Skype Hands Teenager's Information To Private Firm

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Skype Hands Teenager's Information To Private Firm

Posted by Unknown on Monday November 5, 2012 @08:21PM from the but-we-were-friends dept.

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.

214 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Another win by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 20:22 · Score: -1

For proprietary software.
1. Re:Another win by man_of_mr_e · 2012-11-05 20:38 · 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.
  
  --
  If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
2. Re:Another win by dmbasso · 2012-11-05 20:49 · 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.
  
  --
  `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
3. Re:Another win by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 21:35 · Score: 1
  
  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.
4. Re:Another win by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 21:47 · 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.
5. Re:Another win by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 21:52 · Score: 0
  
  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.
6. Re:Another win by mrbluze · 2012-11-05 23:08 · 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!
  
  --
  Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
7. Re:Another win by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2012-11-06 00:02 · Score: 4, 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
  
  .
  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...
  
  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.
8. Re:Another win by Type44Q · 2012-11-06 00:16 · Score: 1
  
  the firm would fall under each companies privacy policies and would be allowed to access the data legally.
  Under Dutch law?
9. Re:Another win by Pieroxy · 2012-11-06 00:27 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Write boring code, not shiny code!
10. Re:Another win by dmbasso · 2012-11-06 00:38 · Score: 3, 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'.
  
  --
  `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
11. Re:Another win by man_of_mr_e · 2012-11-06 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  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
  
  --
  If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
12. Re:Another win by man_of_mr_e · 2012-11-06 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
13. Re:Another win by man_of_mr_e · 2012-11-06 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  No, the article explicitly says that Skype was one of the security companies clients already.
  
  --
  If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
14. Re:Another win by MakerDusk · 2012-11-06 03:36 · Score: 0
  
  The kid was one responsible for a DoS attack. Skype procured information on the attacker, forwarding it to their 3rd party security provider, after that it was forwarded to the police. How is this wrong? When my network is attacked by a user, you better believe I pull up their account info for the report. If their minors? I don't care, there will still be consequences, just not a severe, under the law.
15. Re:Another win by KingMotley · 2012-11-06 03:43 · Score: 2
  
  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.
16. Re:Another win by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 03:47 · Score: -1
  
  No one cares about the EU's silly Privacy laws on the internet.
  Don't like it? Get off the internet.
17. Re:Another win by Type44Q · 2012-11-06 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  "You're saying..."
  Did you fail to spot the question mark at the end of my sentence?
18. Re:Another win by Khyber · 2012-11-06 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  "the parties must be specified."
  Saying "Third parties acting on (company) behalf" is obviously not holding with the law in that country/country union.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
19. Re:Another win by DarwinSurvivor · 2012-11-07 18:24 · Score: 1
  
  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 sure it never arrives, you also have to encrypt the senders and receivers address on the outside of the envelope.
  FTFY
Greengrocers apostrophe? by Joce640k · 2012-11-05 20:28 · Score: -1, Flamebait

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

--
No sig today...
1. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by Inf0phreak · 2012-11-05 20:34 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Yes. People would do well to read Bob the Angry Flower's guide to the apostrophe... you idiots!
  
  --
  ________
  Entranced by anime since late summer 2001 and loving it ^_^
2. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by DNS-and-BIND · 2012-11-05 20:37 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  That's greengrocers' apostrophe, dumbass.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
3. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by wienerschnizzel · 2012-11-05 20:38 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Why do have so many people problems accepting there are non-native English speakers? It's not difficult.
4. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 20:44 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  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.
5. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 20:53 · Score: -1
  
  I suppose that would depend on singular or plural possessive. And the nastiness was unnecessary.
6. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 20:57 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  And why are so many of these non-native English speakers paid to be editors on Slashdot's English language site?
7. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by wienerschnizzel · 2012-11-05 21:02 · Score: 0
  
  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.
8. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by LittleLui · 2012-11-05 21:07 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Exactly. The apo'strophe warn's the reader that the next letter i's an 's, right?
9. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by blind+biker · 2012-11-05 21:08 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I see your BTAF's guide to the apostrophe and raise you one Oatmeal guide to using the apostrophe.
  
  --
  "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
10. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by Canazza · 2012-11-05 21:11 · Score: 0
  
  That's greengrocers' apostrophe, dumbass'.
  FTFY
  
  --
  It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
11. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 21:16 · Score: 0
  
  Not to mention capitalising every word of the sentence.
12. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 21:18 · Score: 1
  
  Their broke English should be fixed by editors. That is the point of editors, partly.
13. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by YttriumOxide · 2012-11-05 21:33 · Score: 4, 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...).
  
  --
  My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
  Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
14. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by Arancaytar · 2012-11-05 21:39 · Score: 1
  
  Greengro'ce'rs apostrophe
  FYT
15. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 21:48 · Score: 0
  
  Fuck apostrophes.
16. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by wienerschnizzel · 2012-11-05 21:51 · Score: 3, 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.
17. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by GeekWithAKnife · 2012-11-05 21:53 · 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
  
  --
  A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
18. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by wonkey_monkey · 2012-11-05 21:58 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Yes, it's not like Slashdot has editors whose job it is to make sure headlines and summaries are gramatically correct and easily readable.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
19. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by Black+Parrot · 2012-11-05 22:39 · Score: 1
  
  Why do people have so many problem's with apostrophe's? Its not difficult.
  What's a postrophe?
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
20. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 22:43 · Score: 1
  
  And the nastiness was unnecessary.
  You must be new here.
21. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 22:49 · Score: 0
  
  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".
22. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by Panoptes · 2012-11-05 23:03 · Score: 1
  
  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.
23. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by marcello_dl · 2012-11-05 23:05 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  You read headlines and summaries? You must be new here.
  
