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.
For a soviet united states of America!
UNITE with the Campaign for a Free Internet because today, our future begins with tomorrow!
I'm pretty sure the government in going into the direction of using only secrecy orders ALL THE TIME. Easier, no complain, no report, no end date... why using the "normal" process anyway?
Why doesn't someone sue the government over this? They are circumventing Constitutional rights with this type of behavior but until it gets before the SCOTUS nothing will change.
Probably because the people whose rights are being violated, don't have any specific knowledge that their rights have been violated. The people who know other peoples' rights are being violated (Microsoft in this example) aren't having their own rights violated. Thus, nobody has standing to sue.
Between Hillary Clinton and her elitist establishment above-the-law protection, the DNC implosion from not only supporting but encouraging corruption on all levels, Politically Correct fascists wanting to suspend constitutional rights, Radical Minority militant active groups advocating illegal alien felons / police officer assassinations, and last but not least Comrade Bernie's Communist party wanting the biggest expansion of government ever....
'Murrica' sounds like paradise.
Sounds like Microsoft needs to start sending weekly messages to people letting them know that their data haven't been accessed by the government.
The problem comes down to a lack of standing.... unless you can be shown to be impacted by a specific action, you lack standing to sue. Since the orders are secret, no one who has tried to bring suit can be demonstrably shown to have standing, so the cases get thrown out. It's a clear demonstration of why secret orders like this make a mockery of our legal system.
The relevant figure to compare would seem to be intentional unjustified gun-related homicides. Can you find that? Or does that not support your worldview?
Way to ignore suicides, accidents, children accessing guns in the home and all the other bad things that happen that wouldn't happen in people didn't have guns laying around. I'm sure your motives are pure.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
This is the very reason. For some reason my safety deposit box is protected from this crap, but if my documents are digital and are stored in the cloud equivalent then all my rights go away?
SCOTUS somehow found a bunch of exceptions in this sentence:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.".
Not sure what language they are using for their interpretation but it must not be English.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
This is true if all studies are equal.
But some studies are peer reviewed and required to cite verifiable sources. Some studies are put out by organizations which are have a vested interest in one outcome or an other.
The later group includes plenty of studies which go in both directions. But the former group overwhelmingly shows that laxer gun control policy leads to a proliferation of guns and this in turn leads to more deaths by firearms.
Show me the data that says that removing the top 10 cities puts the US homicide rate or the homicide by firearms rate comparable to other nations. I will take the time to read those studies and, if they're well designed, I'll update my opinion based on that data.
That is exactly how I changed my position from being against gun control to being in favor of it and if new evidence suggest that this was a mistake I'll change my position again.