Dotcom: Encrypted MegaChat is “Coming Soon”. No More Skype.

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by finch_rocks_1, Dec 29, 2014.


What Service will you use?

Skype 10 vote(s) 83.3%
MegaChat 5 vote(s) 41.7%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Hey EMC,

    I recently heard about this new service that will be released soon, and it is way better then Skype. Skype shares everything you do with the US Gov. and with this new service it is 100% safe. Anyway, here it is:

    As 2014 draws to an end, encryption and privacy remain high on the agendas of many netizens. Cloud hosting service Mega has been building its reputation in this niche and is now preparing to deliver a new privacy tool. According to Kim Dotcom the company he founded will soon wave "bye bye" to Skype with the debut of MegaChat.

    Following the revelations of systems administrator Edward Snowden, millions of eyes were opened to our online vulnerability. Total privacy, something presumed by many to be as simple as securing a password, was shown to be an easily shattered illusion.
    As the need for heightened security filtered down to the masses, companies stepped into the frame offering products and services to help people maintain their privacy online. VPN companies are still riding this wave of popularity and are now going to even greater lengths to assure customers of their commitment to security.
    Another company exploiting the security niche is Mega, the cloud-storage service founded by Kim Dotcom. While the flamboyant German reportedly has little to do with the company on a day to day basis, his family still owns shares in the operation. And for a company with a zero dollar marketing spend, Dotcom remains a valuable promotional asset.
    In one of his regular updates, this morning the Megaupload founder announced that Mega is preparing to launch a new product into the communications market.
    “Mega will soon release a fully encrypted and browser based video call & chat service including high-speed file transfers. Bye bye Skype,” Dotcom teased.
    Although no official announcement has been made, it’s believed that the product will be called “MegaChat”, a naming convention that would certainly fit with previous Dotcom projects.
    The service will offer end-to-end encryption and, reading between the lines of Dotcom’s statements, won’t be based in the backyard of his arch-rivals.
    “No US based online service provider can be trusted with your data. Skype has no choice. They must provide the US Government with backdoors,” Dotcom says.
    While clearly ambitious, Mega is already somewhat behind with plans for expansion outside of its core business of encrypted file-storage. It was previously reported that Mega’s chat/video product would be released to the public in the second quarter of 2014. Its encrypted email service is also yet to see the light.
    That being said, an early 2015 release for “MegaChat” would be a welcome development for the company. After first announcing plans to go public in March 2014, Mega now has eyes on an early 2015 NZX listing.
    The listing is planned via a reverse takeover of NZ-based TRS Investments but that too has not run entirely smoothly. A shareholders’ vote at the company has been pushed back several times and is not expected to arrive sooner than the end of January.
    For investors, potential is there. Mega currently has in excess of 15 million users and while the majority take advantage of the company’s free product, upgrades become more likely as users warm to the service. The advent of additional services will also boost its appeal but the hope is they will also improve the company’s bottom line.
    Earlier this month Mega chief executive Graham Gaylard told Stuff that the company is not yet making money and is instead focusing on growth. However, there is profit to be made in this sector and it seems likely that the company will secure and develop its position during 2015.

    Feel free to Give your Thoughts and Opinions on this Topic.
    Bro_im_infinite likes this.
  2. Bloody Americans. Can't trust them! (Not targeted at every American but it's a habit the country has).

    Technically the US Government is breaking a treaty between the UK and USA if what you're saying is true. It states the UK won't spy on the USA if the USA doesn't spy on the UK. I'm a British citizen so they shouldn't be spying on me in any form.
  3. Uh? I must confess I don't completely understand your post. I don't mind my messages being shared with the US government anyway, so I guess it shouldn't matter.
    PandasEatRamen likes this.
  4. Oh my sweet jesus, do not type mega chat into google...
  5. Do I have anything to hide? Nah. Ill stick with Skype.
    607 likes this.
  6. Why not?
  7. Well, there is not much more as the intro was released just hours ago. There is not a site or anything yet.
  8. Services like this are great but they don't strike the heart of the problem. In the end, you will see hackers/agencies trying to beat these new super secure services. These services will sooner or later back themselves into a wall where they can't find a way to stay secure. What really would help is some better restrictions on what agencies can and can't do. For me, a secure system such as this that does have a way for agencies to get in would be superior. Use of the back door would be incredibly restrictive requiring finite suspicion that both parties acknowledge. From there, transparency would be important once the situation is taken care of. There is no denying that this kind of service is a huge plus for criminals. Overall, I am glad to see security and privacy taken very seriously but we must also prevent bad people from hiding behind these kind of services.
    607 likes this.
  9. Yeah... for most people, if the government is spying on them, it doesn't matter. Who honestly cares if I skype with best friends? This seems mostly like a program for the paranoid people that don't understand that the government doesn't care about about what crap you look up on incognito.