  --
  ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
24. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by Raenex · 2012-11-05 23:17 · Score: 2
  
  If people just followed the first two rules, and didn't use them for plurals, they'd be doing well.
25. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by Joce640k · 2012-11-05 23:30 · Score: 1
  
  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...
  
  --
  No sig today...
26. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by hannson · 2012-11-05 23:43 · Score: 1
  
  Surely you meant to say you idiot's.
27. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by Paradise+Pete · 2012-11-06 00:01 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  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.
28. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by Joce640k · 2012-11-06 00:22 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  No sig today...
29. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 00:28 · Score: 0
  
  I speak Finnish natively, and I find the apostrophe rules simple. Maybe it's because I had to formally learn them as theory...
30. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 00:36 · Score: 1
  
  The most important rule of all:
  When in doubt, don't use an apostrophe.
31. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by mdragan · 2012-11-06 00:39 · Score: 1
  
  TL;DR
32. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by wonkey_monkey · 2012-11-06 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  No, I'm just not an editor.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
33. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by mridoni · 2012-11-06 00:50 · 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 can be easily carried on to adult age, especially for people whose daily occupation doesn't involve a lot of writing.
34. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by wienerschnizzel · 2012-11-06 00:50 · Score: 1
  
  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.
35. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 00:52 · Score: 0
  
  Non-native speakers tend to be better when it comes to the elementary stuff (think it's vs. its), mostly because we were taught all the rules.
  I think the majority of people who constantly write "their" instead of "they're" (or the other way around) are actually native English speakers.
36. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by blind+biker · 2012-11-06 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  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?
  
  --
  "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
37. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by wienerschnizzel · 2012-11-06 01:08 · Score: 1
  
  Why do so many people have trouble believing that just because they are skilled in one area, everybody should be? Again - I'm not against correcting somebody, but is it really *that* surprising to you that most people don't speak flawless English? Welcome to teh internets, I guess...
38. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by groslyunderpaid · 2012-11-06 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  A rather large amount of us don't have a problem with them; we simply don't give a fuck. If in a hurry and I happen to type their instead of they're, I also don't give a fuck. Out of so many things on a daily basis that are actually important, and so many other things that are not important at all but I still feel like spending my time on (it IS my time, after all), [']'s simply do not always make the list.
  Furthermore, if you took a random sample of 1000 people, I would think you would probably come to this realization.
  People. Don't. Care.
  P.S.
  It's not a big deal. We really don't care.
39. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by L4t3r4lu5 · 2012-11-06 01:26 · Score: 1
  
  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 many people have problems accepting that there are non-native English speakers?" "problems" are a property of a person, not the other way around, therefore the possessive verb comes before the predicate, not the subject. Hope this helps :)
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
40. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by Anne_Nonymous · 2012-11-06 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  >> Germans make a lot of other mistakes
  Well we know you're not German.
41. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by TeknoHog · 2012-11-06 01:27 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, it's not like Slashdot has editors whose job it is to make sure headlines and summaries are grammatically correct and easily readable.
  FTFY.
  
  --
  Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
42. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  ok, so based on the article title...
  We have a thing called a Skype Hand. This reminds me of all the zombie movies out there, where the heroine screams at the sight of a dismembered hand crawling across the floor... or grabbing her around the ankle... or wondering "where the hell is my watch? Someone stole by f**king Rolex!".
  Skype Hand owns a teenager (scary thought... but it would make an interesting plot device in one of the zombie movies).
  Information about the teenager who belongs to Skype Hand seems to have been sent to an entity called Private Firm (the phrase is capitalised, so unless there is a place or person called "Private Firm"I suspect this is some sort of clandestine organisation providing espionage and assassination services to pro-zombie organisations around the world).
  The reasons why Skype Hand might have felt it neccessary to send this information to Private Firm is not clear, but given that this teenager is presumably*
  (a) male;
  and (b) constantly horny and ejaculating at any thought that involves women;
  then I would speculate that the teenager has been trying to use Skype Hand as an attachment for masturbation, raising a number of problems:
  - Skype Hand's passive/aggressive tendencies and apparent need to fulfill the submissive role with dominatrix (given that it both owns the teenager, and feels the need to submit to the teenager's wishes) point to unresolved psychological issues in its past.
  - The age of the teenager and the age of Skype Hand might make this a case of child abuse by either a minor or an adult or, if both parties are over the age of consent, a case of unlawful coercion by the child if Skype Hand can show that it tried to refused but was forced into a sexual act against its will. I am not sure if this can be classed as a "Think of the Children!" moment, or if it would be neccessary to introduce an additional meme, presumably in the form of "Think of the zombies! (Or at least, what is left of them...)".
  - The rights (or lack, thereof) of zombies and zombie appendages under the existing laws of The Netherlands and the European Union - this may be something that The European Court of Human Rights determines they and other legislative bodies outside The Netherlands have no jurisdiction over, resulting in the need for a new treaty between the countries of the European Union to establish the rights and citizenship of zombies within the Union, and to determine the extent to which other laws apply to them. No doubt Romania, with its extensive Vampire population, will be able to give valuable assistance (during the hours of darkness, at least) in crafting legislation to address the needs and rights of such a previously disregarded group.
  In short, this situation opens a huge can of worms, which will probably make their way directly to Skype Hand and proceed to burrow into that unfortunate creature, who finally found the courage to stand up against his/its tormentor/oppressor, and who will apparently now be turned into worm food for taking a stand. Time is short, people (so is Danny deVito, but he is not in danger of being eaten by worms, afaik). Time is short, so before Skype Hand succumbs to the ravenous appetites of the voracious worms who have been unleashed (if I was a conspiracy theorist, I might think that the worms had been released on purpose, to silence Skype Hand, and prevent this situation coming to light, thus depriving zombies of their chance to gain legal standing) we must act to address the inequities inherent in treating zombies and their detached body parts as being beneath consideration.
  * Based on demographics, internet memes, stereotypes and convenient assumptions.
43. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 01:38 · Score: 0
  
