5 ms·

'Microsoft’s filing zeroes in on a provision of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, written in 1986. The company argues that indefinite gag orders violat

'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 11y ago
1) 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 11y ago
  Amazon did build the government its own AWS cloud. Perhaps they don't want to bite the hand of such a large customer?
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    Eventually, 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 11y ago
Amazon 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 11y ago
  Maybe they meant biennial rather than biannual?
  - function_seven 11y ago
    I 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 11y ago
      Many (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 11y ago
        It'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"
        wfunction 11y ago
        Is it common to give out paychecks twice a week though? I feel like common sense could rule out one of those cases...
        richmarr 11y ago
        Say you've got a 10 new joiners per week at your high-turnover packing factory, and a sign outside the admin office that says "Paychecks are distributed bi-weekly". Maybe typically 5 of them have had a job before in the area, 3 have had a job elsewhere and 2 have never had a job. Not all of them have the same level of education. How many will misunderstand your sign? Might any of those misunderstandings about money cause problems for people? Considering the comparitive cost of writing the sign as "every two weeks", and the reduction in potential confusion, it seems like a no-brainer to write it that way.
ProAm 11y ago
My 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 11y ago
  Well MSFT just out marketed them on this one :)
vox_mollis 11y ago
concerned 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 11y 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 11y ago
  While 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 11y ago
    It 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 11y ago
  while 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.
  - 11y ago

fweespee_ch 11y ago

1) 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 11y ago
Amazon did build the government its own AWS cloud. Perhaps they don't want to bite the hand of such a large customer?
- jessaustin 11y ago
  Eventually, 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 11y ago

Amazon 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 11y ago
Maybe they meant biennial rather than biannual?
- function_seven 11y ago
  I 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 11y ago
    Many (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 11y ago
      It'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"
      - wfunction 11y ago
        Is it common to give out paychecks twice a week though? I feel like common sense could rule out one of those cases...
        richmarr 11y ago
        Say you've got a 10 new joiners per week at your high-turnover packing factory, and a sign outside the admin office that says "Paychecks are distributed bi-weekly". Maybe typically 5 of them have had a job before in the area, 3 have had a job elsewhere and 2 have never had a job. Not all of them have the same level of education. How many will misunderstand your sign? Might any of those misunderstandings about money cause problems for people? Considering the comparitive cost of writing the sign as "every two weeks", and the reduction in potential confusion, it seems like a no-brainer to write it that way.

ProAm 11y ago

My 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 11y ago
Well MSFT just out marketed them on this one :)

vox_mollis 11y ago

concerned 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 11y 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 11y ago
While 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 11y ago
  It 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 11y ago
while 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.
- 11y ago