Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Allowed To Sue US Government Over Email Surveillance (bloomberg.com)
A judge has ruled that Microsoft is allowed to sue the U.S. government over a policy that prevents the tech company from telling its users when their emails are being intercepted. From a report on Bloomberg: The judge said Microsoft has at least made a plausible argument that federal law muzzles its right to speak about government investigations, while not ruling on the merits of the case. "The public debate has intensified as people increasingly store their information in the cloud and on devices with significant storage capacity," U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle said in Thursday's ruling. "Government surveillance aided by service providers creates unique considerations because of the vast amount of data service providers have about their customers."
If it wasn't clear to you before, Edward Snowden removed all possible doubt. If you transmit non-locally-encrypted data over the internet, it is being intercepted and stored by everybody who can possibly get their mitts on it, from the USGov to Facebook to Google. That goes just as well if you allow any of those parties access to your encryption keys by letting them perform the encryption for you.
You don't want that degree of surveillance? You have been given all the tools you need to avoid it. Use them. If you don't want to use them, then your communications are open to anyone with a profit or power-based motivation to want to see them.
It's really time for people to shit or get off the pot, and stop bitching about human nature. Knowledge is power, and power is I^2 * R....no wait... the desire for power is built into human nature. People WILL use it if you allow them to. Don't allow them to, if it bothers you.
There is no legal solution to this problem. There are too many jurisdictions and too many parties that will conveniently find ways around such laws, or ignore them outright. The solution is already in your hands. Use it.
travel ban, LOL
I'm not sure why Robart is concerned with precedent in this case, since his reason for blocking Trump's travel ban basically came down to "Because I said so."
There is a 29 page ruling.
Granted, I haven't read it all (I just skipped to the DENIED at the end), but I think it's a little more nuanced than, "because I said so."
While I agree with you it's pretty clear Congress explicitly granted the President discretion to block entry by whatever criteria he deemed prudent, Robart is consistent between the two cases in holding that the plaintiff may have a non-frivilous case. That's the question before Robart in both cases - is it possible that the plaintiffs may be right, so their interests should be protected as the case is allowed to proceed.
Robart didn't rule that Trump's actions were illegal, he ruled that the question merits a full hearing. He's done the same in this case.
Citation, please.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
He should be able to reconcile it. When the government can force a third party to divulge your information and then prevent you from knowing about it, and then deny that third party from acting in your interest both as custodian of that information and as the only party aware of the request, clearly something is wrong.
Think it through, the government won't tell me it's taking my data, and then claims only I can challenge that. Huh?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Fourth Amendment protection
I'm surprised Microsoft went with a Fourth Amendment claim. It's not their data, its their customers'. What the government is interfering with is Microsoft's First Amendment rights (they can't tell customers when the government slurps up their e-mail) and tortious interference between Microsoft and their customers in their agreement to keep their property secure.
If the Fourth Amendment can only be extended as far as an individual's physical property and the papers and effects contained therein, there is going to be a chilling effect on all commerce. So maybe an issue with the Commerce Clause as well.
Have gnu, will travel.
not if you're a fan of the screaming shitgibbon, aka 45.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Fyi here is the actual text of the law at issue in the case of Trump's travel order:
--
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate
--
In the long run, the question before the courts is "does that law permit the President to deny entry to people coming from countries that the Obama adminstration identified asterrorism risks, because their governments can't or won't assist in vetting applicants?" It seems to me the wording of the law is plain - the President may "suspend the entry of ... or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate". Seems straightforward. The law may be bad or it may be good, but it's clear. It does give the President full discretion.
Granted, I haven't read it all (I just skipped to the DENIED at the end), but I think it's a little more nuanced than, "because I said so."
At no point in his ruling did he mention the law (U.S. Code SS 1182 - Inadmissible aliens) that gives the president the power to do this. He didn't rule on the constitutionality of the law that allows the ban, he ruled based on his perceptions of the intent of the ban, so basically "Because I said so." Trump could have just as easily banned immigrants from Lichtenstein if he had the inclination that they were a hot spot for terrorists.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Microsoft doesn't have first amendment rights.
the screaming shitgibbon
Just curious, do you people think you're actually helping your cause with this type of thing? Was your takeaway from the complete failure of 18 months of "LOLOLOL ORANGE LOLOLOL HAIR LOLOLOL SMALL HANDS" simply that you weren't being childish enough?
Well, he is a screaming shitgibbon. Haven't you been paying attention?
Was your takeaway from the complete failure of 18 months of "LOLOLOL ORANGE LOLOLOL HAIR LOLOLOL SMALL HANDS" simply that you weren't being childish enough?
No, their takeaway was that Hillary was too honest and polite. Let that sink in for a while.
As of now, every supporter of the current POTUS can point to your post as a valid reason why surveillance is necessary and justified. After all, "it's wrong. Sad. Terrible. Totally biased. False news." Please don't arm the current administration - they already have the upper hand in muzzling and controlling the news media, don't surrender social media to them as well.