  Why Americans lacks mostly with their verbal and writing skills to get correct grammar, while germans or even french usually get them more often right?
  (No, I am not from any of those countries)
44. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by blueg3 · 2012-11-06 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  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.
45. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by Hognoxious · 2012-11-06 01:41 · Score: 2
  
  there are confusing exceptions such as - what's the possessive form from the plural noun "wolves"?
  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.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
46. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by Worthless_Comments · 2012-11-06 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  Wolves'
  
  That's not very confusing.
47. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by jones_supa · 2012-11-06 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  As you mention it, you can generally expect high-quality English from Finns. The accent is notoriously heavy, yet the grammar is great.
48. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 02:01 · Score: 0
  
  Well, as a native English speaker living in the United States of America, I YEEEHAW GIT ER DONE.
49. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by M.+Baranczak · 2012-11-06 02:02 · Score: 1
  
  especially for people whose daily occupation doesn't involve a lot of writing
  Like Slashdot editors.
50. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by cbiltcliffe · 2012-11-06 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  That's' greengrocer's' apo's'trophe, dumba's's'.
  FTFY
  If you're going to do it, do it big.
  
  --
  "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
51. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by BenoitRen · 2012-11-06 02:15 · 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.
52. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by cbiltcliffe · 2012-11-06 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  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?
  
  --
  "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
53. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by L4t3r4lu5 · 2012-11-06 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  My biggest problem with English is that I already know all of these rules, but because when I learned how to speak it I wasn't taught what a gerund is, the names for the various tenses and cases, or many of the other technical terms for the rules of grammar. I can apply the rules fine, but i'm buggered if I have to explain them!
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
54. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by Chewbacon · 2012-11-06 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  What he said, illiterate fuck's.
  
  --
  Chewbacon
  The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
55. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 02:33 · Score: 0
  
  Headline: Cthulhu rise's from dread Rlyeh and begins devouring humanity!
  Slashdot: Cthulha rises from R'lyeh, you apostrophe-abusing dumbass.
56. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by wienerschnizzel · 2012-11-06 02:36 · Score: 2
  
  With this approach you are never going to learn a foreign language. Heck, you would not learn how to talk your mother language or anything more complicated than breathing for that matter.
57. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by msauve · 2012-11-06 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  Zappa for $200, Alex.
  
  The crux of the biscuit.
  
  What's a postrophe?
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
58. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 02:58 · Score: 0
  
  is it really *that* surprising to you that most people don't speak flawless English?
  On the tubes, no one can hear you speak.
  Why do so many people believe that editors (of all people!) should be given a free pass on their command of the language they're choosing to publish in? Fucking no, if I can do a better job at writing correct English (as second language) than the people that are being paid to write English, then they should try flipping burgers instead.
  Do you expect the same low standards from other professionals? Would you want to get your teeth examined at a "Dantist's booth", or would you want a "lowyur" to assist you in court? Or more to the point, would you confidently get in a cab that has dents and scratches all over the car? Would you hire a web programmer that can't tell you the difference between Java and Javascript?
59. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by jittles · 2012-11-06 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  Same with Spanish and English. Often people who learn English as as second language (when properly educated) know the rules of grammar better than native speakers. I learned to read, write, and speak Spanish when I was 20 and I know that I write it a hell of a lot better than my native friends. The well educated ones accent properly, but most of the lower middle class to poor can barely use proper written grammar in their own language. I know a lot of poor native English speakers who have terrible grammar, as well.
60. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 03:23 · Score: 0
  
  This is goddamned complicated!
  "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."
  Who knows what a "contraction" is? This rule helps no one.
  Besides, yuve herd "dont" and "izent" and "your" all youre life, why spell them differently than you herd them?
  "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"
  Possession? People don't understand possession until they've been charged rent for at least 5 years, or had their property rights challenged. Possession? Puh-LEEZ. (Also, the puh-leez are the people who come to take your property from you. Simple rule: if the puh-leez come, then you're things are the puh-leez's things. Note the apostrophe.)
  "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)"
  As with the puh-leez, things don't really belong to people, so I'd ignore this rule, except if the puh-leez come. (If you haven't noticed, I'm against hierarchies and property, so I'm a 21st century anarchist. (it's t'rue!))
  "Rule 3 - Use the apostrophe where the noun that should follow is implied."
  "Example: This was his father's, not his, jacket."
  More possession! They're trying to train you to respect ownership! F'ck that!
  Rule 4 is more of the same! Don't le't any'one tel'l you the'ir stuf'f belong's ex'clusively to 'them! Ask' them wh'o will 'enforce it!
  "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."
  YES
  "Rule 6 - With a singular compound noun, show possession with 's at the end of the word."
  "Example: my mother-in-law's hat"
  WHUT. Hey, more ownership possessive shit. F'ck that!
  "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"
  Sure, if your fantastic magical friends who can "own" things claim to, use the apostrophe for them. They'll probably shoot you otherwise, right?
  "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."
  good use of "Cesar"!!! Wow, roman empire for the win over 2000 years later! Screw "property."
  I'm Cave Johnson. We're done here.
61. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 03:24 · Score: 0
  
