Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Can't Shield User Data From Government, Says Government (bloomberg.com)
Microsoft is now arguing in court that their customers have a right to know when the government is reading their e-mail. But "The U.S. said federal law allows it to obtain electronic communications without a warrant or without disclosure of a specific warrant if it would endanger an individual or an investigation," according to Bloomberg. An anonymous reader quotes their report:
The software giant's lawsuit alleging that customers have a constitutional right to know if the government has searched or seized their property should be thrown out, the government said in a court filing... The U.S. says there's no legal basis for the government to be required to tell Microsoft customers when it intercepts their e-mail... The Justice Department's reply Friday underscores the government's willingness to fight back against tech companies it sees obstructing national security and law enforcement investigations...
Secrecy orders on government warrants for access to private e-mail accounts generally prohibit Microsoft from telling customers about the requests for lengthy or even unlimited periods, the company said when it sued. At the time, federal courts had issued almost 2,600 secrecy orders to Microsoft alone, and more than two-thirds had no fixed end date, cases the company can never tell customers about, even after an investigation is completed.
Secrecy orders on government warrants for access to private e-mail accounts generally prohibit Microsoft from telling customers about the requests for lengthy or even unlimited periods, the company said when it sued. At the time, federal courts had issued almost 2,600 secrecy orders to Microsoft alone, and more than two-thirds had no fixed end date, cases the company can never tell customers about, even after an investigation is completed.
Microsoft is not in this case making any argument about shielding data from the government. This isn't a challenge to NSL's, overbroad warrants, the business records doctrine, or any other tool the government uses to access data. This shields nothing.
This is about notifying the user AFTER the data has been accessed. The government argues even that shouldn't be allowed.
It sounds to me like you are suggesting strict gun controls do not eliminate violent and or gun related crime. Perhaps you missed his subtle intent.
Eliminate? No. But reduce heavily yes. Strict gun control laws do work. Compare any and all countries who have strict gun control laws to America. Who has more gun violence?
Germany's per capita firearms related death rate is about 10% that of the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"The U.S. says there's no legal basis for the government to be required to tell Microsoft customers when it intercepts their e-mail"
Based on legal interpretations of the constitution you MIGHT have some bases when the targets are foreign citizens (even though the constitution doesn't mention a difference between citizen/non-citizen right most of the time) but the Fourth amendment pretty clearly intends for citizens to be notified when the government was snooping through their things (via a warrant). The governments constant game of slight of hand to try to detract from that obvious intent doesn't change it ("electronic communications", "third party disclosure", "standing", etc). It's disturbing that they can even keep a straight face when arguing that warrantless searches, permanent gag orders and blanket warrants aren't antithetical to the constitution itself, the "legal basis" for all law in the United States of America.
https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/generalwarrantsmemo.pdf
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/1...
Mortality among Recent Purchasers of Handguns
Garen J. Wintemute, M.D., M.P.H., Carrie A. Parham, M.S., James Jay Beaumont, Ph.D., Mona Wright, M.P.H., and Christiana Drake, Ph.D.
N Engl J Med 1999; 341:1583-1589
November 18, 1999
DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199911183412106
Background
There continues to be considerable controversy over whether ownership of a handgun increases or decreases the risk of violent death.
Methods
We conducted a population-based cohort study to compare mortality among 238,292 persons who purchased a handgun in California in 1991 with that in the general adult population of the state. The observation period began with the date of handgun purchase (15 days after the purchase application) and ended on December 31, 1996. The standardized mortality ratio (the ratio of the number of deaths observed among handgun purchasers to the number expected on the basis of age- and sex-specific rates among adults in California) was the principal outcome measure.
Results
In the first year after the purchase of a handgun, suicide was the leading cause of death among handgun purchasers, accounting for 24.5 percent of all deaths and 51.9 percent of deaths among women 21 to 44 years old. The increased risk of suicide by any method among handgun purchasers (standardized mortality ratio, 4.31) was attributable entirely to an excess risk of suicide with a firearm (standardized mortality ratio, 7.12). In the first week after the purchase of a handgun, the rate of suicide by means of firearms among purchasers (644 per 100,000 person-years) was 57 times as high as the adjusted rate in the general population. Mortality from all causes during the first year after the purchase of a handgun was greater than expected for women (standardized mortality ratio, 1.09), and the entire increase was attributable to the excess number of suicides by means of a firearm. As compared with the general population, handgun purchasers remained at increased risk for suicide by firearm over the study period of up to six years, and the excess risk among women in this cohort (standardized mortality ratio, 15.50) remained greater than that among men (standardized mortality ratio, 3.23). The risk of death by homicide with a firearm was elevated among women (standardized mortality ratio at one year, 2.20; at six years, 2.01) but low among men (standardized mortality ratio at one year, 0.84; at six years, 0.79).
Conclusions
The purchase of a handgun is associated with a substantial increase in the risk of suicide by firearm and by any method. The increase in the risk of suicide by firearm is apparent within a week after the purchase of a handgun and persists for at least six years.