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?
Dont they have some Datacenters in the EU region too? How about there? Can the US request Data from EU Datacenters?
What Germany needs is common-sense gun control, an assault-style weapons ban and for the 2nd amendment to be repealed. Get the guns off the streets. Tell those conservative repukianz Germans that they don't need their metal dicks to feel safe. White men in Germany should be pretty ashamed of their gun culture.
Not really the problem, which is the legal basis of forbidding Microsoft from telling their customers that their email has been intercepted by a third party despite what agreements were in place between Microsoft and their customers.
If you keep your mail local you will know when the government gives you a warrant to access your server.
Windows 10 "telimetry" data is everything from a browser history monitor to a keylogger. You couldnt get more dystopian if you ate a copy of 1984. The government knows it doesnt need to go far for data from windows users....those pesky Linux kids though....
Good people go to bed earlier.
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.
used to be before Obama that government was held to higher standards in this regard. I'd hear more about how citizens had a constitutional right to privacy . How government needed search warrants before it could listen in. Now a days under Obama, favored elites are above the law while Snowden and Manning are labeled traitors. The establishment rigs the primaries and then reframes the news in terms of Russians bedding with the outsider. Forget that the establishment elites break the laws , lie under oath, are funded by foreign powers. Forget that Americans are supposed to have constitutional rights and that elected politicians are supposed to uphold those rights. How otherwise will Americans be "safe"??
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.
used to be before Bush that government was held to higher standards in this regard. I'd hear more about how citizens had a constitutional right to privacy . How government needed search warrants before it could listen in. Now a days under Bush, favored elites are above the law while Snowden and Manning are labeled traitors. The establishment rigs the primaries and then reframes the news in terms of Russians bedding with the outsider. Forget that the establishment elites break the laws , lie under oath, are funded by foreign powers. Forget that Americans are supposed to have constitutional rights and that elected politicians are supposed to uphold those rights. How otherwise will Americans be "safe"??
Or iOS?
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 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
The US Constitution is one of limited government and enumerated powers. I don't see a constitutional basis for the government to tell companies what they can and cannot tell their customers; which of the enumerated powers is that supposed to be?
So, while customers don't necessarily "have a constitutional right to know if the government has searched or seized their property", the government certainly has no constitutional right to prohibit companies from telling customers anything they want.
I would argue that forced rectal insertion of a copy of 1984 is more dystopian.
How long until the Supreme Court settles whether encrypted text constitutes protected speech?
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.
I think there are two main reasons to agree with Microsoft. In legal terms, there is long established case law that Fourth Amendment protections apply equally to renters as well as property owners. Microsoft is in the same position with respect to on-line assets as a landlord is to physical property. The landlord has to respect the tenant's privacy.
In terms of public expectations, I have discussed the issue of technical privacy concerns with non-technical people on many occasions and they expect the software vendors, on-line providers and other experts to protect them. That includes Microsoft. There is a popular belief among technical people that ordinary people must not care about their privacy because they do nothing to protect it. However, when I have pressed ordinary people to explain why they don't protect their own privacy, it boils down to two things. First, they don't know how to do id and presume any technical measure they take on their own behalf is likely to fail. Also, they presume that the experts have reviewed license agreements and privacy policies and won't let anything too outrageous stand for long. Second, many people are afraid that any (probably ineffective) measure they take to protect their own privacy is only likely to draw attention to them as someone who has something to hide. So, according to what I see, the consensus is that experts should be the ones to protect privacy and these protection measures should apply to everyone by default.
Per capita statistics are almost entirely bullshit. Germany is lots smaller than the US and has far less diversity.
Put lots more people of differing socio economic backgrounds together and you will get "friction".
Pull out our top 10 most violent cities and we fall way down the list on gun violence.
Take a look at this video if you doubt me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
About half of all our gun deaths are suicides.
As a libertarian, I refuse to put the cost of those suicides on everyone else.
If a person wants to end their life, it is their life to do as they please. Gun-owners are not responsible for the actions of suicidal folks any more than they are responsible for the slow suicide that is smoking, drinking, and eating to excess.
The Donald sided against Apple per the back-door issue. He wants to snoop on "those scary people". He ain't gonna help.
Table-ized A.I.
"We have always been a fiercely free country"
Unless you were... .. I'm sure I left a few from the list
Black before 1860
A woman before 1960
Have Japanese ancestry 1941-45
Have Chinese ancestry before 1900s
Were a native American
Black after 1960
Perceived as being a Communist in the 1950's
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
LMOL yeah ok Potsy. You're forgetting the fact that email is routed and that ISPs and all nodes in between have copies.
used to be before Bush that government was held to higher standards in this regard. I'd hear more about how citizens had a constitutional right to privacy . How government needed search warrants before it could listen in. Now a days under Bush, favored elites are above the law while Snowden and Manning are labeled traitors. The establishment rigs the primaries and then reframes the news in terms of Russians bedding with the outsider. Forget that the establishment elites break the laws , lie under oath, are funded by foreign powers. Forget that Americans are supposed to have constitutional rights and that elected politicians are supposed to uphold those rights. How otherwise will Americans be "safe"??
Talk about something you know. You obviously have absolutely no idea how e-mail works. I set mine up so they're all using encryption. My customers send e-mail from company to company and it comes and goes to a private company owned Linux box. No Microsoft, verizon, etc involved. NOBODY can read that e-mail, so there. Of course, those Linux machines have to be hardened, watched and maintained. Not like what the Democrats did. They didn't care about security, they were hacked - easily from what the reports say.
If you're sending to a gmail, hotmail, all of those public free places - yea, don't expect privacy there. Not only can the government get it, a lot of other people can get it.
Bernie who? Just another sell out.
Seems like we all need something evidentially tempting randomly added by us to our data that is way too good not to follow up, which is in actuality a honey trap.
For example, buried in your email is a URL associated with something like "Don't tell the cops but this is where/how you get the good stuff". If LEO follow this up by browsing to this URL, it captures all the info it can about the visitor and sends it to you or a trusted third party. Which suggests to them that interception is occurring.