  With this approach you are never going to learn a foreign language.
  Exaggerate much? The rest of the world acknowledges that there may be more than two answers to any question, we're desperately waiting for you in the US to catch on.
  There is a world of possibilities between "I don't care" and "I'm an expert". For example, purposeful disobedience can be employed as a political means or as satire. There is also the very popular "I don't need to know because I have people who know it for me", which is fine until such people try to act on their lack of knowledge. And finally, there is the "I'm no expert yet but I strive to be one", or the more moderate "I'll never reach perfection but I will try to the best of my abilities". Both of which indicate a willingness to treat your conversational partner with respect instead of disdain.
  Not caring about your communication is an antisocial trait. Attacking the people that correct you only reaffirms that. Not caring about your language when writing a post that will be read by thousands of people wastes other people's time. Not thinking before posting leads to comments like yours.
62. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 03:25 · Score: 0
  
  I'm at easily the 25th page of comments... it was just an apostrophe!
63. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by ceoyoyo · 2012-11-06 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  Obviously somebody's Skype hand had a baby thirteen to nineteen years ago. I'm not precisely what a Skype hand is, nor how it can procreate, but it sounds kinky.
64. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by BenoitRen · 2012-11-06 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  With this approach you are never going to learn a foreign language.
  
  Funny you should say that, as English is my third language.
65. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by ceoyoyo · 2012-11-06 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  Because sssibilants are ssscary.
66. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 03:34 · Score: 0
  
  I find your obsession with hats and apostrophes concerning.
67. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 03:45 · Score: 0
  
  With this approach you are never going to learn a foreign language. Heck, you would not learn how to talk your mother language or anything more complicated than breathing for that matter.
  I have sleep apnea, you insensitive clod!
68. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by wonkey_monkey · 2012-11-06 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't say anything about spelling :*)
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
69. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by wienerschnizzel · 2012-11-06 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  I'm afraid we are too deep in the OT territory - and I didn't mean to defend the "don't give a fuck" crowd anyway. If you are fluent in three languages, good for you. I bet you didn't start using them in public only after your grammar was flawless. Any one of them.
70. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by camperdave · 2012-11-06 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  The chart has an error. It lists "90's fashions" as being a number or abbreviation. While it is attached to a number, the apostrophe is being used in its possessive form in that phrase.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
71. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by camperdave · 2012-11-06 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it's not like Slashdot has editors whose job it is to make sure headlines and summaries are gramatically correct and easily readable.
  I don't think they do. I think they have a couple of people to maintain the submission stream - to reject the viagra ads, etc, and to pick the best stories; but I don't think they actually have someone to proof-read the stories for grammar and spelling.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
72. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by Onymous+Coward · 2012-11-06 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, I think that's not meant to be possessive. Looks like an (attributive) adjective. But I can certainly see taking it as a possessive.
73. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by wonkey_monkey · 2012-11-06 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  to reject the viagra ads
  Great, another reason not to come! (to Slashdot, I mean)
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
74. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 06:01 · Score: 0
  
  Here in America we speak American not English. There appears to be quite a difference. American-english has strayed into acronyms and text-speak shorthand from what I can tell. This shortening even invades the spoken language. It is sad really.
75. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 06:57 · Score: 0
  
  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:
  Jesus Grammar Nazi Christ, GeekWithAKnife. If you're going to paste-post a punctuation manifesto, you should at least try proofreading it for punctuation errors so that you don't wind up looking like an arrogant and illiterate clod.
  Capitalize the first letter after a question mark, like this: "... but who cares? It's not difficult!"
  Learn how to hyphenate, like this: "Just follow these not-difficult rules, like everyone else:"
  I'm sure there's more. I stopped reading after stumbling over those first two.
76. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by BenoitRen · 2012-11-06 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  The point was not abstaining from doing something until you can do it perfectly. The point was that if you do something, do your best instead of doing a half-assed job on purpose.
77. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by HiThere · 2012-11-06 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  My high school grammar teacher would have objected to "Strauss's". We werre not allowed to insert an "s" after the apostorphe in that kind of context.
  And I admit that I have no idea of how to use an apostrophe to make a possessive of "Houses of Congress". Placing it after "Houses" is extremely confusing, and placing it after "Congress" is as bad or worse. (In such cases I avoid using the apotrophe to form a possessive, and use a preposition.)
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
78. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by GrumpySteen · 2012-11-06 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  it's not difficult!
  That's a very long lecture about apostrophe use for someone who didn't even manage to get all the capitalization right.
79. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 08:20 · Score: 0
  
  ... learn how to talk your mother language ...
  