    Until the government starts kidnapping citizens and makes concentration camps, I've got a good feeling that spyware doesn't matter.
  10. The government's already breaking (and following) almost every law imaginable to spy on us. If the government asks this service for information and they don't give it to them, they'll shut them down, it's as simple as that. There's never going to be such a thing as complete digital privacy and that's something we've got to live with. If you've got nothing to hide, then why are you worried ;)

    BTW, I'm don't like whats happening, I'm just stating the truth :p

    There's a place called Guantanamo Bay, which I believe qualifies as a concentration camp.
    607 likes this.
  11. Now, at the risk of bordering on a political debate (which I know should be avoided, no worries; I'm not going to let things escalate); there's one thing I do like to comment on.

    "I got nothing to hide so it doesn't matter..."

    There is one major flaw within that reasoning; the problem isn't so much what you have to hide (or share). The problem is how the "other party" is going to use the obtained information (or not). Where this 'other party' can basically be anyone; usually the government but it could just as well be your neighbor who's wifi connection you're borrowing or a major company which services you're using.

    Google will happily use the information obtained from your e-mails (think gmail) to provide personal advertisement. This same company will also happily check your surfing behavior (think Google analytics which reaches very deep into the Internet) and use that data accordingly as well. Normally for advertising purposes, but I also don't think its impossible for a government to gain access to this information.

    And the risk with those scenario's is that more than often information can be ripped out of context; where people only see what they want to see. And if that happens to you then you may risk ending up on the short end of the stick.

    Note that I'm not saying that we all should be paranoid and distrust the big bad government (or the multinational companies) per definition. But we also shouldn't be too careless with the information we share. As said before: its not the information itself, its how its being used which can haunt you.
    607 likes this.
  12. This sounds like my neighbor's fiance and just about every other person I have heard talk about facebook messenger. Their phones were turned off because he refused to pay the bill. Christmas Eve she calls her son through facebook messenger to talk to him and the family and wish them Merry Christmas and all that lovely jazz. When she tells her fiance he flips his sh*t about how you're not supposed to do that, don't use the messenger because they record your conversations and monitor everything you say, they get your account information and hack you, steal your identity etc. I have heard/seen this so much and each time I just think to myself "wow what a bunch of conspiracy theorists".

    I am not really paranoid that the government is reading my stuff. If they're reading my skype messages, I'm sure they're quite entertained with the weird stuff friends and I talk about.
    607 likes this.
  13. wat. Who are they? Facebook? Dafuq... why would Facebook want to hack you and steal your identity. They could easily do that the second you sign up to Facebook.
    Don't get me started about the stuff that goes in my chats ;) *Wink* SoulPunisher and a Friday night *Wink*
    607, mba2012 and PandasEatRamen like this.
  14. I have no idea who "they" is. That's just everyone's response to Facebook messenger.
    nfell2009 likes this.
  15. There always seems to be people who find a conspiracy in everything.
    607 and PandasEatRamen like this.
  16. They have an amendment stating that they won't intrude on the privacy of their citizens. That wasn't followed, so what reason do they have to not break that treaty (which they have already broken many times before)? It's not like the British government will stop them - they openly admit to spying on their citizens and restricting what is allowed to be done on the internet. That, and the fact that we're best friends with the U.S and like what they do.

    Erm... ._.
    Guantanamo Bay pretty much fits the definition of 'concentration camp' and is one of the main reasons why the U.S are called hypocrites in the UK (and probably elsewhere :p).
    Does this explain why? *younger people of EMC, don't open this spoiler...*

    Because it's kinda sorta technically human rights abuse? That's the best way I can explain it, but it's not that exactly :p

    So, um... question; what excuses for spying have the U.S government come up with? Over here in the U.K, the government said that they're forcing ISPs to submit search history, texts etc. to them to 'track down terrorists'. If I can use a network, such as Tor, to hide all of that and my location, I'm pretty sure any terrorist with half a brain can do that and do it better.
    607 and princebee like this.
  17. why did i open it.
  18. That is not the program, as i sated above the site has not even been made yet, the program will be released soon.
  19. We've all got out right to privacy, but we've also all got our right to safety. The current reasoning for the recent increases in surveillance and data gathering is simply to 'track down terrorists'. There is a very fine line between reasoned surveillance and mass surveillance (which the NSA allegedly undertakes).

    I think it is perfectly reasonable for the government to request companies to retain limited data, such as the URL's we were visiting (just that, not any messages being sent with them such as passwords) and or who we were sending an email to (when we send letters (which do still exist) the address is clearly on the front, so this isn't much different). The government should then be able to access this fairly limited data (with a valid reason and potentially, a warrant) to make a decision on whether they need to then gain a full search warrant and then throughly take a look at a person.

    Don't go there.
    jkrmnj likes this.
  20. There is one problem with this. Even goverments make mistakes, and when it comes to these delicate subjects you often won't see these mishaps mentioned widely in the news. Its for a very good reason why The Register describes itself as "Biting the hand that feeds IT" because they'll publish anyway if they find out about this stuff (and if its legit, Register doesn't slander fortunately).

    And make no mistake about this; the moment you're detained you'd better be able to proof your innocence, otherwise there's no telling how long it might take 'm.

    Once again I need to stress out that I'm not propagating paranoia here with regards to shared information. But I do think a lot of people base their opinion on the thought that hardly anything goes wrong. And that's something I personally doubt a bit.
    mba2012 and 607 like this.