20 ms·

The casualness with which the U.S. Government asks a private company to violate EU and Irish law is truly disturbing. The U.S. Gov has gone mad with power. An

by jnbiche 12y ago

The casualness with which the U.S. Government asks a private company to violate EU and Irish law is truly disturbing. The U.S. Gov has gone mad with power. And for perhaps the first time ever: bravo Microsoft! I don't even care if you did if for the PR, it's still a brave stand.

curiousDog 12y ago
Indeed. And I'm surprised the European governments are just taking it.
- mercurial 12y ago
  There is the Data Protection Law, which makes, as far as I understand, transferring data to the US as ordered by the judge illegal. That said, why would you be surprised that the same governments happily collaborating with the NSA wouldn't do anything about privacy? We're pretty lucky as it is to have a privacy protection law at all.
- toyg 12y ago
  That's incorrect. European governments are "just taking it" when it comes to some areas; in particular anything to do with security is left to the US to do as they please, because they bear the brunt of our defensive needs (something that is not going change anytime soon); and multinational companies are powerful because of their money, regardless of where they come from. In this case, EU data-privacy laws emerged as a way to harmonize EU trade and law enforcement practices. They were then made compatible with US laws through various international agreements and treaties. Things were working, more or less. Then the US Congress passed the PATRIOT Act in haste, and broke everything. It took years to sketch out a way to make these incompatible laws work together, sort of. Grey areas were swept under the carpet, in hope that particular circumstances they covered "would never happen". Now they are happening, due to a combination of factors (the emergence of cloud computing, NSA revelations, differences in foreign policy stances, etc). Until Microsoft keeps this stance and the US legal landscape allows them to, EU governments simply don't have to do anything - the Data Protection Directive holds, US law enforcement yields. If MS is actually forced to hand over the data, then a response will be required from our side of the pond.
  - randallsquared 12y ago
    > because they bear the brunt of our defensive needs (something that is not going change anytime soon) That may change more swiftly than you imagine. It seems like the US is already far more reluctant than ten years ago to go rushing in.
    - toyg 12y ago
      I don't think the US ever "rushed in" to attack Russian forces; even in the heated 1960s, people thought long and hard before pushing those nuclear buttons. There are many ways to provide military aid, not all of them involving your own troops; and with the rise of a strongly anti-Russian EU Commission, I bet all these options will be considered sooner rather than later. At the end of the day, it took years for NATO to intervene in Yugoslavia, a situation far less problematic than Ukraine (from the point of view of Russian engagement); but then they did intervene, twice. In the grand scheme of things, EU defense relies immensely on US forces and there are no signs that this is going to change anytime soon. The UK is struggling to just maintain capability, let alone expand it to replace allied resources. The French are now 100% integrated in NATO and have enough on their plate by caring for their African ex-colonies anyway. Italy and Spain can't pay state pensions, let alone expanding their military. The only country with some spare capacity would be Germany, which cannot do it for historical and political reasons. In fact, what the Ukraine crisis is showing is how Europe still cannot say no to the US in security matters: it was the US administration that pushed for escalating Maidan (remember "fuck the EU"?), it was the US administration that pushed for sanctions (with Europeans going along grudgingly) and it's the closest US allies (UK, Poland) who are now leading the charge for further escalation... and finding no formal opposition, despite plenty of grumbling across the continent. Because in practice, nobody can afford to lose their US umbrella.
      - xaa 12y ago
        As a U.S. citizen, I have been extremely confused about why there has been no global response to Ukraine, especially from Europe. You seem to be implying that the EU does not care about Ukraine at all and is only responding to the crisis there to the extent the US is pushing for it (i.e., not very much). Why not? Surely Europe doesn't want to set a precedent that Russia can foment and fund an "opposition", claim the existence of such an opposition means that the territory it is in should be annexed, and then annex it. I would have expected that Germany of all countries would recognize these tactics for exactly what they are: almost a direct replay of Hitler's pre-WWII tactics. It should be all the more galling because the proximal cause was that Ukraine was too "pro-EU". Yet the EU doesn't lift a finger. AFAICT, Obama doesn't do much because he is more concerned about ISIS, and sees Ukraine as a European problem.
- mason240 12y ago
  They are active participants.
revelation 12y ago
They did it neither for PR nor "principles", but for mere money. The US data hegemony is bad for business overseas.
- idlewords 12y ago
  You have no possible way to know that.
  - danielrhodes 12y ago
    Let's look at these at these two facts: 1) Many companies have pulled their data from US-based data centers for fear of government intrusion after the Snowden revelations. 2) The future of Microsoft's server business is in the cloud and they have (likely) told customers their data is safe if stored in the EU Thus it stands to reason that in order to keep customers and make money, they are motivated to win this case.
    - _delirium 12y ago
