Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft To Drop Lawsuit After US Government Revises Data Request Rules (reuters.com)

Posted by msmash on from the big-victory dept.

An anonymous reader shares a report: Microsoft said it will drop a lawsuit against the U.S. government after the Department of Justice (DOJ) changed data request rules on alerting internet users about agencies accessing their information. The new policy limits the use of secrecy orders and calls for such orders to be issued for defined periods, Microsoft Chief Legal Officer Brad Smith said in a blog post on Monday. "As a result of the issuance of this policy, we are taking steps to dismiss our lawsuit," Smith said. The company expects the changes to end the practice of indefinite secrecy orders. Microsoft filed the lawsuit in April 2016 arguing that the U.S. government was violating the constitution by preventing the company from informing its customers about government requests for their emails and other documents.

28 comments

  1. Is it actually changed? by XXongo · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Yes, secrecy orders that have no end date pretty clearly violate the first amendment.

    But I'd like to see good evidince showing that the indefinite secrecy order has actually been changed, and not just that they "promise" to change it.

  2. The actual link by XXongo · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The actual link (and not just the two-paragraph summary) is here: https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/?p=55096

    It says that there is a "binding policy issued today by the Deputy U.S. Attorney General" but doesn't give a citation to where we can see that policy. And it doesn't tell us what the word "binding" means-- How "binding"? Just until the next time the Attorney General decides to change it?

    1. Re:The actual link by EndlessNameless · · Score: 4, Informative

      How "binding"? Just until the next time the Attorney General decides to change it?

      I would assume so. It is possible to make rules that are difficult for a successor to remove, but it is usually impossible to make permanent changes---that requires Congress.

      If the next AG reverses course, Microsoft (or other companies) could resume their legal challenges if they wish.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    2. Re:The actual link by AlanObject · · Score: 3, Funny

      How "binding"? Just until the next time the Attorney General decides to change it?

      Pretty much that. Far too many American citizen comrades have no idea we are living in a country where there are "laws" that the public is not entitled to see.

      Also far too many citizen comrades are perfectly OK with that. They think to the extent that it affects them it is keeping them safe or something.

    3. Re:The actual link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My guess is they're applying temporary time limits strictly - the same kind we have on copyright. Informing the victim's family 70 years after their death is helpful, isn't it?

    4. Re:The actual link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congress can't make permanent changes either. A later Congress can easily change them.

    5. Re:The actual link by gtall · · Score: 1

      Far too many American citizens think the President should be able to shut down newspapers and other media he doesn't like.

    6. Re:The actual link by grantsellis · · Score: 3, Informative
      You're unlikely to get more binding precedent if you continue the lawsuit, though. , To continue the lawsuit, you have to have some confidence that the lawsuit is not going to be held moot now that the law (albeit ephemeral law) has changed.

      Now, if the Justice Department changes it back later, they have 2 problems:

      1. The last federal judge to consider the issue said it was likely the Justice Department were going to lose. (That's what it takes to get a preliminary injunction, which is what apparently jump-started this policy change.)

      2. If Justice changes the policy again, the plaintiff will be able to make a 'recurring but evading review' argument.

      (This is not legal advice.)

    7. Re:The actual link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody thinks that the President should be able to shut down media that he doesn't like. We think he should be able to shut down media that we don't like. And the reason why we don't like them is because they abandoned journalism in favor of colluding with each other and the government to push a narrative that ranges from "politically biased" to "pure bullshit made up on the spot".

      But an anonymous source tells this poster that CNN will be allowed to describe their warped version of reality for a long time to come.

    8. Re: The actual link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >We think he should be able to shut down media that we don't like.

      I remember when Nerds who read Orwell posted here. Enjoy your slavery.

    9. Re:The actual link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We think he should be able to shut down media that we don't like.

      That's a terrible summary. Perhaps a handful of SD readers think that, but I suspect that far more agree with my stance:

      * We think there should be punitive fines on media who engage in slander and libel, provided such actions are proven in a civil suit.

      Perhaps it's time for an adjustment to the laws governing slander and libel suits, to recognize that these lies harm not only the party whose reputation they besmirch, but also all those duped into believing the lie. Therefore, the readers/viewers of said media should have standing to sue. Meanwhile the usual defenses of either proving the malicious statements are actually true, or that the reporter did due diligence and found significant evidence to support the statements, should serve to prevent the worst abuses.

  3. Mission Accomplished by hyades1 · · Score: 2

    The government got what it wanted out of this. They asked for the whole loaf, and even though they'll bitch and complain, they're actually more than happy to get most of it.

    It would be better for everybody if Microsoft kept the lawsuit going and dragged the government into court, so its power to reach into the private lives of law-abiding citizens could be brought back into some sane balance. They've got deep pockets and a strong legal team.

    The FBI, NSA and the rest of that long-nosed pack need to be put back on a leash. And yes, I appreciate the irony of the biggest information-sucker on the planet defending the right of privacy.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:Mission Accomplished by zlives · · Score: 1

      defined period... Holocene Epoch, problem solved.

    2. Re:Mission Accomplished by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      LOL. Yeah, I'll accept that.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    3. Re:Mission Accomplished by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, I see your point.

