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."
In the portion of Thursday's ruling that sided with the government, the judge said he could not reconcile the company's attempt to assert the Fourth Amendment protection against invasive searches on behalf of its customers with earlier court decisions. Other courts have found that such rights can only be asserted by individuals, and not vicariously by third parties, he [Robart] said.
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." I guess all data hosts should now have to give disclaimers that there's no guarantee of an expectation of privacy. So much for due process...
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
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.
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.
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.
Microsoft doesn't have first amendment rights.
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.
This isn't difficult to understand - it used to be taught to every schoolchild under the subject heading "Civics".
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?
No shit, so why are you okay with the Judges having veto power over the executive branch if the executive happens to be a Republican, but just fine with the Leftists doing the same thing without facing lawsuits and TROs? You idiots have to face facts: You are a bunch of hypocrites who hate America and American citizens and you are trying your hardest to destroy it. If you don't see that, you are a useful idiot.
The orders (both TRO and the upholding) defy the law which was posted above. Congress (separate branch from the executive) granted this power to the President because the President has Intelligence that the Judicial and Legislative branch lack and is responsible for National Security as the Commandeer and Chief. Congress, not a Judge, should be in charge of replacing the legislation if the legislation needs to be replaced. Hint: The power has been challenged and upheld repeatedly over the last 70 years.
This decision is purely political and ILLEGAL. I sincerely hope all of these judges face reprimand for not following the Constitution and ruling on the LAW. Another hint: Here-say is not admissible as evidence and can not be used to evaluate the legality of an EO. The ORDER and what is written IN THAT ORDER are what can be reviewed for Legality.
If you wish further proof that the decision was political, the Executive branched ask for reductions by the court where they felt the EO over reaching. The court refused to consider the request, never mentioned the directives added for Green Card holders, and simply claimed power to stop the executive branch which they DO NOT HAVE authority to do.
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.
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.
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."
"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.