9 ms·
Microsoft Sues Justice Department Over Secret Customer Data Searches
- dcgudeman 10y ago'Microsoft’s filing zeroes in on a provision of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, written in 1986. The company argues that indefinite gag orders violate the First Amendment right to inform customers about the search of their files “as soon as secrecy is no longer required.” Additionally, the suit claims that the law “flouts” Fourth Amendment requirements that the government give notice to people when their property is being searched or seized.' This is pleasing news, but to be honest I am a little concerned about the fact the Amazon didn't attempt one of these lawsuit earlier. I am not sure how cooperative AWS is with the government but I would assume they are the largest target for these types of requests. In general I like Amazon as a company but this makes me question their respect for user privacy.
- fweespee_ch 10y ago1) Well, I think Amazon doesn't really care and this shows its lack of care. 2) I'm only pleased if it works. I suspect in this environment it is going to flop and is largely for PR.
- mtberatwork 10y agoAmazon did build the government its own AWS cloud. Perhaps they don't want to bite the hand of such a large customer?
- jessaustin 10y agoEventually, if it isn't already, this will be one of those "you own the bank" situations. Too much government stuff relies on AWS to imagine AWS just getting cut out. If Obama decided today to fire AWS, how long would that take?
- tshtf 10y agoAmazon promised bi-annual transparency reports here: https://blogs.aws.amazon.com/security/blog/tag/Transparency+report https://blogs.aws.amazon.com/security/blog/tag/Transparency+... However only one report (covering a 6-month period) has was issued and posted in the initial blog post on June 2015. None have followed: http://d0.awsstatic.com/certifications/Information_Request_Report.pdf http://d0.awsstatic.com/certifications/Information_Request_R...
- wfunction 10y agoMaybe they meant biennial rather than biannual?
- function_seven 10y agoI always thought those two terms were equivalent, and that "semiannual" was the every-six-months one. Turns out I as wrong.[1] [1] http://writersrelief.com/blog/2011/05/biannual-biennial-or-semiannual/ http://writersrelief.com/blog/2011/05/biannual-biennial-or-s...
- comex 10y agoMany (most?) sources define "biannual" only as "twice a year". Yet Merriam-Webster says: "Some people prefer to use semiannual to refer to something that occurs twice a year, reserving biannual for things that occur once every two years."
- function_seven 10y agoIt's a good lesson for contract writers and anyone else that wants to be clear. Never use any of those terms. Instead, write, "Inspections will be done every 24 months", or, "The toner needs to be ordered every six months". If something is supposed to occur every other Friday? Write it just like that, or "every 14 days". Don't say, "Paychecks are distributed bi-weekly"
- 10y ago
- ProAm 10y agoMy impression of Amazon is they care much more about selling product than the product itself, across all their lines of business. I see the complying without a fight because it would slow down the selling process and would prevent any hint of these searches from actually going on to the public if they did.
- subdane 10y agoWell MSFT just out marketed them on this one :)
- vox_mollis 10y agoconcerned about the fact the Amazon didn't attempt one of these lawsuit earlier. I have no idea why you're bringing up Amazon since the article is about Microsoft. That said, assuming you're asking the question about MSFT: Microsoft has always been a lapdog of the Feds, as evidenced by handing over hotmail data simply from a pleasant LEA request, to centralizing and backdooring skype, to removal of the elephant diffuser, to jumping at the chance to join PRISM, to any number of chunks of evidence. But now that data security is a marketable good (per Apple's example), MSFT feels the fiduciary duty to pretend to fight the Feds for profit. Whenever a fundamentally evil actor gives a show of doing good, always follow the money.
- capote 10y ago> I have no idea why you're bringing up Amazon since the article is about Microsoft. I have no idea why you're bringing up that you have no idea why he's bringing up Amazon since the article is about Microsoft since the article is about Microsoft and the comment is about Amazon.
- gardano 10y agoWhile I disagree with the tone of your comment, I would have to agree that Apple has made it a good and responsible action to oppose such open-ended Federal requests.
- s_q_b 10y agoIt was always morally good for the consumer. Apple's stance may have tweaked the business incentives back in line with the moral good. Apple has always been big on the idea that best way to alter behavior is to alter incentives.
- abiox 10y agowhile i'm decidedly unenthused by the amount of pro-MS dialog on HN, the premise of a business being "fundamentally evil" is rather dogmatic and not very conducive to discussion.
- 10y ago
- mtgx 10y agoIndefinite gag orders are definitely unconstitutional, and it has been proven before in Court. There should be an automatic limit as well for when the gag orders expire, like say 1-3 months, or whatever is considered "reasonable" for an investigation. After that, the government should have to get extensions every 3 months from a judge. After 2 or 3 years, the extension should be obtained only from a federal judge. And it goes without saying that the gag orders should only be given in very specific scenarios, not for all data requests, or anytime the government wants to give one.
- rietta 10y agoIt would be a pipe dream, but at the conclusion of the gag period there should additionally be a disclosure requirement - like a data breach notification. That would help balance out the desire to keep these things under wraps.
- jsprogrammer 10y agoAny gag order would be unconstitutional. One may explain their expected consequences of saying a particular thing, but another always has a right to speak whatever they want.
- daveguy 10y agoDoes this imply that the Justice department can search your computer if Windows 10 is installed? Or does this just apply to data MS has on you at MS? (OneDrive, use telemetry, etc)?