  Strange, I have an image of babies grunting 'eugh' and pointing. Babies learn language through cuddling adults providing word repetition and forcing them to express grammatical phrases. A necessary heuristic in modern society is 'near enough is good enough'. Unfortunately many adults apply it to the task of self-improvement and then try to impress others with their 30 seconds of education/practice.
80. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-11-06 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  Who reads anything else apart from the sigs, anyway? Isn't that what /. is for?
81. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by cawpin · 2012-11-06 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know about BTAF's guide but the Oatmeal one has several incorrect pieces of information on it.
82. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-07 01:50 · Score: 0
  
  Ye's.
83. Re:Greengrocers apostrophe? by Foobar_ · 2012-11-07 15:18 · Score: 1
  
  The Houses of Congress's doorman was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court today...
  If your grammar teacher is still with us and continues to disagree, then by all means remove the letter s following the apostrophe.
Apostromania by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 20:29 · 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.
1. Re:Apostromania by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 08:25 · Score: 0
  
  Makes sense.
  
  What about the absence of a verb? Which is why "hand's" is wrong.
Microsoft by mr100percent · 2012-11-05 20:30 · Score: 1

Shall we blame MS for this? Or did they wash their hands of it?
1. Re:Microsoft by wienerschnizzel · 2012-11-05 20:42 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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.
2. Re:Microsoft by AHuxley · 2012-11-05 21:23 · Score: 1
  
  The all new Relationship Management Team 2.0
  "Law Enforcement Relationship Management Team" got lost in the move?
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
3. Re:Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 21:49 · 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 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).
4. Re:Microsoft by EnsilZah · 2012-11-06 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  Can someone please mod offtopic?
  This clearly has nothing to do with apostrophes.
5. Re:Microsoft by MakerDusk · 2012-11-06 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  Why? As an international communications network, it simply adds to their responsibility. If you monitor and log, you then become responsible for policing and making reports. You're mainly looking for keywords and phrases anyways. It would also explain why they contracted a 3rd party security firm to deal with such cases. Skype is monitored, if you don't want to be monitored: back to irc with you.
6. Re:Microsoft by wienerschnizzel · 2012-11-06 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  I don't really know if MS is breaking any privacy terms or laws by this. In any case, if you ever hear 'Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law', it's probably better to shut up. If it's in the EULA, it's probably better to look for alternatives.
7. Re:Microsoft by zlives · 2012-11-06 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  I completely agree, MS wordS grammar checker should have caught the 's
Hand's by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 20:33 · Score: 1

What's this mean's?
1. Re:Hand's by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 22:49 · Score: 0
  
  Simple: it means Skype has a hand that owns a teenager who has information.
The new paradigm by warewolfsmith · 2012-11-05 20:34 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:The new paradigm by janrinok · 2012-11-05 20:48 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Didn't this happen in Holland? What has it got to do with the US Justice system?
  
  --
  Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
2. Re:The new paradigm by Dunbal · 2012-11-05 21:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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?
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
3. Re:The new paradigm by SerpentMage · 2012-11-05 21:52 · Score: 2
  
  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!
  
  --
  
  "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
  "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
4. Re:The new paradigm by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 01:36 · Score: 0
  
  Do you really think it's inherently wrong for someone who committed a crime against you remotely to have to face justice for it? It's one thing when we're talking about copyright infringement or piracy, but if you choose to target someone in another country for DoS, or hacking, or identity theft, or whatever else, it's not unreasonable to be charged with a crime under their laws, or at the very least be investigated.
  
  But beyond that, the GP still has a point - this story has fuckall nothing to do with the US justice system. The fact that we've done that kind of thing doesn't take away from the fact that we didn't do this thing. Is Holland's law enforcement not responsible for their own actions? They get to play the five year-old's "They did it first!" or "They do it all the time!" cards? That's a pretty immature view of justice.
5. Re:The new paradigm by blueg3 · 2012-11-06 01:40 · Score: 1
  
  Easy: this story is on Slashdot, and people on Slashdot like to complain about the U.S. Justice system.
6. Re:The new paradigm by Dunbal · 2012-11-06 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  Do you really think it's inherently wrong for someone who committed a crime against you remotely
  That's the whole point. It's not a crime. At least not in the country where it was comitted. How would you like to be answerable to Chinese law? Or Saudi law, for that matter?
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Skype hand's? by blind+biker · 2012-11-05 20:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

Slashdot editors, have you no shame?

--
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
1. Re:Skype hand's? by martin-boundary · 2012-11-05 21:30 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  S'lashdot editors, have you no shame?
  
  FTFY's
2. Re:Skype hand's? by wonkey_monkey · 2012-11-05 22:04 · Score: 1
  
  Slashdot - editors, have you? No - shame.
  FTFY.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
3. Re:Skype hand's? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 22:05 · Score: 0
  
  Slashdot editor's, have you no shame?
  FTFY's
  Even better :-)
4. Re:Skype hand's? by humanrev · 2012-11-05 22:06 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Most people on Slashdot are fucking idiots.
5. Re:Skype hand's? by alexgieg · 2012-11-05 22:33 · Score: 1
  
  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"!
  
  --
  Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
6. Re:Skype hand's? by Marxdot · 2012-11-06 00:02 · Score: 1
  
  Your jus't jealou'se off hi's wordskill's.
7. Re:Skype hand's? by camperdave · 2012-11-06 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  "Skype Hand's Teenager's Information To Private Firm"
  
  The information given by the teenaged child of Skype Hand to the Private was firm.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
The security and surveillance craze continues by vikingpower · 2012-11-05 20:42 · Score: 2

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.

