4 ms·

A New Lawsuit from Microsoft: No More Gag Orders: A Legal Analysis

62 points by hackuser 10y ago

mirimir 10y ago
Modest proposal: Firms ought to refuse to do business in jurisdictions that do this authoritarian shit. Seriously. As it is, nobody in their right mind will do business with US firms where privacy matters. Maybe Apple, Google, Microsoft etc should just leave. Build a fucking island. Get a decent military. Isn't it about time?
- jmspring 10y ago
  Reactionary and lacking any semblance of possible reality.
  - mirimir 10y ago
    aka visionary ;) OK, so I read too much anarcho hard SF. So it goes. If the US could do it in the late 1700s, it can be done again. Edit: OK, you're right. No doubt, it's hopeless. But I can do my "right to be left alone" thing, and that's enough.
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      Not visionary or reactionary: just pragmatic in a bit of an extreme way. It's already happening to varying degrees and working. So, it must be a sensible option. :)
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    There's companies doing it right now. On islands, too. More are going to places like Switzerland where lawful intercept might still be an issue but the implementation is way better than here. Also, it helps to operate in countries where the government doesn't see their own citizens and businesses as perpetual targets or subversives. Way less risk.
    - jmspring 10y ago
      Do you have an example of a multinational firm, let's say, 1/10th the size of microsoft doing such and where they don't rely on a large amount of business from the US? I'm not being flip, but, in technology, outside of China, when it comes to things internet, most of the companies are either US based or have a US subsidiary.
      - mirimir 10y ago
        Well, over half of Apple's income already stays outside the US. Much of that has gone through Ireland, which is an island. And most of its hoard is out there somewhere.
      - nickpsecurity 10y ago
        That's kind of narrow, don't you think? Anyway, there's quite a few large European and Asian firms that do business in the U.S. that meet such criteria. The NSA's TAREX teams in conjunction with CIA and ISA try to black bag them per pre- and post-Snowden info. They wouldn't be doing that if they had access to everything, eh? ;)
      - jmspring 10y ago
        Both examples above still "do business in the US". Are there large scale examples following the original proposal of "Firms ought to refuse to do business in jurisdictions that do this authoritarian shit. Seriously. As it is, nobody in their right mind will do business with US firms where privacy matters." Sure there are assorted pre/post snowden terms, etc. But, businesses, especially multinationals, are still going to do business in the US. That was my point. I find it helpful that given the shitacular privacy laws in the US, at least Apple and Microsoft are being proactive about taking steps. That said, due to family relations, I hear a lot about european data privacy, but, well, countries like German and Britain have a pretty cozy relationship with US equivalents.
        nickpsecurity 10y ago
        "Sure there are assorted pre/post snowden terms, etc. But, businesses, especially multinationals, are still going to do business in the US. That was my point" Oh OK. That's a lesser point that doesn't concern me as much. Our concern is if the U.S. controls the security of their products. Merely selling them in the U.S. doesn't allow for that. If anything, they'd compromise a specific user or product for U.S. targets. This is why the NSA has to hack them whereas they can just get the FBI to compel the local firms to "SIGINT enable" the products as the ECI leaks said. Far as totally outside U.S., there's Asian firms that do that. One guy that taught me a lot about HW security said his company straight-up refuses to do business in the U.S. due to patent suits and other issues. He told me there's plenty of market in Asia and Europe for firms that sell hardware or license I.P.. So, I know at least one does it.
  - devishard 10y ago
    It's entirely possible to do. Smaller companies are doing it. Large companies like Microsoft aren't doing it because it would cost them too much money. But the propensity of large companies to prioritize money over ethics is a strong reason not to use the products of large companies. There is a growing market for hosting and cloud solutions that guarantee your data will stay in a specific country. For many companies these are a good option.
- cronjobber 10y ago
  > Build a fucking island. Get a decent military. Isn't it about time? Cute, and the next time you read something like "China declares war on Google", you know this time it's not just journalistic hyperbole. Given their global political influence, it would be entirely rational for most countries to just bomb the Facegoogplex out of existence. Much cheaper for the latter to remain under the US nuclear umbrella.
  - mirimir 10y ago
    Hey, all you need is maybe 10-20 fusion devices, with credible delivery mechanisms. Then nobody will fuck with you.
    - krapp 10y ago
      If you're Google, and you just declared yourself a sovereign state and are shopping on the black market for enough nukes and a contract military force big enough to pose a credible threat to the US (because all of your American employees kind of prefer to stay American,) then everybody will fuck with you.
      - mirimir 10y ago
        They'd need to buy the weapons first.
        krapp 10y ago
        I find it hard to believe they could even begin to amass that kind of firepower without someone noticing, though.
        Natanael_L 10y ago
        > amass Aren't Google experts at distributed systems?
        deleted 10y ago
bitwize 10y ago
Here's your legal analysis: Government: Your Honor, we move to dismiss on the grounds that complying with Microsoft's demands would require disclosure of information critical to national security. Judge: Motion to dismiss granted. The deep state plays by its own rules.
- 2bitencryption 10y ago
  But luckily, due to separation of powers, that probably won't happen. The model (sometimes) works!

