5 ms·

Agreed -- based on MS's statement they went through a fairly rigorous internal procedure (of course, they could be lying, but it seems fairly unlikely particula

by crygin 13y ago

Agreed -- based on MS's statement they went through a fairly rigorous internal procedure (of course, they could be lying, but it seems fairly unlikely particularly given the regulatory attention MS generally has on it). I don't fully understand what people think they "should" have done to access the emails -- waste a court's time on a meaningless judgement?

PythonicAlpha 13y ago
No, not waste! When you act rightfully, it is never wasting time of the legal system! Because I can do something (without asking anybody else) it needs not to be right!
- ewoodrich 13y ago
  >When you act rightfully, it is never wasting time of the legal system! In this case, it really would be a waste of time. Microsoft wouldn't be seeking a subpoena, nor are they a government seeking a warrant. Microsoft would just be asking the court for permission to do something the court cannot grant. There's no legal question, unless say, someone were to sue Microsoft for accessing their data.
  - PythonicAlpha 13y ago
    I am not familiar with the US law system, but in our country it would be normal, that for example my landlord has to go to court before he can search my house, even when he is the owner. And the warrant is not against the landlord, but against me. So I disagree with your statement, at least in my country it would be not wasting anything ... but DOING THE RIGHT THING! And I would really wonder, if in the US the landlord could just search your house, because he thinks that you might have stolen something of him -- with the argument, that he does not want to "waste anybodies time"!
    - URSpider94 13y ago
      I think the problem is that we have extensive precedent in the USA that warrants to search cloud data are properly presented to the cloud hosting provider, NOT the "owner" of the data -- in fact, the data owner is often prohibited from even knowing that the process is taking place. Others have pointed out that this is a clear way in which cloud storage is fundamentally different from local storage, which one might not expect -- being able to be secure in one's papers, a fundamental right in the US, only pertains if the papers are physically located on your person or property. I'm overextending here, but I think the physical analogy applies as well -- if the police want to search a rented storage locker, the search warrant is served to the storage company, not the lessee of the locker.
      - PythonicAlpha 13y ago
        If in the US information is only secure, if in your own possession (not any trustee or similar), than cloud storage and any online service of vital documents is just impossible in the US. If this is the case: I don't think, that many companies are aware of this. But that would render the worth of online services to void for many companies. Or are we living in a world of morons?
        jasonlotito 13y ago
        sigh If you have information you want to keep private or secure, it's your responsibility to ensure that it private or secure. This means understanding the agreements you make when you store said data in certain locations. > I don't think, that many companies are aware of this. No, many companies are in fact aware of this. This is the reason there providers that do provide increased security and oversight as far as data access goes. Apple, Google, and Microsoft just happen to provide free email services that aren't that secure if you violate their T&C. > than cloud storage and any online service of vital documents is just impossible in the US. Yeah, if you think using a cloud service outside the US immediately makes you immune to these problems, you are the one who isn't aware of the situation.
        PythonicAlpha 13y ago
chris_mahan 13y ago
They should have called the FBI, the FBI would have requested a warrant, the Judge would have approved the warrant, and the FBI would have accessed the information in the user's account. That would have been the correct way to do it.
- pktgen 13y ago
  I've upvoted you because this seems like what they should have done. I didn't think about the criminal aspect.
  - chris_mahan 13y ago
    Well, because if it wasn't a crime, then they definitely shouldn't have trawling around on his personal hotmail account.
- andrewfong 13y ago
  That doesn't provide a remedy when you only want to launch a civil investigation, not a criminal one. And given how frequently the criminal process is abused to go after relatively minor crimes (e.g. Aaron Swartz), this is probably something we shouldn't encourage.
  - chris_mahan 13y ago
    Oh, and it's better this way?
- kenjackson 13y ago
  I'd think wed want to minimize how often the FBI is combing through data. I'd rather MS pull up an email than the FBI get more free access to data.
  - gkoz 13y ago
    Isn't a search with a warrant the opposite of free access?
- 13y ago
mcintyre1994 13y ago
It's far too idealist to be realistic, but they shouldn't be able to use that information for their own civil inquiry. If gmail or pgp were used they wouldn't have access to it, it being a Microsoft account shouldn't make its contents available to them for a private investigation. Of course it does and probably always will because they have lots of lawyers and terms of service, but I just disagree with them being able to. I agree that if they have to do this investigation (and really they're the ones that will ultimately decide that) they shouldn't get anyone else involved - especially the criminal justice system. I think what I'm trying to get at is that the conversation is turning here toward just how should Microsoft access the data they want, when it should be whether they should be able to at all. I don't like the idea that it's a given that they can take that information, and that's what should change here.