--
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
1. Re:The security and surveillance craze continues by AHuxley · 2012-11-05 21:14 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
2. Re:The security and surveillance craze continues by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 22:04 · Score: 0
  
  Is it really that hard to put some black tape over the camera lens?
3. Re:The security and surveillance craze continues by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 00:44 · Score: 1
  
  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.
4. Re:The security and surveillance craze continues by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 01:12 · Score: 0
  
  And as I keep pointing out in the recent articles on /. about new surveillance or control tech or apps that emerge, developers and researchers further enable the "security" mentality of the govt and potential for govt/police to abuse power.
5. Re:The security and surveillance craze continues by MakerDusk · 2012-11-06 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  They were attacked, this isn't kneeling, it's demanding that the law enforcement agency takes action. Just imagine how the call to the police went down: "Hello, I'm calling on behalf of the Microsoft Skype division. This person has perpetrated an act of cyber terrorism against our company...."
6. Re:The security and surveillance craze continues by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-10 03:08 · Score: 0
  
  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?
  Hard.
  
  Employ a government that is uninterested in spying on you.
  Impossible.
no problems by LateLurker · 2012-11-05 20:46 · Score: 3, Funny

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

--
To do something well is so worthwhile that to die trying to do it better cannot be foolhardy.
Wisdom follows, pay attention! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 20:48 · Score: -1

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.
1. Re:Wisdom follows, pay attention! by SerpentMage · 2012-11-05 21:54 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  
  "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
  "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
2. Re:Wisdom follows, pay attention! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 22:18 · Score: 0
  
  Your post is absolutely hilarious. How little you really know about how the law works.
3. Re:Wisdom follows, pay attention! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 23:04 · Score: 0
  
  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?
I don't mind, somehow by bytesex · 2012-11-05 20:56 · Score: 1

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?

--
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
1. Re:I don't mind, somehow by AHuxley · 2012-11-05 21:06 · Score: 2
  
  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".
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
And why does it bother you so much? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 21:14 · Score: -1

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.
1. Re:And why does it bother you so much? by Dr_Barnowl · 2012-11-05 21:28 · Score: 3, 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.
2. Re:And why does it bother you so much? by scdeimos · 2012-11-05 21:56 · Score: 2
  
  Everybody starts out with OCPD. Most people eventually stop giving a shit.
3. Re:And why does it bother you so much? by wonkey_monkey · 2012-11-05 22:03 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
4. Re:And why does it bother you so much? by History's+Coming+To · 2012-11-06 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, I suffer from CDOP. It's like OCPD but the letters are in the RIGHT DAMN ORDER!
  
  --
  Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
5. Re:And why does it bother you so much? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 04:06 · Score: 0
  
  Could not disagree more. How you present yourself in public is a representation of who you are. You're basically saying to the world, "I'm such a dipshit, I can't even remember 5th Grade grammar rules."
  Furthermore, you're saying to the rest of the world, "I value you so little, that I will make it hard to read my writing by refusing to do basic proofreading."
  (+1 to whoever finds my grammar mistake(s)).
6. Re:And why does it bother you so much? by Yakasha · 2012-11-06 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, I suffer from CDOP. It's like OCPD but the letters are in the RIGHT DAMN ORDER!
  OCPD and dyslexia are a dangerous combination apparently.
Not difficult? by abigsmurf · 2012-11-05 21:21 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.
1. Re:Not difficult? by Joce640k · 2012-11-05 22:13 · Score: 2
  
  But...ummm...this wasn't one of those weird cases. And there were editors.
  
  --
  No sig today...
2. Re:Not difficult? by Kal+Zekdor · 2012-11-05 22:37 · 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'
3. Re:Not difficult? by Threni · 2012-11-05 23:06 · Score: 1
  
  Why do you think those two examples are not easy? What's complicated about them?
4. Re:Not difficult? by abigsmurf · 2012-11-06 00:18 · Score: 1
  
  The second is definitely wrong (Ms. != Miss)
5. Re:Not difficult? by abigsmurf · 2012-11-06 00:28 · Score: 1
  
  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).
6. Re:Not difficult? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 00:31 · Score: 0
  
  "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.
7. Re:Not difficult? by blind+biker · 2012-11-06 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
8. Re:Not difficult? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 01:31 · Score: 0
  
  It's "GrammAr" Nazi, not "GrammEr".
9. Re:Not difficult? by blueg3 · 2012-11-06 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  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".
10. Re:Not difficult? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 01:41 · Score: 0
  
  Make my day: write "seperetely" :-)
11. Re:Not difficult? by abigsmurf · 2012-11-06 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  I repeat, there are no rules about if you pronounce a " s' " as it's own syllable or treat it as silent. It's all about what people think sounds right (and their accent). An example is "Los Angeles' citizens". Lots of people would pronounce that as "Los angelezis". Generally it's better to say it as it could confuse the listener as to whether or not the word is being used as an adjective or a noun with a possesive.
12. Re:Not difficult? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 02:40 · Score: 0
  
  Dyke bitches'.
13. Re:Not difficult? by blueg3 · 2012-11-06 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  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 exist because of the pronunciation pattern.
14. Re:Not difficult? by khallow · 2012-11-06 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, that's definitely pretty flaky. I'm guessing "Mses'."
15. Re:Not difficult? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 03:08 · Score: 0
  
  I repeat, there are no rules about if you pronounce a " s' " as it's own syllable or treat it as silent.
  