      On #2, they do tell their customers that, in fact it's even a significant component of their cloud marketing. One of their attempted selling points vis-a-vis Google Apps for Business is that going with Microsoft for things like hosted email is safer from an EU-compliance point of view.
- mariuolo 12y ago
  Indeed, they're bound to lose many contracts if they're forced to comply. Also it would be interesting to see if someone would be criminally liable in Ireland.
  - bjornsing 12y ago
    > Also it would be interesting to see if someone would be criminally liable in Ireland. That's the most principally interesting thing here IMHO... Can the government of one country compel a citizen to commit a crime in another country? At least in Sweden it could easily be considered a form of espionage to hand over emails to a foreign government. A few years ago I would have ended that question with !?!?!?, now I'm not so sure... :(
ignostic 12y ago
> The U.S. Gov has gone mad with power. Agreed. Hopefully this encourages more people to stand up to unreasonable violations of privacy from our government. > And for perhaps the first time ever: bravo Microsoft! I don't even care if you did if for the PR, it's still a brave stand. The question of whether a company is following principles or motivated by profit/PR is so strange to me. The question is nonsense and the answer irrelevant. Microsoft is not a person with principles. It's 90,000ish people with different principles. I'm sure some people really believe in the right to privacy, some want to avoid angering customers, some don't care, etc. The reasons and motivations behind a company's actions are as diverse as the actors involved. We could argue about motivations all day, like the responses to your comment are doing, but it's pointless and irrelevant. Unless you want to hone in and talk about individual people there's no answer to the question, and we're just trading vague meaningless opinions. It's like arguing whether a mountain is rocky or sandy. Chances are that I can find both, so we should either get more specific or talk about averaging via a survey. It happened, and the results are the same.
- Igglyboo 12y ago
  Seriously, I can't even count the amount of times I read about a company doing something good/bad/neutral in a day and reading comments about said action that boil down to "they only did it for money". Who fucking cares what their motivations are, a business is an entity designed to make money and they are made up of multiple different people with different morals and convictions. I wish these people would comment on the actual events and not the "corrupt money grubbing motivations" behind said events.
  - rtpg 12y ago
    I have a technique when trying to judge actions of companies I don't really like. If a company I liked did this would I think it's a good thing?If so, it's probably a good thing.
  - deciplex 12y ago
    Because, examining the motivations of the decision makers at Microsoft in this case, allows you to better predict what their actions in the future will be. Seriously, I can't count the number of times on HN, both in this instance and in the past, people have missed this basic principle. Sure, it's great that Microsoft did it in this case, regardless of their reason, but how you should perceive the safety of your data with Microsoft going forward, depends entirely on why they did it. If they did it purely for fiscal reasons, or some combination of fiscal, public relations, and moral reasoning, then how will they act when there is no monetary benefit to be gained by safeguarding their customers' data?
mrich 12y ago
I'm amazed how even these US judges cannot see what is wrong with this. Or are they themselves under pressure/threat from the executive and NSA/CIA?
- Curmudgel 12y ago
  No. Preska is a Bush appointee.
- waps 12y ago
  The job of a judge is exactly to NOT see "what is wrong with this". Activist judges are very, very bad. Congress, and to a lesser extent POTUS, are the parties that have voted in these laws and are controlling the agencies doing this, and have the power to change them. Judges should NOT attempt to do so. That is the very definition of what a judge does.
  - rtpg 12y ago
    at what point in your conception of the world do unjust laws get struck down?
    - TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
      At the Legislature or Executive are both wrong answers, as the Judiciary is also a check and balance.
    - mhenr18 12y ago
      Probably at the point of not voting in the people who make those laws in the first place.
  - lawnchair_larry 12y ago
    False, activist judges can be good or bad, but are usually good. Unless you are anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-desegregation, then yeah, you might think it's terrible.
    - 12y ago
Joeri 12y ago
Violating the EU data protection directive would make microsoft liable for a fine of up to 5% of global turnover. Microsoft has been the recipient of EU fines before, so they are likely to wish to play it safe. On the other hand, violating a court order will find them in contempt of court, which may also lead to coercive fines. Since they're facing fines either way, can we assume they are actually making a moral stand here?
- gpm 12y ago
  No, we can't assume that, for the simple reason that the logical financially motivated conclusion to that is take whichever path will result in less fines. I'm not experienced in this area but I doubt the US would fine Microsoft anywhere close to 5% of it's global turnover for contempt of court while an appeal is pending.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 12y ago
    As others have pointed out, the prospect of fines is not the only factor motivating Microsoft. There is also the dwindling trust of potential customers in Europe. If they roll over to the US government on this one, it's another strong argument for anyone in Europe to avoid the MS cloud.

