Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Skype Hands Teenager's Information To Private Firm

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the but-we-were-friends dept.

Privacy 214

New submitter andrew3 writes "Skype has allegedly handed the information of a 16-year-old boy to a security firm. The information was later handed over to Dutch law enforcement. No court order was served for the disclosure. The teenager was suspected of being part of a DDoS packet flood as a part of the Anonymous 'Operation Payback'." According to the article, Skype voluntarily disclosed the information to the third party firm without any kind of police order, possibly violating a few privacy laws and their own policies.

cancel ×

214 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Another win (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41891221)

For proprietary software.

Re:Another win (5, Informative)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | about 2 years ago | (#41891279)

What does this have to do with Skype being proprietary? An open source company could just as easily handed information over, assuming they ran a service which required payment.

In any event, if you read the article.. It turns out that the security firm was employed by both paypal and Skype, which would mean that the firm would fall under each companies privacy policies and would be allowed to access the data legally.

The security company, however, should not have given the information to the police without an order, although it's a bit fuzzy as to whether they are legally bound by the privacy policy of their employer.

Re:Another win (5, Insightful)

dmbasso (1052166) | about 2 years ago | (#41891327)

You are right, this is actually a win to centralized protocols. We need a standard encrypted p2p communication (im / voip / file sharing / etc) to be widely adopted asap. And then protest / revolt when they try to outlaw it.

P2P voip... like Skype? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41891795)

It's my understanding that All the calls on Skype are both encrypted an p2p. The centralized service is used just to initiate the call (show who is online, etc.). Working around that in a decentralized fashion is possible (hubs/channels like with DC++ and IRC, etc.) but more complicated and adds some issues... and the gains are not nearly enough to justify the change to most Skype users.

The headline is misleading. (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | about 2 years ago | (#41891807)

s/Skype/Microsoft/g

Re:The headline is misleading. (2)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about 2 years ago | (#41892017)

This happened pre-acquisition. It's still Microsoft's mess to deal with now, of course, but the headline is correct.

Re:The headline is misleading. (4, Informative)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about 2 years ago | (#41892183)

No.

Microsoft is using thousands of Linux boxes as Skype supernodes so they can fulfill the US government's wiretapping requests. It was reported and discussed here on Slashdot.

http://linux.slashdot.org/story/12/05/03/2225234/microsoft-using-linux-to-optimize-skype-traffic [slashdot.org]

Re:Another win (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | about 2 years ago | (#41892131)

You are right, this is actually a win to centralized protocols. We need a standard encrypted p2p communication (im / voip / file sharing / etc) to be widely adopted asap. And then protest / revolt when they try to outlaw it.

If you encrypt the IP address of the dude you're trying to call, how do you expect Skype (or your voip provider of choice) to route the call properly?

Right. It's impossible, by design.

Re:Another win (3, Insightful)

dmbasso (1052166) | about 2 years ago | (#41892195)

Sure, if you design it to be impossible, impossible it will be. Or you could try to understand how p2p networks work. Hints: look for 'gnutella', 'gnunet', and 'secushare'.

Re:Another win (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41891503)

It turns out that the security firm was employed by both paypal and Skype, which would mean that the firm would fall under each companies privacy policies

I don't know the local laws, however in some countries the laws are quite strict on how a company may hand out personal information, so hiring another company to do stuff and handing them the information might itself be reason for a lawsuit.

Re:Another win (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41891545)

In any event, if you read the article.. It turns out that the security firm was employed by both paypal and Skype, which would mean that the firm would fall under each companies privacy policies and would be allowed to access the data legally.

No.
This violates EU Privacy law. Privacy law requires a specific purpose, it is not legal to say that "we share your personal data with third parties" in a contract: the parties must be specified. This is especially the case for terms and conditions documents*.

* I'm not sure if this distincition exists in American or even European law, but in Dutch consumer law (where it is referred to as "Algemene Voowaarden", literally translating to 'general conditions': these are the typical EULA/I-bought-something-in-the-store type documents that no-one actually reads), there is an additional blacklist (and "greylist") of terms and conditions that are declared dubious. Such terms include stripping customers of certain rights.