  I think you should fix your own problems before trying to correct others.
16. Re:Not difficult? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 03:12 · Score: 0
  
  The rules for apostrophes aren't as easy as a lot of Grammer Nazi's like to think it is.
  Nazis.
17. Re:Not difficult? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 03:44 · Score: 0
  
  Grammer Nazi's like to think it is.
  This is a joke, right?
18. Re:Not difficult? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 09:11 · Score: 0
  
  The real difficulty here is in pluralization, not adding the possessive.
  The plural of Chris is Chrisses. Note the doubled consonant to effect a shortened preceding vowel sound. The plural of Ms. is Mses. I had to look that one up. Turns out Ms. is not an abbreviation of anything, but an "abbreviation" (or a word with the form of an abbreviation) created without a source term.
  But, indeed, there is some trouble with making plurals here in that Ms. takes the form of an abbreviation. And to be honest, I wasn't sure how these were handled. After looking it up, I see they get the apostrophe. "Ms.'s glass ceiling".
19. Re:Not difficult? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 10:00 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, additionally, I disagree with the practice of leaving off the "'s" with historical names. "Jesus' first cold sore", "Isis' thong". And I think usage panels are coming around on that one.
  Even more radical, I might eventually think that plurals should still get a final "s". "All the doctors' infections" becomes "All the doctors's infections." Well, maybe not. I'm kind of a nut for regularity and simplification, but that's sure hard on the ear, huh?
Probably violates european data protection law by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 21:32 · Score: 0

The private company being Dutch, and the boy being Dutch I'm sure this violates the European Data Protection law.
Wrong company name! by aglider · 2012-11-05 22:08 · Score: 1

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?

--
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
1. Re:Wrong company name! by flimflammer · 2012-11-05 22:22 · Score: 1
  
  No, it really shouldn't read that way.
2. Re:Wrong company name! by AHuxley · 2012-11-06 00:24 · Score: 1
  
  Owned by MS since 2011, Skype ~ the new Windows Live Messenger service.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
3. Re:Wrong company name! by flimflammer · 2012-11-07 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, Microsoft is the parent company. Of course, the smaller company that still runs the day to day operations of Skype can still make poor choices without Microsoft's consent.
Only thing good can come by ruir · 2012-11-05 22:10 · Score: 2

After being bought by a firm that is in bed with the US government and NSA...
Good news by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 22:34 · Score: -1

Isn't Skype now property of Microsoft? :) Anything that hurts Microsoft is good news.
Bah, humbug! by Black+Parrot · 2012-11-05 22:38 · Score: 2

possibly violating a few privacy laws and their own policies.
Those concerns are so 20th Century.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Broken EU law by Martin+S. · 2012-11-05 22:41 · Score: 2

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).
1. Re:Broken EU law by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 01:44 · Score: 0
  
  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).
  Really?
  
  Article 3
  Scope
  2. This Directive shall not apply to the processing of personal data:
  - in the course of an activity which falls outside the scope of Community law, such as those provided for by Titles V and VI of the Treaty on European Union and in any case to processing operations concerning public security, defence, State security (including the economic well-being of the State when the processing operation relates to State security matters) and the activities of the State in areas of criminal law,
  I don't know how this part of the directive has been implemented in the Netherlands, but AFAIK in the UK there is no statutory obligation preventing you from handing over a customer's personal information to a police officer who is investigating a crime if you are happy to co-operate. Otherwise, if a customer defrauded you or stole from your business, you would need to get a court order before you could report the alleged crime to the police and hand over the financial details or CCTV footage of the incident - it would be totally unworkable.
2. Re:Broken EU law by Teun · 2012-11-06 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  The point is that according to Dutch law all information that can be traced to a person is owned by that person.
  Only when ordered by a State Prosecutor is a company allowed (or even forced) to divulge such information and in this particular case that prosecutor was not involved.
  This sharing of information should not have happened and companies like Skype and Ebay will no doubt be instructing their hired hands to set up some Chinese Walls.
  
  --
  "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
3. Re:Broken EU law by Martin+S. · 2012-11-07 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  1) Joep Gommers is not a Police Officer
  2) Transfer of personal data to third countries, not subject to the directive, is generally prohibited.
P2P voip... like Skype? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 22:54 · Score: 0

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. by Forty+Two+Tenfold · 2012-11-05 22:59 · Score: 1

s/Skype/Microsoft/g

--
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
1. Re:The headline is misleading. by QuasiSteve · 2012-11-05 23:58 · Score: 2
  
  This happened pre-acquisition. It's still Microsoft's mess to deal with now, of course, but the headline is correct.
2. Re:The headline is misleading. by ozmanjusri · 2012-11-06 00:35 · Score: 4, 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
  
  --
  "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
3. Re:The headline is misleading. by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-11-06 01:44 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I want to know why "Hand's" is apostrophized.
  Punctuation is like seasoning! Adding more improves the flavour!
  
  --
  "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
  Never been known to fail..."
4. Re:The headline is misleading. by frostfreek · 2012-11-06 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  It must be the fairly common misuse, Here comes an 's'!
5. Re:The headline is misleading. by Reverand+Dave · 2012-11-06 03:09 · Score: 2
  
  I think you mean:
  Punctuation is, like, seasoning! Adding more, improve's the...flavour!?!
  
