> Eight months before being bought by Microsoft, Skype joined the Prism program in February 2011.
Article regarding the change to a centralized super node model[0]:
> "It's pretty good for security reasons because then you don't rely on random people running random stuff on their machine,"
Now it may be due to the fact that the centralized super nodes provide intelligence agencies with better capabilities - but to claim "Why did Microsoft sabotage Skype so that governments could more easily intercept communications" is somewhat in-genuine.
First, there's no evidence to suggest that Microsoft were the instigators in switching to a centralized model[1] (that I'm aware of). Secondly, to claim NSA interception as the primary reason is, at best, a guess.
I'm angry at what the NSA is doing - especially since I'm not an American, and I'm not "protected" by any law. Microsoft appear to be the worst and most blatant offenders being discussed. But I don't think it helps the discussion when claims are exaggerated. It gives fodder to deniers and to the opposition to use your claims against other, more correct claims.
> (1) Microsoft is a US Corporation
> (2) With the Skype acquisition, Microsoft (arguably) becomes a telecommunications carrier.
> (3) CALEA passed in 1994, "requiring telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment modify and design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure they have built-in surveillance capabilities, allowing federal agencies to monitor all telephone, broadband internet, and VoIP traffic in real-time."
Again, your original comment might be 100% accurate, but there's just no proof of that. Also, telecommunication companies are required to provide the means to intercept communications.
I guess I'm just wary of comments and articles that make claims that can't be substantiated. It dilutes the value of correct (substantiated) information.
reply