by jnbiche 12y ago

curiousDog 12y ago

Indeed. And I'm surprised the European governments are just taking it.

mercurial 12y ago
There is the Data Protection Law, which makes, as far as I understand, transferring data to the US as ordered by the judge illegal. That said, why would you be surprised that the same governments happily collaborating with the NSA wouldn't do anything about privacy? We're pretty lucky as it is to have a privacy protection law at all.
toyg 12y ago
That's incorrect. European governments are "just taking it" when it comes to some areas; in particular anything to do with security is left to the US to do as they please, because they bear the brunt of our defensive needs (something that is not going change anytime soon); and multinational companies are powerful because of their money, regardless of where they come from. In this case, EU data-privacy laws emerged as a way to harmonize EU trade and law enforcement practices. They were then made compatible with US laws through various international agreements and treaties. Things were working, more or less. Then the US Congress passed the PATRIOT Act in haste, and broke everything. It took years to sketch out a way to make these incompatible laws work together, sort of. Grey areas were swept under the carpet, in hope that particular circumstances they covered "would never happen". Now they are happening, due to a combination of factors (the emergence of cloud computing, NSA revelations, differences in foreign policy stances, etc). Until Microsoft keeps this stance and the US legal landscape allows them to, EU governments simply don't have to do anything - the Data Protection Directive holds, US law enforcement yields. If MS is actually forced to hand over the data, then a response will be required from our side of the pond.
- randallsquared 12y ago
  > because they bear the brunt of our defensive needs (something that is not going change anytime soon) That may change more swiftly than you imagine. It seems like the US is already far more reluctant than ten years ago to go rushing in.
  - toyg 12y ago
    I don't think the US ever "rushed in" to attack Russian forces; even in the heated 1960s, people thought long and hard before pushing those nuclear buttons. There are many ways to provide military aid, not all of them involving your own troops; and with the rise of a strongly anti-Russian EU Commission, I bet all these options will be considered sooner rather than later. At the end of the day, it took years for NATO to intervene in Yugoslavia, a situation far less problematic than Ukraine (from the point of view of Russian engagement); but then they did intervene, twice. In the grand scheme of things, EU defense relies immensely on US forces and there are no signs that this is going to change anytime soon. The UK is struggling to just maintain capability, let alone expand it to replace allied resources. The French are now 100% integrated in NATO and have enough on their plate by caring for their African ex-colonies anyway. Italy and Spain can't pay state pensions, let alone expanding their military. The only country with some spare capacity would be Germany, which cannot do it for historical and political reasons. In fact, what the Ukraine crisis is showing is how Europe still cannot say no to the US in security matters: it was the US administration that pushed for escalating Maidan (remember "fuck the EU"?), it was the US administration that pushed for sanctions (with Europeans going along grudgingly) and it's the closest US allies (UK, Poland) who are now leading the charge for further escalation... and finding no formal opposition, despite plenty of grumbling across the continent. Because in practice, nobody can afford to lose their US umbrella.
    - xaa 12y ago
      As a U.S. citizen, I have been extremely confused about why there has been no global response to Ukraine, especially from Europe. You seem to be implying that the EU does not care about Ukraine at all and is only responding to the crisis there to the extent the US is pushing for it (i.e., not very much). Why not? Surely Europe doesn't want to set a precedent that Russia can foment and fund an "opposition", claim the existence of such an opposition means that the territory it is in should be annexed, and then annex it. I would have expected that Germany of all countries would recognize these tactics for exactly what they are: almost a direct replay of Hitler's pre-WWII tactics. It should be all the more galling because the proximal cause was that Ukraine was too "pro-EU". Yet the EU doesn't lift a finger. AFAICT, Obama doesn't do much because he is more concerned about ISIS, and sees Ukraine as a European problem.
mason240 12y ago
They are active participants.

revelation 12y ago

They did it neither for PR nor "principles", but for mere money. The US data hegemony is bad for business overseas.