by crygin 13y ago

PythonicAlpha 13y ago

No, not waste! When you act rightfully, it is never wasting time of the legal system! Because I can do something (without asking anybody else) it needs not to be right!

ewoodrich 13y ago
>When you act rightfully, it is never wasting time of the legal system! In this case, it really would be a waste of time. Microsoft wouldn't be seeking a subpoena, nor are they a government seeking a warrant. Microsoft would just be asking the court for permission to do something the court cannot grant. There's no legal question, unless say, someone were to sue Microsoft for accessing their data.
- PythonicAlpha 13y ago
  I am not familiar with the US law system, but in our country it would be normal, that for example my landlord has to go to court before he can search my house, even when he is the owner. And the warrant is not against the landlord, but against me. So I disagree with your statement, at least in my country it would be not wasting anything ... but DOING THE RIGHT THING! And I would really wonder, if in the US the landlord could just search your house, because he thinks that you might have stolen something of him -- with the argument, that he does not want to "waste anybodies time"!
  - URSpider94 13y ago
    I think the problem is that we have extensive precedent in the USA that warrants to search cloud data are properly presented to the cloud hosting provider, NOT the "owner" of the data -- in fact, the data owner is often prohibited from even knowing that the process is taking place. Others have pointed out that this is a clear way in which cloud storage is fundamentally different from local storage, which one might not expect -- being able to be secure in one's papers, a fundamental right in the US, only pertains if the papers are physically located on your person or property. I'm overextending here, but I think the physical analogy applies as well -- if the police want to search a rented storage locker, the search warrant is served to the storage company, not the lessee of the locker.
    - PythonicAlpha 13y ago
      If in the US information is only secure, if in your own possession (not any trustee or similar), than cloud storage and any online service of vital documents is just impossible in the US. If this is the case: I don't think, that many companies are aware of this. But that would render the worth of online services to void for many companies. Or are we living in a world of morons?
      - jasonlotito 13y ago
        sigh If you have information you want to keep private or secure, it's your responsibility to ensure that it private or secure. This means understanding the agreements you make when you store said data in certain locations. > I don't think, that many companies are aware of this. No, many companies are in fact aware of this. This is the reason there providers that do provide increased security and oversight as far as data access goes. Apple, Google, and Microsoft just happen to provide free email services that aren't that secure if you violate their T&C. > than cloud storage and any online service of vital documents is just impossible in the US. Yeah, if you think using a cloud service outside the US immediately makes you immune to these problems, you are the one who isn't aware of the situation.
        PythonicAlpha 13y ago

chris_mahan 13y ago

They should have called the FBI, the FBI would have requested a warrant, the Judge would have approved the warrant, and the FBI would have accessed the information in the user's account. That would have been the correct way to do it.

pktgen 13y ago
I've upvoted you because this seems like what they should have done. I didn't think about the criminal aspect.
- chris_mahan 13y ago
  Well, because if it wasn't a crime, then they definitely shouldn't have trawling around on his personal hotmail account.
andrewfong 13y ago
That doesn't provide a remedy when you only want to launch a civil investigation, not a criminal one. And given how frequently the criminal process is abused to go after relatively minor crimes (e.g. Aaron Swartz), this is probably something we shouldn't encourage.
- chris_mahan 13y ago
  Oh, and it's better this way?
kenjackson 13y ago
I'd think wed want to minimize how often the FBI is combing through data. I'd rather MS pull up an email than the FBI get more free access to data.
- gkoz 13y ago
  Isn't a search with a warrant the opposite of free access?
13y ago

mcintyre1994 13y ago

It's far too idealist to be realistic, but they shouldn't be able to use that information for their own civil inquiry. If gmail or pgp were used they wouldn't have access to it, it being a Microsoft account shouldn't make its contents available to them for a private investigation. Of course it does and probably always will because they have lots of lawyers and terms of service, but I just disagree with them being able to. I agree that if they have to do this investigation (and really they're the ones that will ultimately decide that) they shouldn't get anyone else involved - especially the criminal justice system. I think what I'm trying to get at is that the conversation is turning here toward just how should Microsoft access the data they want, when it should be whether they should be able to at all. I don't like the idea that it's a given that they can take that information, and that's what should change here.