3 ms·

> 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

> 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. No, they really aren't. It's not even true for a democracy, where "we the people" get to vote for a small elite, which in turns will enact laws taking into account lobbying pressure, pressure from political allies, personal interests, likelihood of being re-elected, and occasionally the interest of the people and personal convictions. A company, especially at this size, is not a democracy. Maybe the janitor believes in privacy, and the clerk trusts the government, but at the end of the day, strategic decisions like this one rest in the hand of a small group at the top. Some of them may occasionally put their principles before "shareholder value" or "next week's bonus", but it looks pretty rare in practice.

waps 12y ago
What I can't believe is that people seem to be seriously suggesting taking power away from the justice system. Are we truly that insane ? Wasn't the whole problem with "spying" that there wasn't judicial oversight ? Here we have a case where federal prosecutors went for judicial oversight, were put in the right by a judge. Isn't that exactly what you'd want ? Laughable comment in the article: > Let there be no doubt that Microsoft's actions in this controversial case are customer-centric. Really ? Have we truly forgotten this quickly what happened ? http://thehackernews.com/2014/03/microsoft-admits-spying-on-hotmail.html http://thehackernews.com/2014/03/microsoft-admits-spying-on-... Btw : keep in mind that this case is also about setting precedent. That is why both parties want it to go to appeal, and don't care about the outcome of this particular trial. It is beside the point. Both the US federal police and Microsoft want the American justice system to decide this issue, and well, the current judge can't make that decision (well, technically it wouldn't be final). So keep in mind this judge is mostly doing the minimum her job requires and trying to be home in time for dinner here. There is no decision made, nothing like what the article claims has happened, legally speaking.
- the_ancient 12y ago
  >Wasn't the whole problem with "spying" that there wasn't judicial oversight ? There was judical oversight... the FISC... aka the rubber stamp That is the problem with the judiciary today, they have abandoned their responsibility to be a check on government power and instead take the government at their word and rubber stamp everything unless there some defense (which is often not even allowed as these orders are given ex parte in many cases) proves they should be denied

waps 12y ago

What I can't believe is that people seem to be seriously suggesting taking power away from the justice system. Are we truly that insane ? Wasn't the whole problem with "spying" that there wasn't judicial oversight ? Here we have a case where federal prosecutors went for judicial oversight, were put in the right by a judge. Isn't that exactly what you'd want ? Laughable comment in the article: > Let there be no doubt that Microsoft's actions in this controversial case are customer-centric. Really ? Have we truly forgotten this quickly what happened ? http://thehackernews.com/2014/03/microsoft-admits-spying-on-hotmail.html http://thehackernews.com/2014/03/microsoft-admits-spying-on-... Btw : keep in mind that this case is also about setting precedent. That is why both parties want it to go to appeal, and don't care about the outcome of this particular trial. It is beside the point. Both the US federal police and Microsoft want the American justice system to decide this issue, and well, the current judge can't make that decision (well, technically it wouldn't be final). So keep in mind this judge is mostly doing the minimum her job requires and trying to be home in time for dinner here. There is no decision made, nothing like what the article claims has happened, legally speaking.

the_ancient 12y ago
>Wasn't the whole problem with "spying" that there wasn't judicial oversight ? There was judical oversight... the FISC... aka the rubber stamp That is the problem with the judiciary today, they have abandoned their responsibility to be a check on government power and instead take the government at their word and rubber stamp everything unless there some defense (which is often not even allowed as these orders are given ex parte in many cases) proves they should be denied