62 points by hackuser 10y ago

Modest proposal: Firms ought to refuse to do business in jurisdictions that do this authoritarian shit. Seriously. As it is, nobody in their right mind will do business with US firms where privacy matters. Maybe Apple, Google, Microsoft etc should just leave. Build a fucking island. Get a decent military. Isn't it about time?

jmspring 10y ago
Reactionary and lacking any semblance of possible reality.
- mirimir 10y ago
  aka visionary ;) OK, so I read too much anarcho hard SF. So it goes. If the US could do it in the late 1700s, it can be done again. Edit: OK, you're right. No doubt, it's hopeless. But I can do my "right to be left alone" thing, and that's enough.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    Not visionary or reactionary: just pragmatic in a bit of an extreme way. It's already happening to varying degrees and working. So, it must be a sensible option. :)
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  There's companies doing it right now. On islands, too. More are going to places like Switzerland where lawful intercept might still be an issue but the implementation is way better than here. Also, it helps to operate in countries where the government doesn't see their own citizens and businesses as perpetual targets or subversives. Way less risk.
  - jmspring 10y ago
    Do you have an example of a multinational firm, let's say, 1/10th the size of microsoft doing such and where they don't rely on a large amount of business from the US? I'm not being flip, but, in technology, outside of China, when it comes to things internet, most of the companies are either US based or have a US subsidiary.
    - mirimir 10y ago
      Well, over half of Apple's income already stays outside the US. Much of that has gone through Ireland, which is an island. And most of its hoard is out there somewhere.
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      That's kind of narrow, don't you think? Anyway, there's quite a few large European and Asian firms that do business in the U.S. that meet such criteria. The NSA's TAREX teams in conjunction with CIA and ISA try to black bag them per pre- and post-Snowden info. They wouldn't be doing that if they had access to everything, eh? ;)
    - jmspring 10y ago
      Both examples above still "do business in the US". Are there large scale examples following the original proposal of "Firms ought to refuse to do business in jurisdictions that do this authoritarian shit. Seriously. As it is, nobody in their right mind will do business with US firms where privacy matters." Sure there are assorted pre/post snowden terms, etc. But, businesses, especially multinationals, are still going to do business in the US. That was my point. I find it helpful that given the shitacular privacy laws in the US, at least Apple and Microsoft are being proactive about taking steps. That said, due to family relations, I hear a lot about european data privacy, but, well, countries like German and Britain have a pretty cozy relationship with US equivalents.
      - nickpsecurity 10y ago
        "Sure there are assorted pre/post snowden terms, etc. But, businesses, especially multinationals, are still going to do business in the US. That was my point" Oh OK. That's a lesser point that doesn't concern me as much. Our concern is if the U.S. controls the security of their products. Merely selling them in the U.S. doesn't allow for that. If anything, they'd compromise a specific user or product for U.S. targets. This is why the NSA has to hack them whereas they can just get the FBI to compel the local firms to "SIGINT enable" the products as the ECI leaks said. Far as totally outside U.S., there's Asian firms that do that. One guy that taught me a lot about HW security said his company straight-up refuses to do business in the U.S. due to patent suits and other issues. He told me there's plenty of market in Asia and Europe for firms that sell hardware or license I.P.. So, I know at least one does it.
- devishard 10y ago
  It's entirely possible to do. Smaller companies are doing it. Large companies like Microsoft aren't doing it because it would cost them too much money. But the propensity of large companies to prioritize money over ethics is a strong reason not to use the products of large companies. There is a growing market for hosting and cloud solutions that guarantee your data will stay in a specific country. For many companies these are a good option.
cronjobber 10y ago
> Build a fucking island. Get a decent military. Isn't it about time? Cute, and the next time you read something like "China declares war on Google", you know this time it's not just journalistic hyperbole. Given their global political influence, it would be entirely rational for most countries to just bomb the Facegoogplex out of existence. Much cheaper for the latter to remain under the US nuclear umbrella.
- mirimir 10y ago
  Hey, all you need is maybe 10-20 fusion devices, with credible delivery mechanisms. Then nobody will fuck with you.
  - krapp 10y ago
    If you're Google, and you just declared yourself a sovereign state and are shopping on the black market for enough nukes and a contract military force big enough to pose a credible threat to the US (because all of your American employees kind of prefer to stay American,) then everybody will fuck with you.
    - mirimir 10y ago
      They'd need to buy the weapons first.
      - krapp 10y ago
        I find it hard to believe they could even begin to amass that kind of firepower without someone noticing, though.
        Natanael_L 10y ago
        > amass Aren't Google experts at distributed systems?
        deleted 10y ago

bitwize 10y ago

Here's your legal analysis: Government: Your Honor, we move to dismiss on the grounds that complying with Microsoft's demands would require disclosure of information critical to national security. Judge: Motion to dismiss granted. The deep state plays by its own rules.

2bitencryption 10y ago
But luckily, due to separation of powers, that probably won't happen. The model (sometimes) works!