Re:Another win (4, Informative)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | about 2 years ago | (#41892031)

Privacy law requires a specific purpose, it is not legal to say that "we share your personal data with third parties" in a contract: the parties must be specified. This is especially the case for terms and conditions documents*.

You mean like... Skype's [skype.com]

.
Our primary purpose in collecting information is to provide you with a safe, smooth, efficient, and customized experience. Skype collects and uses, or has third party service providers acting on Skype’s behalf collecting and using, personal data relating to you, as permitted or necessary to:
--snip--protect your and Skype’s interests, including in particular to enforce our Terms of Service and prevent and fight against fraud, (together, the Purposes). ...
Skype may disclose personal information to respond to legal requirements, exercise our legal rights or defend against legal claims, to protect Skype’s interests, fight against fraud and to enforce our policies or to protect anyone's rights, property, or safety

And like Paypal's [paypal.com] ...

How we share personal information with other parties... Service providers under contract who help with our business operations such as fraud prevention, bill collection, marketing and technology services. Our contracts dictate that these service providers only use your information in connection with the services they perform for us and not for their own benefit.

Re:Another win (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41891563)

In any event, if you read the article.. It turns out that the security firm was employed by both paypal and Skype, which would mean that the firm would fall under each companies privacy policies and would be allowed to access the data legally.

Umm, no. He was hired by PayPal. Skype just squawked the data to him at his request.

Re:Another win (2)

mrbluze (1034940) | about 2 years ago | (#41891837)

What does this have to do with Skype being proprietary? An open source company could just as easily handed information over, assuming they ran a service which required payment.

Because Skype was bought by Microsoft. I love Big Brother!

Re:Another win (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about 2 years ago | (#41892075)

the firm would fall under each companies privacy policies and would be allowed to access the data legally.

Under Dutch law?

Greengrocers apostrophe? (-1, Flamebait)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 years ago | (#41891237)

Why do people have so many problem's with apostrophe's? Its not difficult.

Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? (5, Informative)

Inf0phreak (627499) | about 2 years ago | (#41891257)

Yes. People would do well to read Bob the Angry Flower's guide to the apostrophe... you idiots [angryflower.com] !

Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? (1)

hannson (1369413) | about 2 years ago | (#41891973)

Surely you meant to say you idiot's.

Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? (3, Funny)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 2 years ago | (#41891269)

That's greengrocers' apostrophe, dumbass.

Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41891337)

I suppose that would depend on singular or plural possessive. And the nastiness was unnecessary.

Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41891753)

And the nastiness was unnecessary.

You must be new here.

Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? (0)

Canazza (1428553) | about 2 years ago | (#41891417)

That's greengrocers' apostrophe, dumbass'.

FTFY

Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 years ago | (#41891923)

dumbass

You only spotted one bad apostrophe? I put four of them in - just to make sure nobody could possibly be stupid enough to miss the joke.

Thanks for proving me wrong...

Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? (1, Insightful)

wienerschnizzel (1409447) | about 2 years ago | (#41891273)

Why do have so many people problems accepting there are non-native English speakers? It's not difficult.

Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41891299)

Why do have so many people problems accepting there are non-native English speakers? It's not difficult.

Why do so many non-native English speakers who write broken English are surprised and annoyed when people make them notice their errors ? Learn from your errors.

Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? (0)

wienerschnizzel (1409447) | about 2 years ago | (#41891377)

Why do so many non-native English speakers who write broken English are surprised and annoyed when people make them notice their errors ? Learn from your errors.

That may very well be. But the OP was not just correcting a particular person, he was bewildered why there are so many people with imperfect grammar skills.

Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? (1)

Panoptes (1041206) | about 2 years ago | (#41891817)

Why do so many non-native English speakers who write broken English are surprised and annoyed when people make them notice their errors ? Learn from your errors. Practise what you preach. That should be: Why are so many non-native English speakers who write broken English surprised and annoyed when people make them notice their errors ? Learn from your errors.

Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41891353)

And why are so many of these non-native English speakers paid to be editors on Slashdot's English language site?

Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41891773)

Editors? Slashdot?

What makes the error inexplicable is the original article had the heading "Skype hands 16-year-old's personal information to IT company".

Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41891445)

Their broke English should be fixed by editors. That is the point of editors, partly.

Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? (4, Informative)

YttriumOxide (837412) | about 2 years ago | (#41891495)

Why do have so many people problems accepting there are non-native English speakers? It's not difficult.

Actually, as a native English speaker living in Germany, I find Germans make these kinds of errors significantly less than native English speakers.

Germans make a lot of other mistakes in grammar, spelling and so on (including some hilarious mistranslations when they think in German and speak English); but things like the apostrophe rules don't seem to be as much of a problem for them (or at least, far easier than me dealing with German comma rules...).

Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? (3, Interesting)

wienerschnizzel (1409447) | about 2 years ago | (#41891559)

Heh, as a non-native English speaker living in Germany I find that Germans make these kind of errors often ;-) Even worse, sometimes young people use the apostrophe as a possessive form in the German language, where it should not be used.

However, a lot of languages don't use apostrophe at all (Slavic languages, Asian languages etc) and those people tend to confuse its usage much more.

Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41892139)

I speak Finnish natively, and I find the apostrophe rules simple. Maybe it's because I had to formally learn them as theory...

Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? (3, Informative)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 years ago | (#41891595)

Yes, it's not like Slashdot has editors whose job it is to make sure headlines and summaries are gramatically correct and easily readable.

Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? (1, Funny)

marcello_dl (667940) | about 2 years ago | (#41891827)

You read headlines and summaries? You must be new here.

Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 years ago | (#41892217)

No, I'm just not an editor.

Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 years ago | (#41892097)

Why do have so many people problems accepting there are non-native English speakers? It's not difficult.

Why do so many English people have trouble believing people can learn other languages properly? My usual language is Spanish. I write English quite a lot but I can't remember the last time I spoke it.... certainly not in the last month.

Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? (5, Funny)

LittleLui (1792210) | about 2 years ago | (#41891403)

Exactly. The apo'strophe warn's the reader that the next letter i's an 's, right?

And why does it bother you so much? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41891419)

Exposing those with grammar and spelling fetishes is a great way to find people whom you should stay the fuck away from.

On a serious note. You likely suffer from OCPD. You should seek professional help. Being mentally defective is worse than just being wrong about spelling/grammar. Get help. Or at least shut the fuck up about grammar or spelling outside of your close personal friends who put up with your shit.

Re:And why does it bother you so much? (3, Insightful)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | about 2 years ago | (#41891479)

I think it's you who has the problem, sir, although you both seem to be suffering from an inappropriately low level of social restraint. Whoops, so do I, I guess it's John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Principle at work...

The poster who is annoyed by incorrect apostrophe usage is displaying traits that probably make him a good programmer or other engineer - attention to detail, and caring about correctness. He might have a few things to learn about social interaction, but in general I find that most people of this type can learn some simple rules to keep out of social trouble.

(I'm not saying the rules aren't complex, just that people of this type, myself included, are not disposed to learning all the complex heuristics and bodies of communal "knowledge" like which actor cheated on which actress, etc., that pass as "etiquette" these days).

Whereas you are just being an asshole, but alas, you don't seem to know it. I'm prepared to bet that the number of people who dislike you is *much* higher than you imagine it to be, and at least 2 higher today.

Re:And why does it bother you so much? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 years ago | (#41891611)

I'm prepared to bet that the number of people who dislike you is *much* higher than you imagine it to be, and at least 2 higher today.

Confirmed.

Re:And why does it bother you so much? (2)

scdeimos (632778) | about 2 years ago | (#41891587)

Everybody starts out with OCPD. Most people eventually stop giving a shit.

Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41891439)

Not to mention capitalising every word of the sentence.

Not difficult? (3, Interesting)

abigsmurf (919188) | about 2 years ago | (#41891449)

OK then, give me the correct plural and possessive for an object that belongs to a group of people called Chris (using "Chris" as the basis). How about an object belonging to a collective of women who like to identify themselves as "Ms." ?

The rules for apostrophes aren't as easy as a lot of Grammer Nazi's like to think it is. There are a bunch of rules, often contradictory where you have to learn which takes priority and it's compounded by vague "if it could confuse the reader" rules.

Re:Not difficult? (2)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 years ago | (#41891659)

But...ummm...this wasn't one of those weird cases. And there were editors.

