Skype accused of ratting out user to private security without warrant Skype is investigating claims it handed over personal information on a teenager implicated in an attack on PayPal without asking to see a warrant. PayPal contracted Dutch security firm iSIGHT Partners to get to the bottom of assaults launched last year against the web payment firm. The distributed denial-of-service attacks …
That's because he's Dutch and they [tend to] have their rights respected. Granted, in this case it was probably a Dutchie that ratted him out.
A Dutch friend of my is always appalled by how somebody here is publicly named and plastered over the front page in relation to a murder, abduction, etc. Apparently over there they're only named once found guilty. He asked me what would happen to the bloke named (later arrested) in relation to the April Jones abduction - my response was "his life is fucked, whether or not he's guilty"
I've always had a soft spot for the Dutch.
"Apparently over there they're only named once found guilty."
And often not even then.
It is not a law, but a voluntary code most media (except some shock-blogs) adhere to.
(It is different of course when a criminal chooses to become a public figure, like Heineken (the person, not bottles of) abductor Willem H ... errr I mean Holleeder)
Instead of full name they will only list first name and first letter of surname: "Adolf H. was arrested on suspicion of genocide". "Adolf H. was convicted for shoplifting".
If photos are published, they will have a black bar over the eyes. Hilarious: sometimes even the police has published photos of criminals on the run with those bars in an APB, because, you know, criminals have a right to privacy too.
Does go to some silly extremes though. A while back there were articles in the papers that elderly couple Joe and Isabel Smith (names altered because I cannae remember the originals) had been murdered in their home. The articles then went on to relate how the police had arrested the prime suspect, the couple's son, Andrew S.
"Hilarious: sometimes even the police has published photos of criminals on the run with those bars in an APB, because, you know, criminals have a right to privacy too."
http://www.dichtbij.nl/haaglanden-noord/regionaal-nieuws/artikel/1839715/gewapende-overval-op-tankstation-aan-de-zuidweg.aspx
"unless in exceptional circumstances - it wouldn't hand over a user's details without a warrant or court order:"
Err, no you fail to understand EU law which says you don't do it unless one is presented no matter what the circumstances as it is not for a private enterprise to make judgement on the law.
Most likely: yes. Dutch judges tend to be quite strict on these sort of things.
(Except of course when it pertains to tax matters. When the Ministry of Finance acquired a DVD with stolen data from foreign banks with data on Dutch holders of savings accounts abroad all of a sudden this was not considered illegally obtained evidence)
Most European legal systems don't give a hoot about how evidence was acquired. in this case, information was handed to a private individual who then reported this to the police. No case there, because it wasn't the authorities that did wrong.
Secondly, even if it had been the police that broke into Skype's offices, hacked their computer systems and found the name, the evidence would still be admissible to try to convict the perpetrator. The police officers would, however, be charged with breaking and entering, computer hacking and whatnot. Two separate offences.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
