4 ms·

> Their statement says > In this case, there was a thorough review by a legal team separate from the investigating team and strong evidence of a criminal act t

> Their statement says > In this case, there was a thorough review by a legal team separate from the investigating team and strong evidence of a criminal act that met a standard comparable to that required to obtain a legal order to search other sites. >I don't think that supports your claim that they would only ask a lawyer in the future. From the link I included in my comment, Microsoft deputy general counsel John Frank is quoted: "As a new and additional step, we will then submit this evidence to an outside attorney who is a former federal judge. We will conduct such a search only if this former judge similarly concludes that there is evidence sufficient for a court order." This lawyer (his past employment as a judge has no bearing here) would have been paid by Microsoft. Could you explain how that does not fit with my earlier comment? And to preempt the inevitable, yes, as I said in the original comment they eventually backtracked on this and said they'd report such future crimes to the police. You know, what they should have done in the beginning, and would have done if they had the respect for privacy-on-principle that they are now trying to shower themselves in.

ikeboy 11y ago
"they were going to pay a lawyer to rubber-stamp things in the future" carries the implication that they hadn't asked a lawyer this time. Asking a "legal team" is asking a lawyer. They decided to ask even more lawyers, at least one who is outside and a former judge, they didn't decide to ask one lawyer as opposed to zero before. I'm also not so sure you can draw broad conclusions about the company from this particular policy; "we will only search an email for someone else after a court order, and we may search ourselves if we believe there's enough evidence for a court order (we being lawyers)." I don't see much difference between the old and new policies; the main thing is that someone outside is asked.
- throwaway7767 11y ago
  Congratulations, you win the nit-picking contest. My point was that the advice of a lawyer changes nothing. Violating users privacy should be reserved for law enforcement with court orders.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    How should Microsoft go about asking a court to search their own servers? Also, you implied you were fine with the new policy and that it was a significant change; claiming your point was the opposite at this point means you were very unclear. How should I have figured out what you meant from your words above?
    - throwaway7767 11y ago
      > How should Microsoft go about asking a court to search their own servers? The people pressing charges do not apply for court orders. The police does so in cases where they believe it is needed for an active investigation. Microsoft should then have a policy of not disclosing information to law enforcement unless provided with a court order. The fact that microsoft ended up stating that they would do exactly this in the future should indicate that this is not the problem you are making it out to be. > Also, you implied you were fine with the new policy and that it was a significant change; claiming your point was the opposite at this point means you were very unclear. How should I have figured out what you meant from your words above? By reading the post with a mind to reading the likely meaning, rather than focusing on finding unlikely meanings. As if you were a human communicating with another human, rather than a tokenizer reading source code. If you did that, you would see that my point has been consistent the entire time. If you read the totality of the post, the point is quite clear, and I've restated it a few times now. I assume this is clear now? Because if not, I'm starting to suspect a troll and am not interested in furthering this conversation.
      - ikeboy 11y ago
        >Microsoft should then have a policy of not disclosing information to law enforcement unless provided with a court order. According to the statement, that was their policy. >The fact that microsoft ended up stating that they would do exactly this in the future should indicate that this is not the problem you are making it out to be. The steps they said they were adding in the statement don't include going to the police. I'm not sure what you mean by this statement that could be correct. I went over your comments again, and they contradict each other, let alone the facts. as I said in the original comment they eventually backtracked on this and said they'd report such future crimes to the police. Whereas your original comment doesn't mention the police at all. I get that you feel you've been consistent, but you haven't communicated your actual thoughts very well. The other possibility here is that you don't have a firm grasp on what exactly you think Microsoft did wrong and should be doing instead. It certainly doesn't come across in your writing.

ikeboy 11y ago

"they were going to pay a lawyer to rubber-stamp things in the future" carries the implication that they hadn't asked a lawyer this time. Asking a "legal team" is asking a lawyer. They decided to ask even more lawyers, at least one who is outside and a former judge, they didn't decide to ask one lawyer as opposed to zero before. I'm also not so sure you can draw broad conclusions about the company from this particular policy; "we will only search an email for someone else after a court order, and we may search ourselves if we believe there's enough evidence for a court order (we being lawyers)." I don't see much difference between the old and new policies; the main thing is that someone outside is asked.

throwaway7767 11y ago
Congratulations, you win the nit-picking contest. My point was that the advice of a lawyer changes nothing. Violating users privacy should be reserved for law enforcement with court orders.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  How should Microsoft go about asking a court to search their own servers? Also, you implied you were fine with the new policy and that it was a significant change; claiming your point was the opposite at this point means you were very unclear. How should I have figured out what you meant from your words above?
  - throwaway7767 11y ago
    > How should Microsoft go about asking a court to search their own servers? The people pressing charges do not apply for court orders. The police does so in cases where they believe it is needed for an active investigation. Microsoft should then have a policy of not disclosing information to law enforcement unless provided with a court order. The fact that microsoft ended up stating that they would do exactly this in the future should indicate that this is not the problem you are making it out to be. > Also, you implied you were fine with the new policy and that it was a significant change; claiming your point was the opposite at this point means you were very unclear. How should I have figured out what you meant from your words above? By reading the post with a mind to reading the likely meaning, rather than focusing on finding unlikely meanings. As if you were a human communicating with another human, rather than a tokenizer reading source code. If you did that, you would see that my point has been consistent the entire time. If you read the totality of the post, the point is quite clear, and I've restated it a few times now. I assume this is clear now? Because if not, I'm starting to suspect a troll and am not interested in furthering this conversation.
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      >Microsoft should then have a policy of not disclosing information to law enforcement unless provided with a court order. According to the statement, that was their policy. >The fact that microsoft ended up stating that they would do exactly this in the future should indicate that this is not the problem you are making it out to be. The steps they said they were adding in the statement don't include going to the police. I'm not sure what you mean by this statement that could be correct. I went over your comments again, and they contradict each other, let alone the facts. as I said in the original comment they eventually backtracked on this and said they'd report such future crimes to the police. Whereas your original comment doesn't mention the police at all. I get that you feel you've been consistent, but you haven't communicated your actual thoughts very well. The other possibility here is that you don't have a firm grasp on what exactly you think Microsoft did wrong and should be doing instead. It certainly doesn't come across in your writing.