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

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.

Comments

Is it actually changed?

[XXongo]

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.

The actual link

[XXongo]

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?

Re:The actual link

[EndlessNameless]

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.

Re:The actual link

[AlanObject]

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.

Re:The actual link

[gtall]

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

Re:The actual link

[grantsellis]

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.)

Mission Accomplished

[hyades1]

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.

Re:Mission Accomplished

[zlives]

defined period... Holocene Epoch, problem solved.

Re:Mission Accomplished

[hyades1]

LOL. Yeah, I'll accept that.

Re:Mission Accomplished

[zlives]

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.

Pretty easy

[XSportSeeker]

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.

Re:Pretty easy

[DickBreath]

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)

Re:Pretty easy

[yuvcifjt]

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!

Re:Pretty easy

[tlhIngan]

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.

Re:Pretty easy

[thereitis]

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?

Re:Pretty easy

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

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?