Re:Not difficult? (2)

Kal Zekdor (826142) | about 2 years ago | (#41891719)

OK then, give me the correct plural and possessive for an object that belongs to a group of people called Chris (using "Chris" as the basis). How about an object belonging to a collective of women who like to identify themselves as "Ms." ?

Chrises' and Misses'

Re:Not difficult? (1)

abigsmurf (919188) | about 2 years ago | (#41892087)

The second is definitely wrong (Ms. != Miss)

Re:Not difficult? (1)

Threni (635302) | about 2 years ago | (#41891833)

Why do you think those two examples are not easy? What's complicated about them?

Re:Not difficult? (1)

abigsmurf (919188) | about 2 years ago | (#41892141)

I'd wager most people would get them wrong or at least have to think fairly hard. In the case of " Chrises' " it's complicated enough for there to be no set rule about how it's pronounced (although most people would say 'Chrises' because 'Chriseses' sounds silly).

Re:Not difficult? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41892157)

"The rules for apostrophes aren't as easy as a lot of Grammer Nazi's like to think it is. "

I resent that.

We are Grammar Nazis and not Grammer Nazi's, those are the hicks that were not eaten by a grue in New York last week.

Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 2 years ago | (#41891521)

Greengro'ce'rs apostrophe

FYT

Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41891549)

Fuck apostrophes.

Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? (5, Informative)

GeekWithAKnife (2717871) | about 2 years ago | (#41891569)

Why do people have so many problem's with apostrophe's? Its not difficult.

Since we're nit picking...I wanted to illustrate how easy it really is.

Sure, the vast majority of English speakers are unable to make proper use of the apostrophe at all times, but who cares? it's not difficult!

Just follow these not difficult rules, like everyone else:

Rule 1 - Use the apostrophe with contractions. The apostrophe is always placed at the spot where the letter(s) has been removed.
Examples: don't, isn't. You're right. She's a great teacher.

Rule 2 - Use the apostrophe to show possession. Place the apostrophe before the s to show singular possession.
Examples: one boy's hat. one woman's hat. one actress's hat. one child's hat. Ms. Chang's house

NOTE: Although names ending in s or an s sound are not required to have the second s added in possessive form, it is preferred.
Examples: Mr. Jones's golf clubs. Texas's weather. Ms. Straus's daughter. Jose Sanchez's artwork. Dr. Hastings's appointment (name is Hastings). Mrs. Lees's books (name is Lees)

Rule 3 - Use the apostrophe where the noun that should follow is implied.
Example: This was his father's, not his, jacket.

Rule 4 - To show plural possession, make the noun plural first. Then immediately use the apostrophe.
Examples: two boys' hats two women's hats. two actresses' hats. two children's hats. the Changs' house. the Joneses' golf clubs. the Strauses' daughter. the Sanchezes' artwork. the Hastingses' appointment. the Leeses' books.

Rule 5 - Do not use an apostrophe for the plural of a name.
Examples: We visited the Sanchezes in Los Angeles. The Changs have two cats and a dog.

Rule 6 - With a singular compound noun, show possession with 's at the end of the word.
Example: my mother-in-law's hat

Rule 7 - If the compound noun is plural, form the plural first and then use the apostrophe.
Example: my two brothers-in-law's hats

Rule 8 - Use the apostrophe and s after the second name only if two people possess the same item.
Examples: Cesar and Maribel's home is constructed of redwood. Cesar's and Maribel's job contracts will be renewed next year. Indicates separate ownership.
Cesar and Maribel's job contracts will be renewed next year. Indicates joint ownership of more than one contract.

Rule 9 - Never use an apostrophe with possessive pronouns: his, hers, its, theirs, ours, yours, whose. They already show possession so they do not require an
apostrophe.

Correct: This book is hers, not yours.

Incorrect: Sincerely your's.

Rule 10 - The only time an apostrophe is used for it's is when it is a contraction for it is or it has.
Examples: It's a nice day. It's your right to refuse the invitation. It's been great getting to know you.