The law may be bad or it may be good, but it's clear. It does give the President full discretion.
The U.S. was founded in part on the principles that its bad to have that much power concentrated into an office governed by a sole person. Of course part of the country only cares in this case because the person doing the banning isn't in their political tribe, but I don't have to find their reasons pure if they accomplish the same result I favor. Not that I disagree with the sentiment though. We should restrict immigration from those areas and make sure we have adequate screening in place for applicants, but that should come from Congress, not the office of the President.
Given the extent of the ruling and the appeal it was "because the constitution said so, or at least the constitution dictates it should be heard"
This isn't difficult to understand - it used to be taught to every schoolchild under the subject heading "Civics".
Alt-right punks, alt-right punks, alt-right punks, FUCK OFF!
A subtle but nonetheless important distinction.
So if I write 29 pages of why Obama was the worst president of all time you can't call me a racist, because 29 pages?
Your logic is baffling!
Are you telling me not to protest the dumbfuck in chief?
Oh hell no.
As of now, every supporter of the current POTUS can point to your post as a valid reason why surveillance is necessary and justified.
I don't give a fuck if they hate America, they can get the fuck out.
You pretend like the fascist in charge is going to be reasonable. He hasn't, isn't and never will be.
He's already losing more every day. Because people are protesting, yelling, screaming, sueing. That's America.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
So just garden-variety Trump Derangement. Got it.
And for the record, this is what a "screaming shitgibbon" looks like. Also this. Oh, and this. Almost forgot him.
I'm sure I've missed plenty.
It is NOT just that law at issue at all. not sure if you are deliberating taking it out of context or you simply have listened to too many trump supporters. The issue is that trump's executive decision may breach multiple other laws under discrimination or damages to the states , not that he doesn't have the power under the law you stated.
> the Judicial Branch may override such acts.
> This isn't difficult to understand - it used to be taught to every schoolchild under the subject heading "Civics".
You seem to have forgotten something from your childhood civics class. The role of the judicial branch is to *interpret* the law, not *override* it.
There is little to know interpretation required of this law - it's wording is quite clear.
What *can* override a federal law is the *Constitution*. If you wish to make a claim that the Constitution overrides this law I'd be glad to discuss that with you. If so, which article of the Constitution do you have in mind?
But if you read the 9th Circuit Courts opinion, you'd see that the reason they decided as they did was that Trump's order was too broad, excluding not only "aliens", but also potentially lawful residents who are non-citizens, such as visa holders, and others who may have been lawfully in the United States and left temporarily. If the order had been limited to those with no legal standing in the U.S. at all, the opinion might have been different.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Probably because the first has been slapped around so much in recent times that it has barely a wisp of its intent left in tact.
Now if MS could somehow wrap this around the second amendment, it would be a surefire case. Because apparently we don't care about speech or privacy or many other rights, but damned if we'll let them take away our ability to put holes in things!
What do you mean, "Citation, please"? The citation is the article in the summary. GP is interpreting its content, which I thought he was pretty upfront about.
since his reason for blocking Trump's travel ban basically came down to "Because I said so."
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Car analogy time: If you are a rental car company and rent cars to people, the Government can request a warrant for _your_ cars which were rented by a particular customer. The Government does not have to notify the renter that there is a warrant, and the rental company does not have to notify the renter. There is no insinuation from that warrant that there is a breach of 4th amendment protection for the renter, even if they are driving in the car every day. This method of catching criminals is very effective because criminals are not usually stupid enough to use their own cars to commit crimes.
I'm all for Constitutional protections, but in this case Microsoft is simply wrong. If a warrant is granted by the court for email, the law enforcement agencies can execute the law.
So no citation.
My take is much shorter than your bullshit answer.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Nice try. Still want to debate?
Posting days-old news. Also posting left-wing #fakenews in other stories. Welcome to Gawker level journalism, boys. Will be glad to see you go.
Your email resides on someone else' servers which they rent to you in a form. The digital information is the same thing as your fingerprints being in the rented car. Are you so goddamn stupid you believe that your fingerprints can't be obtained with a warrant because those are yours and in my analogy the car is not?
The Judicial Branch can not override any other branches authority. The Constitution states that the Courts duty is to ensure that the other branches follow the law. If the court would have provided guidance on corrections or granted specific exclusions they felt were in violation of the Law (as the Executive branch requested) they would have been doing their job. Instead they decided to usurp power from both the Legislative and Executive branch and rule from the bench.
Congress wrote the law granting explicit powers to the Executive branch, the Executive branch executed the law. The Supreme court and lower courts have upheld both the law and the Presidents power to exercise the law repeatedly. Notice that the decision does not mention the Law, does not provide any statements regarding the Constitution, does not mention the directives added to include current Visa and Green card holders, but does mention here-say speculation on intent. Judges can not rule on here-say and speculation, they can rule on what is in the EO. THE COURT FAILED!
