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."

Comments

Re:The more important part not mentioned...

[mmell]

As others have noted, you're merely supporting President Trump's (nee: Drumpf's) case. Unless you want to perpetuate the rule of caveat which we (the citizens of the US) have inflicted upon ourselves, please practice some self-restraint in your posts. POTUS may have gotten where he is by indiscriminate use of ad hominem attacks, name calling and outright lies, but we cannot hope to limit or remove him by employing those same tactics. Something about becoming the enemy?

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.

Re:The more important part not mentioned...

[gravewax]

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"

Re:Fyi - the actual law that Robart ruled on in Tr

[mmell]

And the Judicial Branch may override such acts. That's why our government is divided into three distinct branches, each with clearly enumerated powers and each charged with the responsibility of controlling excesses from the other two.

This isn't difficult to understand - it used to be taught to every schoolchild under the subject heading "Civics".

Re:The more important part not mentioned...

[mmell]

This court did not block Trump's (nee: Drumpf's) travel plan. It reaffirmed another court's correctness in doing so. Therefore, this court's ruling was not to block something, but rather to uphold something.

A subtle but nonetheless important distinction.

Re:Fyi - the actual law that Robart ruled on in Tr

[BitterOak]

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.

Re:look, it's simple.

[CaptainDork]

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.