Rule 11 - The plurals for capital letters and numbers used as nouns are not formed with apostrophes.
Examples: She consulted with three M.D.s. BUT She went to three M.D.s' offices.
The apostrophe is needed here to show plural possessive.
She learned her ABCs.
the 1990s not the 1990's
the '90s or the mid-'70s not the '90's or the mid-'70's
She learned her times tables for 6s and 7s.

Exception:
Use apostrophes with capital letters and numbers when the meaning would be unclear otherwise.
Examples: Please dot your i's. You don't mean is. Ted couldn't distinguish between his 6's and 0's.
You need to use the apostrophe to indicate the plural of zero or it will look like the word Os.
To be consistent within a sentence, you would also use the apostrophe to indicate the plural of 6's.

Rule 12 - Use the possessive case in front of a gerund (-ing word).
Examples: Alex's skating was a joy to behold. This does not stop Joan's inspecting of our facilities next Thursday.

Rule 13 - If the gerund has a pronoun in front of it, use the possessive form of that pronoun.
Examples: I appreciate your inviting me to dinner. I appreciated his working with me to resolve the conflict.

The useful site this came from -> http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/apostro.asp [grammarbook.com]

Maybe, after reading those rules you're a bit like me, wanting to commit seppuku.

Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? (2)

Raenex (947668) | about 2 years ago | (#41891865)

If people just followed the first two rules, and didn't use them for plurals, they'd be doing well.

Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? (5, Funny)

Paradise Pete (33184) | about 2 years ago | (#41892027)

Rule 1 - Use the apostrophe with contractions.

I tried this with my wife during labor. She was in agony and I kept yelling "Honey, use the apostrophe!!"
She was not amused.

Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? (1)

mdragan (1166333) | about 2 years ago | (#41892203)

TL;DR

Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 2 years ago | (#41891731)

Why do people have so many problem's with apostrophe's? Its not difficult.

What's a postrophe?

Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41892185)

The most important rule of all:

When in doubt, don't use an apostrophe.

Apostromania (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41891241)

"Skype Hand's Teenager's Information To Private Firm.

I see.

The information of the teenager of the hand belonging to Skype is to deprive a firm of something.
Yep. Makes sense.

Microsoft (1)

mr100percent (57156) | about 2 years ago | (#41891243)

Shall we blame MS for this? Or did they wash their hands of it?

Re:Microsoft (3, Interesting)

wienerschnizzel (1409447) | about 2 years ago | (#41891287)

Well, Microsoft has a history of busting botnets. I would not be surprised if they mined Skype data for related topics. However, I do think they deserve to get negative backlash for scanning private conversations.

Re:Microsoft (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 2 years ago | (#41891455)

The all new Relationship Management Team 2.0
"Law Enforcement Relationship Management Team" got lost in the move?

Re:Microsoft (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41891551)

Skype is an independent subsidiary of Microsoft, it is unlikely they had anything to do with this unless the order came from Ballmer himself.

From reading the fine article, Paypal employed a security firm to investigate this, that security firm also does work for Skype, while working for Paypal this security firm linked an attacker to his Skype username, then the security firm used its existing relationship with Skype to get the data on this Skype user.

From that information it sounds to me like Skype trusted this security firm when they requested the data because the firm worked for them, so I would say the security firm possibly broke the law by abusing its pre-existing relationship with Skype to get this data while working for someone else. Of course without further information on it is hard to say for sure, but it looks like it was the security firm that is to blame and not Skype (as they should be able to trust the security firm, but apparently the firm is untrustworthy).

Ultimately (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 2 years ago | (#41892041)

Ultimately, its the guy in the big chair that is responsible for the actions of anyone in his company.

We should also stop calling them skype, and call them what they are, a division Microsoft.

Hand's (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41891247)

What's this mean's?

Re:Hand's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41891771)

Simple: it means Skype has a hand that owns a teenager who has information.

The new paradigm (1)

warewolfsmith (196722) | about 2 years ago | (#41891255)

Even the bigger companies with their own lawyers are scared of insulting the US Justice system by even remotely appearing to support illegal cyber crimes to the extent they will break minor laws to sure up their position. With the US now prepared to extradite anyone from anywhere for anything, everyone will fall into line. "And you know why, cos we've got the nukes" Tenacious D.

