

Skype hands 16-year-old's personal information to IT company - 1337biz
http://www.nu.nl/internet/2950158/skype-hands-16-year-olds-personal-information-to-it-company.html

======
TillE
> Gommers contacted Skype, another of his firm's clients, and asked them for
> the suspect's account data.

This seems to be an ongoing theme: personal relationships causing people to do
unethical things. It's particularly true in journalism. You want to help your
friend, right? You don't want to make them mad.

Standards (like Skype's alleged "policy") need to be better, and much more
strictly enforced.

~~~
stfu
If this were the case I would argue that the bigger problem is the apparently
very easy accessibility of client data to employees.

~~~
wpietri
Yes! Training people to not be human is much harder than just maximizing
accountability and minimizing opportunity for people to do the wrong thing.

------
pvarangot
Way to go iSIGHT! That's what we always dreamed the "infosec" industry would
be! A bunch of for-hire goons willing to do the dirty work for private
companies. Fun fun fun!

------
antidoh
"The company says it is reviewing how personal information came into the hands
of a private firm."

I thought that was pretty clear from the article - they asked.

------
mtgx
If I were to guess, Skype is probably the most privacy breaching communication
tool there is right now. They are giving the information _way_ too easily to
pretty much any type or level of law enforcement right now, from police to
national security agencies and anyone in between, and it's not just US either.

~~~
UnoriginalGuy
Wait so is this a "guess" or fact?

~~~
TallGuyShort
It's a well-informed classificaton, and he openly called is his "guess".
Declaring something "the most privacy breaching software" is inherently
subjective and arbitrary, so I don't think anyone here is stupid enough to
think that's being passed off as fact. This is obviously just his opinion and
you're entitled to disagree, but we've all seen Skype in similar headlines
before - do you have a more interesting counterargument?

