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."
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.
Did it hurt when you went off the rails?
Microsoft's motive is money. This matter is very similar to Apple's quest to supply secure phones.
Companies who provide secure storage and communication hardware/software will become "best of breed" to consumer, business, and government markets.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
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.
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".
A subtle but nonetheless important distinction.
> 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
Absolutely. But in this case its a win-win -- MS gets to advertise stronger privacy guarantees (and doesn't have to spend as much time/effort/money responding to government requests,) their customers get to rest a tiny bit easy knowing that at least they'll be notified when their privacy is breached. And even society as a whole gets to benefit as it would provide precedent for other large data storage and collection providers to also tell the government to piss off.
The only one who doesn't benefit here is the government themselves. They'll have to go back to doing crazy things like getting warrants and allowing for due process when going after people (or at least, they would in this particular circumstance.)
Certainly there are plenty of times when companies screw their customers in pursuit of profit. But sometimes the cards align and what's best for profit also happens to be best for consumers.
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.
The car analogy isn't very good in the case of e-mail. It's not Microsoft's e-mail, it's mine. Microsoft is simply storing and moving it for me. If the government serves Microsoft with a warrant to read my e-mail and Microsoft hands it over, they must have stolen it from me.
'Stolen' in the same sense that people pirate music and movies. I'm not missing the e-mail, even though Microsoft took a copy of it. Just like Paramount Pictures isn't missing the latest Star Trek movie when I download a torrent of it. Copyright owners can hold Netflix responsible for distributing their content only as allowed and movie theaters responsible for allowing patrons to sneak video cameras in to grap a shitty copy of a movie.
Have gnu, will travel.
Not disagreeing with you, but your last statement says it.
Edward Snowden is not relevant to anything at all.
Neither is empathy for clients.
It's just money.
But, both the "think of the children" approach and the profit motive are, as you say, coincident.
Microsoft doesn't really give a shit about the children.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
sure... An executive order is the POTUS' tool to implement law. For those of you who failed your civics courses the legislative branch makes law, and the executive branch executes law. That execution is lead by the POTUS of the moment. For instance when the ACA was shown to be a disaster and a political nightmare the POTUS delayed implementation of several provisions in direct conflict with what the law said... That is the purview of the POTUS. The wonderful thing about our system is taht all three branches of the government are coequal.. If two of them(the executive and legislative branches for instance) wanted to tell the judiciary to go fornicate with itself they could do so, and there is not a damn thing the judiciary could do to stop them. Every POTUS in history has used executive orders(With one exception in Harrison) with the democratic figurehead of FDR issuing the most(more in a single year on average than most other presidents issued in a term). If you read an executive order it points to a law(in this instance it points to the Immigration and Nationality Act specifically 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12) if you want to actually read rather than spouting bullshit) which states:
(12) Not present in Iraq, Syria, or any other country or area of concern
(A) In generalExcept as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C)—
(i) the alien has not been present, at any time on or after March 1, 2011—
(I) in Iraq or Syria;
(II) in a country that is designated by the Secretary of State under section 4605(j) of title 50 (as continued in effect under the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)), section 2780 of title 22, section 2371 of title 22, or any other provision of law, as a country, the
government of which has repeatedly provided support of acts of international terrorism; or
(III) in any other country or area of concern designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security under subparagraph (D); and
(ii) regardless of whether the alien is a national of a program country, the alien is not a national of—
(I) Iraq or Syria;
(II) a country that is designated, at the time the alien applies for admission, by the Secretary of State under section 4605(j) of title 50 (as continued
in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)), section 2780 of title 22, section 2371 of title 22, or
any other provision of law, as a country, the government of which has repeatedly provided support of acts of international terrorism; or
(III) any other country th
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
It's like a rental property. The police have to serve the tenant with the warrant, not the landlord.
If your legal education consists of TV cop shows, they are wrong. Landlords don't go around unlocking rental units for cops without exigent circumstances.
Have gnu, will travel.
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