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.

Comments

Next: All orders will be secrecy orders

[JcMorin]

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?

Re:Next: All orders will be secrecy orders

[jellomizer]

The problem also extends that there is no consistent political representation on the issue. Democrats and Republicans are equally bad at this, and are too afraid to stand up and say. "American Rights are more important than American security." Especially as the suffering from our Rights being taken away is not showing any real benefit of security gains.

If you are going to do something that you don't want to get caught, technology will allow you to do this, and there isn't anything that Microsoft, Google, Apple or the Government can do it stop it. However we need to be Brave enough to stick up to our rights and say, I am willing to accept less security to insure my Rights are valued.

Re:Next: All orders will be secrecy orders

[CrimsonAvenger]

Democrats and Republicans are equally bad at this, and are too afraid to stand up and say. "American Rights are more important than American security."

Fear has nothing to do with it. They're the Rulers, and they like it that way. Keeping the peasants from getting uppity is a good thing as far as any of them are concerned.

Remember, the more power you give a government, the more attractive it is to people who like to tell other people what to do....

Re:Next: All orders will be secrecy orders

[myowntrueself]

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?

Whats going to end up happening is that all the tech companies that are currently headquartered in the USA will move offshore. They will move all management staff offshore as well; they may have some contractors still in the USA but no high level employee will be in the USA, so there will be no one to whom a national security letter can be delivered. This would render this method of demanding secret access effectively neutered.

Bad headline.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:So, why?

[tsqr]

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.

Canary

[Peter Mork]

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 real question: legal basis of secrecy

[ooloorie]

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 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.

Why I won't use cloud storage.

[Holi]

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.

Re:Mall shooting in Germany

[aprentic]

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.