Re:The new paradigm (4, Insightful)

janrinok (846318) | about 2 years ago | (#41891323)

Didn't this happen in Holland? What has it got to do with the US Justice system?

Re:The new paradigm (4, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | about 2 years ago | (#41891553)

You haven't noticed how the US is extraditing people all over the world for breaking US law even though what they may have been doing was perfectly legal in their country?

Re:The new paradigm (2)

SerpentMage (13390) | about 2 years ago | (#41891561)

Everything actually. US based global corporations have this habit of handing out users information at the drop of a hat. They do so, so they will not have problems with the law (as if). Because Skype received a request from somebody else and global corporations easily hand out information they just did so. There is quite a bit of spying going on!

Skype hand's? (3, Insightful)

blind biker (1066130) | about 2 years ago | (#41891261)

Slashdot editors, have you no shame?

Re:Skype hand's? (3, Funny)

martin-boundary (547041) | about 2 years ago | (#41891487)

S'lashdot editors, have you no shame?

FTFY's

Re:Skype hand's? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41891625)

Slashdot editor's, have you no shame?

FTFY's

Even better :-)

Re:Skype hand's? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 years ago | (#41891621)

Slashdot - editors, have you? No - shame.

FTFY.

Re:Skype hand's? (1)

humanrev (2606607) | about 2 years ago | (#41891627)

At this point I'd like to think that anyone who's still paying subscriptions to this place is a fool. It's not like their money is being used to uphold some standards in quality.

Re:Skype hand's? (1)

alexgieg (948359) | about 2 years ago | (#41891711)

Slashdot editors, have you no shame?

Why should they? The title is perfectly understandable in at least 4 perfectly logical ways!

a) Information of Teenager of Skype Hand To Private Firm
b) Teenager is Information of Skype Hand To Private Firm
c) Skype Hand is Information of Teenager To Private Firm
d) Skype Hand is Teenager is Information To Private Firm

Plus 5 additional ones if we introduce "was", and then 7 *more* with "has"!

Re:Skype hand's? (1)

Marxdot (2699183) | about 2 years ago | (#41892035)

Your jus't jealou'se off hi's wordskill's.

The security and surveillance craze continues (2)

vikingpower (768921) | about 2 years ago | (#41891289)

Corporations and individuals kneeling for the police - before any policeman ever yelled "Kneel !! ". We will see this ever more often. Welcome to our Brave New World.

Re:The security and surveillance craze continues (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 2 years ago | (#41891425)

Welcome to our Brave New World where IM products run in the background "out of the box" after your next software update- just waiting for a call ....
Enjoy crystal clear HD cam fun with sneak and peek for any interested 3rd party.

Re:The security and surveillance craze continues (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41891613)

Is it really that hard to put some black tape over the camera lens?

Re:The security and surveillance craze continues (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41892219)

is it really that hard to...

disable your mic?
disable geolocation?
black out your camera?
disable all antennas?
encrypt your drives?
use an out of country VPN?
use TOR?
use Freenet?
Bombproof your home?
Metal-detector the entrances?
report your neighbor for suspicious activities?

OR..

Employ a government that is uninterested in spying on you.

no problems (3, Funny)

LateLurker (2753873) | about 2 years ago | (#41891311)

it's OK, we'll just use facetime.

Wisdom follows, pay attention! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41891319)

Since Slashdot readers are mostly americans (united-statesians) I shall enlighten them about Europe. Europe consists of nation states or in other word unitary states. In this kind of system, the country, as represented by its parliament, government (plus sometimes a monarch) is the source of all souvereignity. People receive their rights from them and the govt decides how much rights it conveys to the people. Hopefully not too much, because anarchy is the worst enemy of civilization!

Europe is not USA, so americans have no authority to push their weird, early medieval anglo-saxon tribal law based ideals onto Europe. In Europe, your duties to be a law-abiding citizen come way before privacy and the freedom of speech, which is so much used by movie pirates as a thin veil cover for their illegal P2P activity.

All in all, the kid hopefully learns from the police experience that it is not worth to be deliquent! It must also be said that dutch are the black sheep of Europe, their cannabis haven produces a lot of schizophrenics, who then go around Europe, comitting scizo murders. Dutch are also prostitution addicts, importing tens of thousands of teenage gipsy girls into brothels for unprotected sex, causing widespread social problems in eastern european countries. These are much more important issues than a DDoD criminal being arrested for his crime.

