3 ms·
The headline is so non-descript that it makes it sound like the Microsoft executive is shrugging this off, but the testimony says otherwise: > Tom Burt, Micros
by judge2020 5y ago
The headline is so non-descript that it makes it sound like the Microsoft executive is shrugging this off, but the testimony says otherwise:
> Tom Burt, Microsoft’s corporate vice president for customer security and trust, told members of the House Judiciary Committee that federal law enforcement in recent years has been presenting the company with between 2,400 to 3,500 secrecy orders a year, or about seven to 10 a day.
> “Most shocking is just how routine secrecy orders have become when law enforcement targets an American’s email, text messages or other sensitive data stored in the cloud,” said Burt, describing the widespread clandestine surveillance as a major shift from historical norms.
- encryptluks2 5y agoIf these are from out of state what is to prevent them from just saying no? I'd imagine there is some interstate process that they have to follow in order to make it valid where Microsoft is headquartered.
- throwanem 5y ago> federal law enforcement
- encryptluks2 5y agoSo that means if I sue someone in federal court I can just pick a random state? No, of course not. What makes this any different? There is still federal jurisdiction requirement.
- judge2020 5y agohttps://www.fbi.gov/about/faqs/where-is-the-fbis-authority-written-down https://www.fbi.gov/about/faqs/where-is-the-fbis-authority-w...
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]