~~~
Veratyr
IPv6 is indeed bad but:

\- "federated instead of decentralized": I believe Matrix's federation
implementation qualifies as decentralised. There's _some_ centralisation
(homeservers) but not much.

\- "its end-to-end encryption is optional": I don't really see this as a
problem. If you want it, you have it. If you don't, you don't. Sometimes end-
to-end encryption isn't desirable, in a business environment where you need
communications to be auditable for example.

~~~
snvzz
> IPv6 is indeed bad

It's terrible, and the reason I don't use matrix. While behind ds-lite, the
only option I'd have is to run my node on an untrusted location (eg: a rented
server).

> "its end-to-end encryption is optional": I don't really see this as a
> problem. If you want it, you have it. If you don't, you don't. Sometimes
> end-to-end encryption isn't desirable, in a business environment where you
> need communications to be auditable for example.

Sure, but in a post-snowden climate, I can't recommend a solution where end-
to-end is optional to anybody. The problem is that when it is optional, people
will readily downgrade to point-per-point encryption when they experience any
issues. It's terrible to give less tech-literate people the option of insecure
communication.

------
tiatia
Open Source Minisip (discontinued?) offered encryption over VOIP calls:
[http://www.voip-info.org/wiki/view/minisip](http://www.voip-
info.org/wiki/view/minisip)

It is amazing that Skype still has not been re-engineered and and open source
lone released. [http://www.oklabs.net/skype-reverse-engineering-the-long-
jou...](http://www.oklabs.net/skype-reverse-engineering-the-long-journey/)

------
mrleiter
The problem with his first argument is that it is a logical fallacy (affirming
a disjunct). Just because one does not say A, does not mean that it
automatically must be B. He says "most likely", but even this is not certain.
I agree, it feels that it must be true. But then again this is an inductive
fallacy. Simply because most companies we know that have acted in such a way
actually were eavesdropping on its customers, one cannot say with certainty
that this is a general rule.

~~~
fredmorcos
Big fancy words with zero content and a complete lack of arguments.

> He says "most likely", but even this is not certain.

That is the exact meaning of most likely.

> Simply because most companies we know that have acted in such a way actually
> were eavesdropping on its customers, one cannot say with certainty that this
> is a general rule.

It would be plain idiotic to not assume the worst until proven otherwise,
especially after everything we learned in the past few years.

------
wuschel
Good points.

Check out as a possible alternative:

1) riot.im 2) matrix.org

------
lightedman
Reason to use skype:

So your dead account doesn't get immediately compromised and you screw your
friends over in the process as your account starts sending out malware-
infested links.

 _glares at the seven or so users in his blocked list, users that jumped ship
to Telegram and left their Skype accounts open to exploitation_

~~~
Qwertious
Sounds like you should delete your account when you go inactive, and sounds
like you should GTFO if their security is that terrible.

~~~
lightedman
Not much else has quality video chat at high resolutions/ Hangouts likes to
drop out. It's one of the reasons Google Helpouts failed so hard, Hangouts
utterly sucked as the video chat intermediary.

------
fsiefken
I use the Matrix messaging client riot.fm instead

~~~
ycmbntrthrwaway
What is riot.fm? Maybe [https://riot.im/](https://riot.im/)?

Is it able to do at least audio calls?

~~~
kscz
Riot can do audio and video calls, I've had good luck with it (currently gets
used between my friendgroup instead of phonecalls). Check out
[http://matrix.org/](http://matrix.org/) for the server implementation details
and [https://riot.im](https://riot.im) for the biggest client. Currently, it
only supports 1-on-1 audiocalls/videocalls. No group calls yet.

Forewarning that while it supports end-to-end encryption for the chatting
bits, the actual audio data is not encrypted. The call request/advertisement
can be encrypted though!

------
faragon
And again, Stallman is right. Despite how much convenient, cheap, and easy
Skype could be.

P.S. Is today the "day against Stallman" in Hacker News? Come on.

------
whack
It's hard to take this article seriously when it starts out with stuff like "
_A nonfree program denies users freedom, which is unjust in itself._ " If you
don't want to use Skype, I can respect that. But to accuse the developers of
moral failure just because they didn't make their software free... That is an
absurd view of morality.

~~~
uiri
The author is Richard Stallman, founder of the GNU project and the Free
Software Foundation. He has spent the last 30 years trying to rid the world of
proprietary software; first by working on free alternatives in the form of GNU
and later through his activism work.

The Open Source movement grew out of a group of pro-Free Software people who
felt that Stallman's morality-based arguments were ineffective at convincing
businesses to switch to FOSS.

Modern internet companies and countless startups would not exist were it not
for Stallman's initial efforts over 30 years ago and his "absurd" view of
morality.

~~~
whack
Your entire comment is a reverse ad hominem. Just because Richard Stallman did
a lot of great things doesn't make his view of morality any less absurd.
There's nothing _unjust_ about a Software company choosing to develop and
market "non-free" Software.

------
FabHK
Does anyone have experience with Wire? It sounds good:

* open source, code on github

* e2e encryption (apparently derivative of Signal's Axolotl double ratchet)

* chat/voice/video, and group chats (all encrypted always)

* based in Switzerland

* clients for iOS, Android, Mac, Windows, Linux, Web

* can sign up with phone number or email or username

* reasonably responsive on twitter

* yada yada yada

I use it on iOS and quite like it, but not that many people on it yet :-/

------
hobarrera
I think the main reason not to use skype is the lack of network effect.

Since so few people use skype, everybody else has little motivation to use
skype, ad nauseum.

Honestly, the only people I've seen that use skype are recruiters. Other than
that it seems pretty much dead.