idlewords 12y ago
You have no possible way to know that.
- danielrhodes 12y ago
  Let's look at these at these two facts: 1) Many companies have pulled their data from US-based data centers for fear of government intrusion after the Snowden revelations. 2) The future of Microsoft's server business is in the cloud and they have (likely) told customers their data is safe if stored in the EU Thus it stands to reason that in order to keep customers and make money, they are motivated to win this case.
  - _delirium 12y ago
    On #2, they do tell their customers that, in fact it's even a significant component of their cloud marketing. One of their attempted selling points vis-a-vis Google Apps for Business is that going with Microsoft for things like hosted email is safer from an EU-compliance point of view.
mariuolo 12y ago
Indeed, they're bound to lose many contracts if they're forced to comply. Also it would be interesting to see if someone would be criminally liable in Ireland.
- bjornsing 12y ago
  > Also it would be interesting to see if someone would be criminally liable in Ireland. That's the most principally interesting thing here IMHO... Can the government of one country compel a citizen to commit a crime in another country? At least in Sweden it could easily be considered a form of espionage to hand over emails to a foreign government. A few years ago I would have ended that question with !?!?!?, now I'm not so sure... :(

ignostic 12y ago

> The U.S. Gov has gone mad with power. Agreed. Hopefully this encourages more people to stand up to unreasonable violations of privacy from our government. > And for perhaps the first time ever: bravo Microsoft! I don't even care if you did if for the PR, it's still a brave stand. The question of whether a company is following principles or motivated by profit/PR is so strange to me. The question is nonsense and the answer irrelevant. Microsoft is not a person with principles. It's 90,000ish people with different principles. I'm sure some people really believe in the right to privacy, some want to avoid angering customers, some don't care, etc. The reasons and motivations behind a company's actions are as diverse as the actors involved. We could argue about motivations all day, like the responses to your comment are doing, but it's pointless and irrelevant. Unless you want to hone in and talk about individual people there's no answer to the question, and we're just trading vague meaningless opinions. It's like arguing whether a mountain is rocky or sandy. Chances are that I can find both, so we should either get more specific or talk about averaging via a survey. It happened, and the results are the same.

Igglyboo 12y ago
Seriously, I can't even count the amount of times I read about a company doing something good/bad/neutral in a day and reading comments about said action that boil down to "they only did it for money". Who fucking cares what their motivations are, a business is an entity designed to make money and they are made up of multiple different people with different morals and convictions. I wish these people would comment on the actual events and not the "corrupt money grubbing motivations" behind said events.
- rtpg 12y ago
  I have a technique when trying to judge actions of companies I don't really like. If a company I liked did this would I think it's a good thing?If so, it's probably a good thing.
- deciplex 12y ago
  Because, examining the motivations of the decision makers at Microsoft in this case, allows you to better predict what their actions in the future will be. Seriously, I can't count the number of times on HN, both in this instance and in the past, people have missed this basic principle. Sure, it's great that Microsoft did it in this case, regardless of their reason, but how you should perceive the safety of your data with Microsoft going forward, depends entirely on why they did it. If they did it purely for fiscal reasons, or some combination of fiscal, public relations, and moral reasoning, then how will they act when there is no monetary benefit to be gained by safeguarding their customers' data?

mrich 12y ago

I'm amazed how even these US judges cannot see what is wrong with this. Or are they themselves under pressure/threat from the executive and NSA/CIA?

Curmudgel 12y ago
No. Preska is a Bush appointee.
waps 12y ago
The job of a judge is exactly to NOT see "what is wrong with this". Activist judges are very, very bad. Congress, and to a lesser extent POTUS, are the parties that have voted in these laws and are controlling the agencies doing this, and have the power to change them. Judges should NOT attempt to do so. That is the very definition of what a judge does.
- rtpg 12y ago
  at what point in your conception of the world do unjust laws get struck down?
  - TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
    At the Legislature or Executive are both wrong answers, as the Judiciary is also a check and balance.
  - mhenr18 12y ago
    Probably at the point of not voting in the people who make those laws in the first place.
- lawnchair_larry 12y ago
  False, activist judges can be good or bad, but are usually good. Unless you are anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-desegregation, then yeah, you might think it's terrible.
  - 12y ago

Joeri 12y ago

Violating the EU data protection directive would make microsoft liable for a fine of up to 5% of global turnover. Microsoft has been the recipient of EU fines before, so they are likely to wish to play it safe. On the other hand, violating a court order will find them in contempt of court, which may also lead to coercive fines. Since they're facing fines either way, can we assume they are actually making a moral stand here?

gpm 12y ago
No, we can't assume that, for the simple reason that the logical financially motivated conclusion to that is take whichever path will result in less fines. I'm not experienced in this area but I doubt the US would fine Microsoft anywhere close to 5% of it's global turnover for contempt of court while an appeal is pending.
- SideburnsOfDoom 12y ago
  As others have pointed out, the prospect of fines is not the only factor motivating Microsoft. There is also the dwindling trust of potential customers in Europe. If they roll over to the US government on this one, it's another strong argument for anyone in Europe to avoid the MS cloud.