edit: here is the link: http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...icle1752240.ece

had a quick scan, they dont appear to mention what this loophole exactly is.

just few comments,

they compare skype to a yahoo chatroom, if im not mistaken the yahoo chatroom they have described is http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/chat/chatbylycos.html whereas skype is certainly not a chatroom. there is a significant difference between chatrooms and IM software, the two should not be confused and hence one cannot compare the two as the article has compared them. moderating a chatroom is like having a gathering in an open place and keeping an eye on it, where as moderating IM exchanges would be like keeping an eye on two people sitting in a car i guess.

and they appear to make it look as though skype does very little to protect children yet they forget to mention that actually skype is so aware of the problem they dont let people use ages below 20 as a search criteria.

my main concern is that they are comparing skype (for the purposes of this article an IM software) with a yahoo chatroom. the two are not the same and therefore the comparison is fundamentally flawed

I think I can add two cents to clarify the points of the authors...



'loophole' is probably embraced by ' ' because it is illustrative, not pinned.



For the purpose of the article the comparison works well; they're looking at different methods of communicating and are illustrating their points by explaining how Yahoo!'s service is working compared to Skype's. The question is not "here are two identical things, let's find which one has more flaws", but "look here is what people do on the Internet, with this provider it is working this way, with the other in another way."



Kurt Sauer already answered this, in my opinion. Another point they could have raised was how easy it is to invite users to conferences etc. with the title "teens", 14-18's only" or the sort of open calls that also are announced in the subforum "Skype Me!".



The point of the article is not a product comparison. It is to describe dangers that the authors say they have proven re. Skype. Yahoo! is brought in only to illustrate how it is working elsewhere.

as opposed to illustrative, i'd say it's used moreso to get hits on the page, cause undue alarm and they get more hits.



yes they are comparing providers and how they provide, but the providers are providign different things... once cannot compare the security of a house with that of a garden shed. my house has things i value more so will naturally be more securely protected whereas the garden shed i can keep wide open and not worry about things going missing. chatrooms and IM software serve two totally different purposes and therefore have different demands in security. im all for security and protection of children, but we shouldn't live in a policed world where every last move is observed by "big brother" and i honestly think if parents had more awareness and did that lil bit more to keep an eye on their childrens activities then we'd not have any need for such policing. but the point i had in mind was one cannot compare two different channels of communication quite simply because communication channels serve different purposes and hence demand different levels of security. just as one would not normally appear on a radio channel just to have direct communication with someone somewhere else but would instead use a telephone, and hence a telephone needs to be more secure, private and narrowed than a radio broadcast, IM needs to be more secure, private and narrowed than chatrooms. the two are entirely different with no common ground other than the fact that both are communications tools and hence theres no valid basis of comparison... everything on the internet is related in that it serves as a channel of communication, but i cant compare skypes security to that of say the security of my uni's website... the two have nothing in common other than they both are channels of communication.

chatrooms are not IM, IM's require a slightly higher level of maturity and awareness on the part of the user since they are not moderated. and there is no way to moderate them, it's like saying let's moderate mobile phone calls. just as with mobile phones one needs to keep an eye out on hoe their children are using them the same applies to IM. we cant and shouldn't always reply on someone else in the world (moderators) looking out for our kids... sometimes we must do it ourselves.



true, but in skypes defence skype does have a channel through which to report problems with users. again one needs to be able to help themselves and should not always reply upon someone else looking out for them.



indeed it isn't, however, one of it's main arguments/basis of conclusion is the yahoo comparison. and i strongly feel that they are comparing something which does not really have any relation to any IM let alone skype.

it'd be like comparing e-bay to my local asda store simply because both sell items to me. the two are different enough, both in design and in purpose to dismiss any valid comparison

---

how time flies. am off for the night, goodnight.

Indeed that would be the purpose of a headline, but it doesn't change the point; the word 'loophole' is not placed there to say there is a technical flaw that a programmer or reader of the article can go looking for and resolve.



The other side of that coin is that you might want to find ways to ensure that children are safe also during moments when parents are not watching over their shoulders, and meet the challenge of doing so without creating a police state.



The way I read the article the point is not to make a product comparison in order to find the most secure ways of communication. It is about problems they have identified with Skype and how it works in other channels. If parents after reading the article are concluding that Skype is not a good place for their children then so be it, they are also free to investigate the issue further and consider for example what you are saying.



That could be one of the areas that Skype's cheif security officer could look in to, how to improve that channel and make it easier to find and use. Such steps do not have to involve moves towards increased monitoring of real time communication traffic.




Actually the bone in the article is the investigation, the little "trap" they set up to identify this criminal behaviour on Skype.

hmm, i have the feeling i've not managed to communicate my thoughts with due clarity here.



the word loophole suggests that there is an aspect of skype which pedopholes have successfully worked around. it suggests a flaw in skypes programming that the offenders are exploiting, however, the article does not suggest that at all. instead the article just says once the offenders have identified kids the rest follows on... the title suggests theres more to the finding of kids on skype, maybe somehow the offenders have worked around skypes search facility to now enable them to search for people under the age of 20, but the article doesn't.



lol, one could look at it like that. but... (yup, theres usually always a but)... i seem to remember the article mentioned some panic button in yahoo chat... if a child has the brains to know that they need to press the panic button in the chat then why are we assuming they dont have the brains to either e-mail skype or use the support request button or tell their parents/family/friends/someone they trust and can talk to. personally i dont see how a panic button is any different to skype having the support request system. although the panic button might appear to be realtime it isn't so because i'd imagine a moderator would ask for some form of transcript or would investigate the matter before taking it further. so there is still a delay.



and that's exactly my point... im all for product comparison, but where both products are in the same field. the two channels being compared are totally different. you cant for example compare a radio channel to digital tv channel. wes both are communications channels, but their fields are totally different and hence the requirements are different.

the way i see it, asking for skype IM to have more security is just the same as asking for mobile phones to have more security... there are more kids using mobiles than using skype, and they text a hell of a lot.



definately



yet they dont mention the detail i am most interested in... as opposed to a product comparison (i still think they're doing that), why not write how they think these criminals got around the search facility... i.e. i'd like to know what exactly the loophole was. saying there's not enough security is not a loophole, it is an absent feature. a loophole is an exploit, i'd like to know what that exploit was...

Back to the first point, the word 'loophole' is embraced by ' ' which in my eyes is a way of telling us that the word is used to illustrate a point rather than pinning a fact.



Safety on the Internet is a real concern for parents, who also want their children to use the Internet without restrictions and without dangers. The challenge for Skype and other providers is to find ways to make it easier for parents to let their children enjoy the Internet. It appears they are still trying and learning; all efforts are probably not going to be remembered as the best solutions but at that time it was the best that some clever people who were given the task could come up with. As long as they are working to find ways that improve security and at the same time guarantee your liberty I'm good, and I think Skype is wise to make it more public that they are trying too.



The point is that security is needed in different channels. On land and at sea. The authors of this article have explained how to different systems are working. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you that the channels are of different nature and the article are not claiming it is comparing similar products. It is simply telling you how different places on the Internet is working.



That depends on how you define security measures; limiting the definition to dropping in on calls are too limited. Find the methods that are most appropriate for each channel. If you can find a way to minimize the risk of getting lured in to a trap by dodgy people when using Skype and another method for kids using phones, let it be so, there are no conflicting opposites here. Skype offer a bigger plattform for communication than mobile phones, thus the need for different ways to protect the youngest users.