~~~
yeukhon
At my current work place, Skype and Lync (or Skype for Business) are what we
used for team communication. It works great until we need to onboard/offboard
people. I also need to set status to DO NOT DISTURB because I wanted to avoid
the constant ding ding ding notification.

At a previous workplace, Skype and IRC are used (IRC are for mass
communication, whereas Skype is more for personal-level communication).

------
raverbashing
What is a good solution that allows dialing to pots? Google voice and what
else?

~~~
astrodust
Roll your own with any VOIP software?

~~~
jjawssd
Could you elaborate?
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13345341](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13345341)

------
briandear
Not a fan of Skype, but in one of Stallman's other articles he says:

"Public agencies exist for the people, not for themselves. When they do
computing, they do it for the people. They have a duty to maintain full
control over that computing so that they can assure it is done properly for
the people. They must never allow control over the state's computing to fall
into private hands."

This guy has a lot of faith in government and his treatise actually sounds
rather Marxist. History is littered with public agencies that obstensiby exist
for the "people," but in fact exist for no other reason than to enforce the
power of the state. I don't trust government -- I endure it. Government is
necessary in a way not dissimilar to the necessity of colonoscopies.

------
joe563323
Skype is owned by Microsoft. No worries it will die out eventually.

~~~
nkkollaw
Microsoft has been around for almost 50 years, though. They must do something
right?

~~~
astrodust
Microsoft has acquired very few products, and of those a shockingly slim
number have succeeded.

I can only think of Excel as being the real survivor here. Others, like
SoftImage, were a fleeting acquisition. Many more were buried alive.

~~~
tonyplee
DOS is a acquired product, for $50k? :-)

They only finally disable cmd.exe in the latest update.

.bat files still run.

~~~
astrodust
Somehow I overlooked that, but it's true, that's their first and most
significant acquisition.

They didn't buy the company or talent, mind you, just the software.

------
edpichler
I feel Skype is abandoned by Microsoft, but I do not have other option. Same
with Google Voice.

~~~
jjawssd
Google Voice is stagnant and I am scared about losing it. Are there any other
comparable services I can jump ship to before I lose my number?

------
xchip
Agreed, use anything else (but whatsapp)

------
benevol
Understanding what Microsoft does with Skype tells you everything about
Microsoft.

The only reasonable conclusion: Switch from Windows to Linux.

------
falloutx
Whats up so many Stallman posts lately?

------
astrodust
This is apparently from 2012 but not labelled as such.

~~~
digi_owl
May explain why he didn't mention webrtc, unless he has some misgivings about
it.

~~~
Klathmon
IIRC isn't he against most JavaScript due to the fact that you can't easily
dynamically replace a JS module with another?

~~~
digi_owl
That, and most of it has no clear licensing. Thus i suspect he consider them
potential judicial tar pits...

------
samkone
Good for you Richard. Still don't care

------
roesel
I am not sure who this guy is, but he seems a little out of this world.

~~~
ChrisNorstrom
Stallman warned people in detail about the dangers of putting everything in
"the cloud" years and years before everyone started putting their photos in
the cloud, getting hacked, and celebrities' nude photos being leaked on the
internet. If you think he's crazy about a topic just wait 5 years, you'll
admit he's right.

~~~
FoeNyx
Also obligatory xkcd : [https://www.xkcd.com/743/](https://www.xkcd.com/743/)

> If you think he's crazy about a topic just wait 5 years, you'll admit he's
> right.

2012 → 2017 : yep after Snowden leaks in 2013 that confirmed Microsoft joined
PRISM in 2007, the fear of eavesdropping in Skype does not seem unfunded
anymore.

------
edblarney
"A nonfree program denies users freedom, which is unjust in itself. "

This is the worst reason to not use Skype.

The remaining reasons about surveillance etc. are reasonable reasons to not
use Skype.

------
inian
"Verbatim copying and redistribution of this entire page are permitted
provided this notice is preserved." \- Stallman's blog is not giving me the
freedom to distribute the blog as please. It is infringing on my freedom.

Anyone else find this ironic / hilarious?

~~~
noselasd
Why would that be ironic ? It's ensuring others receive the same freedom for
the copy you make of the page, which is also the essence of the GPL license,
and the whole philosophy of the FSF.

~~~
inian
My issue is with the no-modification part. This is the exact argument he gives
for not using some software - that users are not free to modify the software
and hence it is malicious.

~~~
htns
Have you heard of the FSF? It's not called the free everything foundation for
a reason. There's no irony or contradiction here.

------
Radle
"Skype requires the use of a client program that is not free software; in
other words, the users don't control it — it controls them.

A nonfree program denies users freedom, which is unjust in itself. Making the
ethical issue sharper, for you to use Skype is to encourage someone else to
use Skype, which means you're pressuring someone else to surrender freedom as
well. This is plenty of reason to refuse to use Skype, but there are more
reasons."

How it pains to read such texts. "Everything that's not open source is evil."

~~~
lorenzhs
Your use of "open source" in summarising RMS' opinion is rather unfortunate
and leads me to think that you don't know his positions very well.

