Skype Hands Teenager's Information To Private Firm 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.
Apostromania (Score:3, Funny)
"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 (Score:2)
Shall we blame MS for this? Or did they wash their hands of it?
Re:Microsoft (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
"Law Enforcement Relationship Management Team" got lost in the move?
Re: (Score:2)
Can someone please mod offtopic?
This clearly has nothing to do with apostrophes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Ultimately (Score:2)
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.
Skype hand's? (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdot editors, have you no shame?
Re:Skype hand's? (Score:4, Funny)
FTFY's
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot - editors, have you? No - shame.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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"!
The security and surveillance craze continues (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Enjoy crystal clear HD cam fun with sneak and peek for any interested 3rd party.
no problems (Score:3, Funny)
I don't mind, somehow (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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 ve
Wrong company name! (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
No, it really shouldn't read that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Only thing good can come (Score:2)
Bah, humbug! (Score:3)
possibly violating a few privacy laws and their own policies.
Those concerns are so 20th Century.
Broken EU law (Score:3)
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? (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
the age doesn't actually matter. they didn't serve the proper authorizations/requests. the security company employee had no business in asking or handling other peoples data in any case.
AHH FOR THE LOVE OF GRAMMAR (Score:2)
Apostrophe... (Score:2)
For God's sake lose the apostrophe from 'Hand's'.
Skype Hand has a Teenager now? (Score:2)
Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? (Score:5, Informative)
I see your BTAF's guide to the apostrophe and raise you one Oatmeal guide to using the apostrophe. [theoatmeal.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's' greengrocer's' apo's'trophe, dumba's's'.
FTFY
If you're going to do it, do it big.
Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? (Score:5, Funny)
Not difficult? (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
But...ummm...this wasn't one of those weird cases. And there were editors.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
You're too funny.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Also, "Chriseses" adds letters that aren't there. There is a set rule about how it's pronounced: it's "Chrises". Weirdly, this is one of those cases in English where you pronounce the letters that are there. The apostrophe is not pronounced "es".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Repeating it doesn't make it true. You pronounce the extra "s" if it's present.
You actually provide a good example. Normally, the correct possessive of "Los Angeles" would be "Los Angeles's". However, this is treated as an exception, since the extra "s" is considered difficult to pronounce. So the possessive actually follows the pronunciation: "Los Angeles'". In this case, knowing the exceptions for making possessives can be tricky -- but what *isn't* tricky is knowing how to pronounce it, as the exceptions
Re: (Score:2)
FYT
Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? (Score:5, Informative)
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 ap
Re: (Score:3)
If people just followed the first two rules, and didn't use them for plurals, they'd be doing well.
Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
For almost all mistakes, you only need to know rules 1, 2, 4, and 9. Rule 9 isn't even about apostrophes -- it's about possessives. Rule 10, for example, is completely redundant once you have rules 1 and 9.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do people have so many problem's with apostrophe's? Its not difficult.
What's a postrophe?
Re: (Score:2)
The crux of the biscuit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And why are so many of these non-native English speakers paid to be editors on Slashdot's English language site?
Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Understanding it is one thing (though there are confusing exceptions such as - what's the possessive form from the plural noun "wolves"?), not having an 'eye' for spotting errors is another. A wrong usage of the word "its" does not get picked up by spell-checking and a foreigner can easily overlook it while skimming through his/her text.You are probably better at this because in Finland people get spoon-fed English language from the TV from an early age.
Re: (Score:3)
The apostrophe goes immediately after the owner, that's to say the answer to the question, "Who does the following noun belong to?". This applies whether it's a regular plural or not.
Wolves' paws, men's feet, pigs' trotters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
This can be easily explained: English as a foreign language is usually taught in primary schools and (also) in written form. Native speakers learn the basics of the language when they're little kids from their parents before they are able to write. Even when you start going to school, verbal communication is still used more (think of how many words you say during your day, even for insignificants tasks, and how many you write). If this kind of spelling mistakes are not corrected by teachers or parents, they
Re: (Score:2)
especially for people whose daily occupation doesn't involve a lot of writing
Like Slashdot editors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You read headlines and summaries? You must be new here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do have so many people problems accepting there are non-native English speakers? It's not difficult.
Do you know what a straw man argument is?
Re: (Score:2)
Why do have so many people problems accepting there are non-native English speakers? It's not difficult.
I accept that there are many people here who speak English as a second language (E2L). However, for a sample size of one (a mate's Polish wife), I have found that they are more than eager to learn when their pronunciation, grammar, or use of slang is inappropriate or incorrect. I certainly wouldn't call an E2L speaker a "dumbass" for not knowing such things, but I would point out the mistake with an explaination of why it is incorrect, if I am capable.
For instance, your first sentence should be "Why do so
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do so many ACs who are bitching about other people's minor grammatical errors frequently make a complete hatchet job of subject/predicate tense and plurality agreements?
Re:And why does it bother you so much? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not giving a fuck is a problem in general in today's society of sheeple.
Look, if you're going to do something, do it well, or don't bother.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Another win (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
That is why if you want to make sure your messages are secure, you write them down on a piece of paper, put them into an envelope, and drop it into a random mailbox. Of course to be secure, you also have to encrypt the senders and receivers address on the outside of the envelope.
Re: (Score:3)
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. (Score:5, Informative)
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:The headline is misleading. (Score:5, Funny)
I want to know why "Hand's" is apostrophized.
Punctuation is like seasoning! Adding more improves the flavour!
Re: (Score:2)
It must be the fairly common misuse, Here comes an 's'!
Re: (Score:3)
Punctuation is, like, seasoning! Adding more, improve's the...flavour!?!
Re:Another win (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
So you're saying that under EU law, every contractor a company uses must be listed in a privacy policy and TOS? I would think that would require them to be updated almost minutely for some companies... that seems very unworkable.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
the firm would fall under each companies privacy policies and would be allowed to access the data legally.
Under Dutch law?
Re: (Score:2)
You're saying that under dutch law an employee of a company isn't legally allowed to access data owned by the company?
I would find that hard to belive
Re: (Score:2)
No, the article explicitly says that Skype was one of the security companies clients already.
Re:The new paradigm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The new paradigm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
Easy: this story is on Slashdot, and people on Slashdot like to complain about the U.S. Justice system.
Re: (Score:2)
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.