  --
  I got here through a series of tubes
6. Re:The headline is misleading. by rpresser · 2012-11-06 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  The story is really about a firm collecting information about the teenagers belonging to a "Skype Hand" -- a member of the secret society running a phone sex operation, with all participants being teenagers and all conversations happening over Skype. Once the firm finishes collecting information, it will distribute it to GOP congressmen.
7. Re:The headline is misleading. by QuasiSteve · 2012-11-06 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  I'm happy for your karma, but how exactly is your response "No.", or even related to my comment?
  The GP suggested that the title "Skype Hands Teenager's Information To Private Firm" should read "Microsoft Hands Teenager's Information To Private Firm".
  The handing over of the information occurred in late 2010.
  The acquisition of Skype by Microsoft occurred in mid 2011.
  Thus the headline is correct.
  Even if it weren't, though, I have no idea what the government wiretap request-smoothovering linux skype supernodes would have to do with the handing over of information to a private firm.
  I can only guess you meant to reply to somebody else - maybe slashcode derped :)
How do you know he was 16? by Kaenneth · 2012-11-05 23:53 · Score: 2

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.
1. Re:How do you know he was 16? by gl4ss · 2012-11-06 00:44 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
2. Re:How do you know he was 16? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 03:19 · Score: 0
  
  Right, my company makes all employees do a training exercise where a typical question is
  "Blah blah happens, and so-and-such person asks for this-or-that data. What do you do?"
  and the only acceptable answer is "Forward the request to the specific department that handles data subject access requests"
  Doesn't matter if the request is clearly bullshit, if it's obviously legitimate, or anywhere in between, it has to go to the people who spend their whole job doing this stuff and have all the laws and rules down and keep an audit trail of everything they do. The moment you try to second guess that you're vulnerbale to any number of social engineering attacks and moreover you might go to jail.
3. Re:How do you know he was 16? by Nyder · 2012-11-06 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  ...
  Remember, on the Internet, noone knows you are a dog.
  I just assume everyone is really ugly.
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
4. Re:How do you know he was 16? by MakerDusk · 2012-11-06 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  The security company was responding to an infrastructure attack on their client's business. If they hadn't taken steps, that's when you negate the contract and get someone who will deal with the attacks.
5. Re:How do you know he was 16? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-07 08:24 · Score: 0
  
  How do YOU know that he wasn't? The Gestapo loved people like you who feel that MAYBE catching one wrong-doer - whether the wrong supposedly done affects you or not- justifies spying on EVERYBODY, suspected or not, because, well, you never know. Do you really believe that the state has a RIGHT to YOUR personal business? How do I know that YOU aren't a murderer, a thief, or a pedophile? I DON't know that. But that doesn't mean that you aren't one or even ALL of those things. So, clearly, I need to report your post to the police and to the FBI. Your post looks like a smokescreen to me. So, since I can't possibly be sure about you, I'll wait till the suthorities have cleared you. Or not. Either way, it's a load off MY mind. Besides, if you're only just a random, regular jack-off, the authorities will find that out. So, no sweat, right? It's just the right thing to do and I agree completely that obvious smokescreen posts like yours must be thoroughly investigated by the relevant law-enforcement agencies., just in case. Better safe than sorry. It's just good sense.
Ultimately by nurb432 · 2012-11-06 00:07 · Score: 1

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.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
AHH FOR THE LOVE OF GRAMMAR by highacnumber · 2012-11-06 00:12 · Score: 1

Please fix that extraneous apostrophe.
Relevant links by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 00:31 · Score: 0

To the douchebags: The Internet cancer.
To Slashdot's editors: English guide.
rule 1 and 2 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 00:53 · Score: 0

Native speaker (*) keep confusing your and you're. If people can't be bothered by rule 1 and 2....I doubt they will bother with 13 rules

(*) I have rarely met a non native speaker confusing possession and verb , whereas I have read from and met a lot of native English speaker which should know better but don't care a bit.
Apostrophe... by VoidCrow · 2012-11-06 00:53 · Score: 1

For God's sake lose the apostrophe from 'Hand's'.
data illegally obtained? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 00:54 · Score: 0

that meand it is inadmissible in court.
and the kid can sue.
Well, the message is clear by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 00:59 · Score: 0

Skype doesn't care about your privacy. What the other options for encrypted VoIP, IM and file transfer?
Oh, and fix that title. Seriously.
It shows perfectly by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 01:10 · Score: 0

that companies don't care about law. They do what they want and just wait for what happens. And then pay the fine. How many cases have happened and how many get public? As long as they don't get substantial fines they won't care. Oh, and it' s not only big companies, small ones aren't better.
And it shows that their own data protection promises aren't worth a dime.
Skype Hand has a Teenager now? by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-11-06 02:03 · Score: 1

Seriously, we need some damn editing around here.
No Hands by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 02:43 · Score: 0

Skype has hands?
You mean Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 03:39 · Score: 0

The headline should read Microsoft hands teenagers information over.
They own Skype, they're responsible.
STOP IT WITH THE APOSTROPHES! by jsepeta · 2012-11-06 04:10 · Score: 1

it's not Skype Hand's, it should be Skype Hands. CHRIST. get it together.

--
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
Bob The Angry Flower is Now Angrier Than Ever by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 05:36 · Score: 0

Since we have slashdotted his server...
Poor Bob.
NAZI! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 05:59 · Score: 0

That's NAZI, not Nazi, you insensitive clod!
Skype? by Mordaximus · 2012-11-06 14:52 · Score: 1

s/Skype/Micro'soft/g With all of the preparation's being made to usher in Skype in place of WLM, it's not a surprising move.