4 ms·

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 informat

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?
techsupporter 13y ago
I disagree. Having this person criminally charged for violating a civil contract (the non-disclosure contract with his now-former employer) is a bad idea. The FBI, or even the City of Redmond Police Department, will require that there be at least the probability of a crime having been committed before they'll go in front of a judge.
- mirkules 13y ago
  However, "the complaint alleges that Kibkalo committed criminal trade secret theft", keyword being "criminal". I believe the crime in question is the following federal crime: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title18/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap90-sec1832/content-detail.html http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title18/USCODE-... Whether or not we agree with the law is a separate matter from whether or not a crime was committed -- which they had reasonable suspicion to believe it was. Therefore, they should have gone in front of a judge for a warrant.

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?

techsupporter 13y ago

I disagree. Having this person criminally charged for violating a civil contract (the non-disclosure contract with his now-former employer) is a bad idea. The FBI, or even the City of Redmond Police Department, will require that there be at least the probability of a crime having been committed before they'll go in front of a judge.

mirkules 13y ago
However, "the complaint alleges that Kibkalo committed criminal trade secret theft", keyword being "criminal". I believe the crime in question is the following federal crime: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title18/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap90-sec1832/content-detail.html http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title18/USCODE-... Whether or not we agree with the law is a separate matter from whether or not a crime was committed -- which they had reasonable suspicion to believe it was. Therefore, they should have gone in front of a judge for a warrant.