      However look at it from another angle. The Three Letter Agencies have been on this propaganda mission that "Tech Companies Are Selfish And Don't Care About National Security or Law Enforcement."

      It is important to establish that Tech is perfectly happy to cooperate with the Three Letter Agencies. Get warrants, and keep the warrants specific, time-limited, and constructed so that they do not 'accidentally' break security on everyone's devices. If the TLAs do that then they can get their information. As they have always been able to do.

      The problem of the last few years is that the TLAs have been trying to get sweeping new powers to Search & Seize. Powers they never had before. Powers the TLAs have done nothing to initiate proper societal-level debate on. And no, applying for sweeping warrants, getting secret and retroactive warrants, initiating court cases, demanding disclosure, making statements that TLAs 'must have' access isn't a debate. That's a Strong Arm Tactic. There's little respect, little debate, insufficient listening going on when they do that.

      Of course, one wonders when the last 3 (4 counting current) Presidents haven't bothered with such debates either. If the politicians can't be bothered to get permission, how much exactly can we blame the TLAs who report to the President?

    4. Re:Mission Accomplished by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft is hardly the biggest information-sucker on the planet. You're thinking of Google.

    5. Re:Mission Accomplished by zlives · · Score: 1

      IMHO it appears to me MS didn't care about end user privacy until they started to loose clients on their cloud. this will die down, until the next revelation of how companyX has been compromised by the government Y, rinse repeat.

      its almost as if the government has taken the position of adversary in the equation.

  4. Pretty easy by XSportSeeker · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's pretty easy Microsoft. STOP collecting data from us without our consent. There you go, nothing of interest for the government to secretly get from you.

    1. Re:Pretty easy by DickBreath · · Score: 2

      Microsoft sees that the model of monopoly pricing of software is at an end. It has to look to new ways of getting revenue. Look at the shiny business model of selling your personal information used by Google and FaceTwit!

      Of course, Microsoft's enterprise software has a decent future, if they don't screw it up. But nothing like Microsoft's glory days with no viable alternative platforms and when an outrageously priced software license was like a small tax on very expensive hardware. Today, a $30 software license is the elephant in the room on a $180 hardware item. (like a chromebook, as an example)

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    2. Re:Pretty easy by yuvcifjt · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      This is actually pretty impressive from Microsoft.

      But I find it absolutely amazing that some people who advocate privacy and fight facebook/microsoft/apple in regards to data retention, completely forget about the biggest of all thefts and criminals: Google!

      And more amazingly, the very same people go about using Chrome, Android, Google Mail, Search, etc!
      It's well known from Snowden's revelations that Google is the back office arm of NSA, to various degrees and extent.

      Google has no problem in handing over any private/personal data, as long as there's money involved. Thus we never hear Google fighting for privacy, unlike Apple!

    3. Re:Pretty easy by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      It's pretty easy Microsoft. STOP collecting data from us without our consent. There you go, nothing of interest for the government to secretly get from you.

      But the problem is the government is going after data you already consented to having Microsoft store for you. You know, like emails (through Hotmail/Outlook), chats and stuff (through Skype/messenger) and other services. Microsoft stopping that collection would mean shutting down those services, and I'm sure there's probably going to be pushback from that.

    4. Re:Pretty easy by thereitis · · Score: 1

      But why would they do that and put themselves at a competitive disadvantage to other corporations? Unless touting this as a feature to customers would outweigh the cost. Really I think the government should step in and make bulk data collection/tracking illegal. But again, why would the government do that unless it was to their advantage to lose access to all the data that corporations collect?

    5. Re:Pretty easy by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Google, like Microsoft before it, buys governement peace by donations to politicians, and letting them have their backdoors. You didn't think these antitrust lawsuits, largely backed off of, were about some noble abstraction, did you?

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  5. Data at Rest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All Microsoft had to do was to encrypt the data at rest and in transit with keys that are in the pocket of the users like Proton Mail and Tutanota.

  6. 100 years is a "defined period" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just saying.

  7. ProtonMail or Startmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who actually trusts Microsoft with their e-mail, anyway? None of these big corporations are truly trustworthy with e-mail privacy.

    If you value privacy with your e-mail, use ProtonMail or Startmail. Yeah, you may have to pay a few bucks; e-mail is not like air. It is a business and needs to make money. You can either pay cash for privacy, or pay by giving up your data.

    Also, e-mail by design is nearly impossible to secure properly and that will likely never be fixed because it is running on protocols designed in the 1980â(TM)s. Nobody should use e-mail for anything sensitive unless all the communicants know how to implement and use PGP. If not, use something like Telegram, WhatsApp, Signal, or Wire.

  8. Damn! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... I whish I could be a crook that way!

    I mean, I could break even the most sacred of laws with impunity.

    And when I than get caught I just put some insincere promiss to better my life making the other party drop the charges as if nothing actually happened (hey, I even get to keep the loot, so who's complaining), and I'm off the hook, never ever even seeing a courtroom. After it has died down a bit I just pick up where I left off.

    The next time I get caught I just describe/define my (always the same) actions differently, and rinse-and-repeat the whole thing.

  9. Windows 10 Enabler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Install Windows 10. Send your info straight to the government. Couldn't be easier.