"if required by law." How's that different from any other company? Even "secure" companies like Fastmail and others comply if they receive a court order for information on specific users. Looks like an attempt to capitalize on the recent events by implicitly saying Microsoft will share everything about every user in bulk. What a surprise.
Is that supposed to make us feel better? There was a time when Skype actually was secure, before they changed it to allow "legal intercept", but even after they did that they still refused to admit that they allow governments to have access to people's conversations. I'll never forget reading in the damn New York Times a week before Snowden leaks came out about how secure Skype was for dissidents and journalists, and…
There was NEVER a time Skype was secure for people going against law of any kind. Unless you were clueless, you could ALWAYS expect your data to be handed to the authorities in case an investigation was ongoing. This is how things work in the real world of companies, government and law.
I think we are confusing "mass surveillance" and "bulk access" (all without probable cause in NSA's case) with lawful information sharing in criminal cases. I don't support the former the least but the later is a requirement. Please try to imagine a world where law enforcement could work efficiently if companies could simply tell a judge to f* off and withhold data that would help in an investigation (a lawful, very specific case... not the ghost hunts that the US/NSA/CIA does).
People have lost perspective with the NSA scandals and want to throw the baby with the bathwater. This is short sighted.