Re:Wisdom follows, pay attention! (1)

SerpentMage (13390) | about 2 years ago | (#41891571)

BEEP sorry wrong answer. It does not matter. The problem is that Skype is owned by a US global corporation. The company thus answers to the US laws since that is what applies for it. If anything else happens the US global corporation would rather pay a bit of money to silence the person than actually care about the laws. I can understand why they are doing this for if the US global corporation pisses off the US laws then they would be susceptible to being shut down.

Re:Wisdom follows, pay attention! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41891825)

It does not matter. The problem is that Skype is owned by a US global corporation. The company thus answers to the US laws

I see a'symmetry. The security firm is Dutch, the victim is Dutch. What doe's US law have to do with it, other than USians assuming that it applies worldwide?

Actually, now that I think of it, the security firm has been mapping and matching the data from two separate customers, both of which are (owned by) US-based corporations. It has then provided that compiled information to a third party (a non-US third party at that, and on its own volition). How does that not violate US private property laws?

Re:Wisdom follows, pay attention! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41891675)

Your post is absolutely hilarious. How little you really know about how the law works.

I don't mind, somehow (1)

bytesex (112972) | about 2 years ago | (#41891347)

They could have broken privacy laws with this but if they didn't: what if, based on the evidence that they had, they just simply thought the boy was being a major asswipe? There is no *obligation* to use Skype, right?

Re:I don't mind, somehow (2)

AHuxley (892839) | about 2 years ago | (#41891399)

Police usually like to take the long view, track as many people as they can, turn the useful ones into traps or bait, get great PR and future funding.
Why go to court early? A wealthy family might get caught up, hire a better than average legal team thats will expose poor quality evidence.
Most parts of the world have very strict privacy laws and no company is free to decide anything about users data without a *real* court like document or some real time sensitive issue- again police/courts/govs can act very fast if needed.
No court wants to face the reality of an unsafe conviction or be part of some early collapse of any multi national investigation due to a tip or gift of "information".

Probably violates european data protection law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41891493)

The private company being Dutch, and the boy being Dutch I'm sure this violates the European Data Protection law.

Wrong company name! (1)

aglider (2435074) | about 2 years ago | (#41891633)

First it should read:

Microsoft voluntarily disclosed the information to the third party firm without any kind of police order, possibly violating a few privacy laws and their own policies.

Then I argue: is this really news?

Re:Wrong company name! (1)

flimflammer (956759) | about 2 years ago | (#41891685)

No, it really shouldn't read that way.

Re:Wrong company name! (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 2 years ago | (#41892113)

Owned by MS since 2011, Skype ~ the new Windows Live Messenger service.

Only thing good can come (2)

ruir (2709173) | about 2 years ago | (#41891643)

After being bought by a firm that is in bed with the US government and NSA...

Good news (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41891713)

Isn't Skype now property of Microsoft? :) Anything that hurts Microsoft is good news.

Bah, humbug! (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 2 years ago | (#41891723)

possibly violating a few privacy laws and their own policies.

Those concerns are so 20th Century.

Broken EU law (2)

Martin S. (98249) | about 2 years ago | (#41891739)

The events details in the article suggest that, Joep Gommers, senior director of global research at the Dutch IT security firm iSIGHT Partners, Skype and PayPal have all broken EU Directive 95/46/EC (Data Protection laws) [wikipedia.org] .

How do you know he was 16? (2)

Kaenneth (82978) | about 2 years ago | (#41892003)

If data on people under 18 can't be given to the police, what's to stop everyone from claiming to be under 18 when convenient?

Would you trust the claimed age on the user profile of someone known to be abusing the system the profile is on?

Remember, on the Internet, noone knows you are a dog.

AHH FOR THE LOVE OF GRAMMAR (1)

highacnumber (988934) | about 2 years ago | (#41892067)

Please fix that extraneous apostrophe.

Relevant links (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41892153)

To the douchebags: The Internet cancer [kimmoa.se] .
To Slashdot's editors: English guide [kimmoa.se] .

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?