Do us all a favor and read just a little bit of US civics before posting bullshit!
The circuit court cited the due process clause in respect to lawful permanent residents. The White House had issued instructions that the policy doesn't apply to lawful permanent residents. The district court indicated that the White House might, in the future, change that policy, and if they changed it there would potentially be a due process issue. That sounds like twisted reasoning to me - stay the actual, existing order because some other order which could be issued in the future might be wrong.
By that reasoning, they should block enforcement of the tax laws because at some future time Congress might pass an unconstitutional tax.
The court explicitly declined to comment on the establishment of religion clause. An establishment claim would be interesting- the President also blocked a country which happens to be majority Christian - is that discrimination against Christians? If the majority of the country affected happen to be tall, would that be discrimination against tall people? Interesting.
Btw I think Trump is a jackass, and I voted against him twice. I also think the law, as written, very clearly allows him to have this policy, even *if* it's a dumb policy. (I know nothing about Yemen, so I can't say whether or not the government there is unwilling or unable to provide documentation for screening).
The circuit court cited the due process clause in respect to lawful permanent residents. The White House had issued instructions that the policy doesn't apply to lawful permanent residents. The district court indicated that the White House might, in the future, change that policy, and if they changed it there would potentially be a due process issue. That sounds like twisted reasoning to me - stay the actual, existing order because some other order which could be issued in the future might be wrong.
They did. As they said, White House counsel can say that the order doesn't apply to permanent residents, but because such a person is not in the chain of command, their statement does not carry the authority that an executive order carries. "The Government has offered no authority establishing that the White House counsel is empowered to issue an amended order superseding the Executive Order signed by the President... Nor has the Government established that the White House counsel’s interpretation of the Executive Order is binding on all executive branch officials responsible for enforcing the Executive Order. The White House counsel is not the President, and he is not known to be in the chain of command for any of the Executive Departments." It isn't enough that "the White House" says the order doesn't apply to certain people; such a change would have to be in an order signed by the president.
The court explicitly declined to comment on the establishment of religion clause. An establishment claim would be interesting- the President also blocked a country which happens to be majority Christian - is that discrimination against Christians? If the majority of the country affected happen to be tall, would that be discrimination against tall people? Interesting.
They did comment on it, they just didn't issue a formal decision (which isn't really their job at this point). They noted that the intent of a law matters (with cited precedent) and that there are serious questions regarding the intent of this executive order. Just because the text of the executive order doesn't have the word "Muslim" in it, the order can still be illegally discriminatory if the intent is to target a certain religion.
Btw I think Trump is a jackass, and I voted against him twice. I also think the law, as written, very clearly allows him to have this policy, even *if* it's a dumb policy. (I know nothing about Yemen, so I can't say whether or not the government there is unwilling or unable to provide documentation for screening).
The law as written can allow whatever it wants, but the courts can still invalidate the law if they decide that it contradicts the Constitution.
Lets be real about all this. To M$ this is nothing more than a marketing scam. The are by far the worse control freak perves on the planet, they make the government of China seem positively benign in comparison. Right in the EULA they say, they will allow government to access you hard disk drive and that is only possible by a compulsory software updates, a supposed security update to punch a whole right through your security and completely unblock able by design.
This is like M$ promising to secure you zipper but allowing you to be bent over and that probe secretly driven right through your pants, don't even need to take them off. Nothing more than a shallow marketing scam from the most privacy invasive corporation on the planet. I don't trust the US government but I trust M$ a whole order of magnitude less, hell, I would trust the government of China before I would trust M$.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
This is the idiot shit that wants to give foreign aliens more US Constitutional rights than legal US citizens.
Ninth Circuit Court has had 80% of their rulings reversed or just plain voided for lack of judicial competence.
Nuke Seattle and be done with Robart and his precious illegals who are depleting the city and state of resources, services and money!
AND they DO have first amendment rights.
"In the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, they ruled in a 5-4 decision that corporations have the same free speech rights as individuals so they are therefore covered by the First Amendment."
You don't cite an opinion if you're the one originally giving it. If you're going to be pigheaded about it, here's the citation: https://slashdot.org/comments....
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
incorrect. He ruled on whether the case had merits and deserved to be heard. where do you trump trolls get your information from. The case is not about whether he had the power to make such an executive order, it is if his executive order broke other laws which then would make it illegal regardless of his right to make such an order.
"Obama country list ban" is what it is.
"ruled that Microsoft is allowed to sue the U.S. government over a policy that prevents the tech company from telling its users when their emails are being intercepted."
Um, the same microsoft that prevents themselves from telling its customers what data is being harvested from thier pc?
The same microsoft which forced windows 10 updates on win7 users?
They suck.