- KirinDave 10y agoSo... there's no evidence the "Justice Department can search your computer if Win10 is installed" assuming your device is actually secure. Bad passwords, no supported integrated TPM or other issues (common to custom built machines) will comprimise your local device security and thusly make them the easiest method of attack. If served a lawful subpoena, ANY cloud service provider may be required to hand over your data if they have that power. If you've got something truly critical (e.g., evidence you're transsexual in NC and use the "illegal"/correct bathroom) you should encrypt it even on top of what your CSP does. Windows, OSX and Linux all offer methods for doing this effectively. I've used OneDrive with encrypted VHDs. It works fine, so long as you don't access the VHD from multiple places at once. I do this more because my OneDrive syncs to a surfacebook than because I am concerned about subpoenas. As for the telemetry collected, it's probably not of any use to them. It's the same sort of stuff every app on your phone sends up to mixpanel. I wouldn't worry about that, as it's not a substantially greater privacy violation than the natural telemetry collected by the cell network and local ISPs. The only way it might be used against you is in proving a certain access pattern to the device at a certain time.
- daveguy 10y agoOh I expect telemetry would be of great use to them. What you have installed, what your using and when. Log information would be extremely useful toward matching a person up with a crime. I doubt it is just OneDrive data they are providing.
- KirinDave 10y ago> Log information would be extremely useful toward matching a person up with a crime. As opposed to the information that the ISPs are already offering? Sorry, but your underlying networks are already in collusion with the feds. Were they not, the telemetry might provide signals that wouldn't be more easily obtained elsewhere. But it's also worth noting that the telemetry for 'apps installed' is just your license list from the store. We don't have a ton of evidence that MS is combing your computer for random executables and reporting that back on a signal, or passing up full untrimmed process lists.
- nkw 10y agoAs much as it is generally reviled (especially by those who hang around the Internet) I bet the Citizens United decision will help Microsoft a bit in this suit as it reaffirmed First Amendment speech protections do apply to corporate speakers especially in the context of political speech. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
- bpodgursky 10y agoMost of those who are against Citizens United do not understand how chilling to free speech the alternative would be. Hint: there's a reason the ACLU believes Citizens United was the right decision.
- cmdrfred 10y agoSo in a word where money != speech, speech is impacted negatively?
- leggomylibro 10y agoPut it this way, I wouldn't want my donations to <rebellious political candidate du jour> to land me in jail because it wasn't protected speech. Although donations to the wrong political group can certainly get you in big trouble today (if you're willing to stretch the definition of 'political group'), so...hm.
- bpodgursky 10y agoIn that world, any publication making or costing money can be considered political speech and censored. The Sierra club newsletter could be considered politically motivated and prevented from publishing articles unless the donors stay within donation caps Once you give the government a tool to restrict speech / spending, it will be used to cut both ways.
- _delirium 10y agoThere are a variety of anti-Citizens-United positions, but the strongest (and most problematic) one is that corporations are not people, and the Bill of Rights secures rights only to people, therefore the First Amendment is inapplicable to corporations. That would, at the very least, require a revision in important precedents like New York Times Co. v. Sullivan [1], which assume that the First Amendment is applicable to corporations' publishing activities. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan
- 3dk 10y agoArchive Link: http://archive.is/L6fJf http://archive.is/L6fJf If you want to skip logging in.
- ikeboy 10y agohttps://archive.is/L6fJf https://archive.is/L6fJf
- c3534l 10y agoIt's nice to see when two big corporations compete over each other over who fights harder for the civil liberties of it's users. You one-up those Apple bastards, MS!
- ChuckMcM 10y agoIt is interesting that law enforcement doesn't draw the connection between the abuse of a capability with the people making it harder to abuse. I don't think there would be any outrage or pushback if such requests were in the 10's a month rather in the 1000's a month.
- icloudsearch 10y agoThrowaway because I am currently under investigation. Apple inadvertently notified me that <Agency> had subpoena'd my iCloud backups. I suspect that they violated the gag order in error. As a result they expedited their physical warrant and raided me 2 days later. As someone targeted by a federal investigation, it is clear that the government will vacuum up as much information as possible without my knowledge. Hopefully Microsoft succeeds in this lawsuit.
- coroutines 10y agoStay strong, Snookie. (in seriousness - good luck)
- sandstrom 10y agoDo you know why you are being investigated?
- jessaustin 10y agoAre you a Fed? Why would you ask a question that could only hurt GP?
- sqldba 10y agoI'm not a Fed but I'm also interested. It could be anything - from something insidiously evil or it could be something like they're a journalist.
- dmoy 10y agoAP link in case you don't subscribe: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MICROSOFT_SECRET_SEARCHES_WAOL-?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-04-14-18-06-40 http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MICROSOFT_SECRET_S...
- caf 10y agoYou can also just click through the |web| link at the top of this page.
- Aoyagi 10y agoHow nice of Microsoft, that they want to use the data all for themselves... and how nice for them that almost nobody even thinks that "not harvesting every bit of data you get your hands on just because you can" is also a possible scenario.
- sqldba 10y agoWhat I want to know is - why now and not years ago?
- some1else 10y agoI thought I'd repost the lawful spying guides by the biggest cloud service providers [1] (including Microsoft). There's a great one from the Hotmail era I couldn't find on a whim though. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11504068 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11504068