Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Fends Off Data Request, FBI Gets Data Another Way
An anonymous reader writes "In a time when the government avows that it cannot carry out justice without issuing secret warrants and National Security Letters to anyone other than the suspect, it is truly noteworthy when news breaks that the FBI, facing push-back from the likes of a company such as Microsoft, finds that it can indeed gather the information it needs for its investigation through a regular search warrant applied directly to its suspect. Such was the case on Thursday. Court documents (PDF) reveal that Microsoft filed a petition against the National Security Letter (NSL) it received involving one of its customers, citing violations to the First Amendment. The FBI later withdrew the NSL and went after their suspect in the old, Constitutionally-sound way. A federal judge ruled last year that the NSLs impinge on free speech' That judgement has been stayed, of course, pending appeal."
In other words, roping in government information gathering abilities is an exercise in futility. If Google/Microsoft/Apple/IBM/etc. won't directly surrender confidential or sensitive personal information, they can get it another way. In effect, citizens have no right or expectation of privacy from the government.
In other news today: water still wet, fire still hot. Film at eleven.
They could end up on Double-Secret Probation.
If you read the documents, the FBI wanted data on the activities of a Microsoft enterprise customer not one of the common people.
....Doesn't every other article on /. claim MS gives the (favorite three letter agency goes here) backdoors to all of their clients machines? Why would they even need to talk to MS at all if this is true? /. become the new National Enquirer?
Or has
Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
Hooray! Go Microsoft!....
What?... What did I say?
In reading the documents, the NSL surrounded a Microsoft enterprise customer. This could have been around Azure or any other professional service that Microsoft offers to organizations. Since the documents provided don't disclose a who, it could be assumed that the FBI was looking into a company, not an individual. Since everything else around this case is sealed, we'll never know who or what organization was targeted by the NSL which again problematic in a free country.
I find this other statement hilarious.
The FBI obtained the requested information through lawful means from a third party, the Customer, in a way that maintains the confidentiality of the underlying investigation
It's obvious that the Customer knows now that they're targeted in an investigation and "lawful" means would imply that the NSL wasn't legal or possibly that the FBI uses "unlawful" means of obtaining information? I guess I just find the wording funny, I mean they could have just said "we obtained a search warrant and served it directly on the suspect."
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
the FBI, .... finds that it can indeed gather the information it needs for its investigation through a regular search warrant applied directly to its suspect.
This works for past bad deeds. Where the evidence of a crime already exists and only needs to be collected. It doesn't help with collecting data in anticipation of future wrongdoing.
No, it's called probable cause. They don't need to have evidence yet, they only need to have probable cause that such evidence exists. If they can't show an actual reason why such evidence probably exists, why should they get to invade your privacy or take your stuff? That's what some big chunks of the constitution are all about.