Google, Apple, Mozilla, and the EFF Support Microsoft's Fight Against Gag Orders (betanews.com)

An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes BetaNews about new legal documents filed Friday: Microsoft is fighting the US Justice Department in an attempt to quash a law that prevents companies informing customers that the government is requesting their data. The technology giant has the backing of other tech companies as well as media outlets. Amazon, Apple, Google, Fox News, Electronic Frontier Foundation and Mozilla are among those offering their support to Microsoft. The lawsuit says that blocking companies from keeping their customers informed is unconstitutional, and it comes at a time when tech companies in particular are keen to be as open and transparent as possible about government requests for data....

As EFF Senior Staff Attorney Lee Tien puts it: "Whether the government has a warrant to rifle through our mail, safety deposit boxes, or emails stored in the cloud, it must notify people about the searches. When electronic searches are done in secret, we lose our right to challenge the legality of law enforcement invasions of privacy. The Fourth Amendment doesn't allow that, and it's time for the government to step up and respect the Constitution."
Mozilla argues transparency "is critical to our vision of an open, trusted, secure web that places users in control of their experience online," in a blog post announcing that they'd joined a brief filed by Apple, Twilio, and Lithium Technologies.

And a statement from an EFF staff attorney argues that notifying the targets of searches "provides a free society with a crucial means of government accountability."

Comments

Does Mozilla not understand?

[Anonymous Coward]

That "open, trusted, secure web" is something the government does not want. Not just the US government but, well, I think all of them. It's critical for an authoritarian establishment to be able to suppress dissenting opinions and to investigate and prevent dissemination of information that puts their control at risk - from both foreign and domestic sources. A government only permits a "free society with a crucial means of government accountability" so far as it ensures that the populace is satisfied enough not to revolt en masse. The primary job of a government is to keep itself in power, and the rest takes a backseat.

...and there's your daily dose of libertarian whackjob/conspiracy theory rambling. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday.

Courts have VERY limited power

[SeattleLawGuy]

This is compounded by the fact that the courts, which are charged (by themselves, but that's a different problem of very long standing) with making sure that laws that are not compliant with the constitution are struck down, consistently do not do so.

The courts do so rarely, and avoid it if the law gives them a way to avoid it. For example, if it is possible to read a law in a way that would make it constitutional, they will do so (which may still restrict what the government can do with it.)

And there's a reason for that. Courts always walk a very fine line. The police do not work for them. The army does not work for them. Government officials, by and large, do not work for them. Criminal defendants do not work for them. The power of a court is directly dependent on whether people are willing to listen to it--very much like the old rule that a King can should NEVER make an order that will not be obeyed.

There are also more direct checks and balances. Congress can excuse laws from judicial review if it wants to, for example. The Constitution can also be changed to make a law constitutional--as has happened a number of times in United States History.

And, of course, the judgment of history will come down very heavily on certain decisions, in a way it almost never does on any Congress or even President--Dred Scott and Korematsu being the most obvious.

The Courts are very powerful, but they are also very cautious. (Anything you may have read about too many "activist judges" is primarily ignorant or intentionally misleading commentary aimed at manipulating voters.)