Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages

guardian.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 164 posts

Re: How Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages

#21

Post by devindotcom »

brown9-2 wrote: post #15

To play devil's advocate here, what else would people have Microsoft do? Is there a scenario in which they can successfully resist enabling surveillance features in their products while operating in the US? CALEA applies to telecommunications providers, which is a label that would seem to clearly apply to Skype. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calea Are major companies based or operating in the US allowed to provide sec…

I agree that the anger should be directed at the laws, but the problem is that we are so woefully uninformed about those laws. And not just that we're not paying enough attention - these laws are being formed and executed in secret! How can you take action against something you don't know exists?

Re: How Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages

#22

Post by kvb »

mythz wrote: post #4

Marketing: "Your privacy is our priority." Meaning: "Microsoft and the FBI had come up with a solution that allowed the NSA to circumvent encryption on Outlook.com chats" "For Prism collection against Hotmail, Live, and Outlook.com emails will be unaffected because Prism collects this data prior to encryption." "analysts will no longer have to make a special request to SSO", "this new capability will result in a much…

Well, did you expect "privacy" to imply that your data would not be released to the government following legal requests for it? I always assumed it meant that they wouldn't share it with other businesses, but maybe that's just me.

Analogously, if one of the major phone providers started selling information to marketers, including what times of day I made phone calls, would it be inappropriate for a competitor to create a marketing campaign around "privacy" highlighting that they don't do similar things? Would you complain that since the government can still get a wiretap and listen to private conversations, there really isn't a meaningful privacy difference?

Re: How Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages

#23

Post by forgotAgain »

brown9-2 wrote: post #15

To play devil's advocate here, what else would people have Microsoft do? Is there a scenario in which they can successfully resist enabling surveillance features in their products while operating in the US? CALEA applies to telecommunications providers, which is a label that would seem to clearly apply to Skype. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calea Are major companies based or operating in the US allowed to provide sec…

To play devil's advocate here, what else would people have Microsoft do? Is there a scenario in which they can successfully resist enabling surveillance features in their products while operating in the US?

Do you think the government would jail someone of Steve Ballmer's stature if he talked openly about what the government has asked of Microsoft. Because of his position he is much more protected from criminal action than almost anyone else. The reason he doesn't reject government requests is more likely that it would be bad for business not that he would suffer legal consequences.

... I think the proper place to direct your anger is at the laws that require them to cooperate.

I see the law as allowing them to cooperate. It gives them cover for not protecting the privacy of individual citizens.

Re: How Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages

#24

Post by diggan »

forgotAgain wrote: post #17

If this is true then SkyDrive and Azure are toast. Perhaps all cloud storage as well.

No, I don't think you're right. I think, even if the article is right, people don't give a damn. People are not that clever to react to a thing like this.

Re: How Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages

#25

Post by znowi »

devindotcom wrote: post #13
pvnick wrote: post #2

Microsoft's June 7th statement: "We provide customer data only when we receive a legally binding order or subpoena to do so, and never on a voluntary basis. In addition we only ever comply with orders for requests about specific accounts or identifiers. If the government has a broader voluntary national security program to gather customer data we don’t participate in it." One down, several to go. If I were Google/Fac…

The interesting conflict to me is that Google et al don't appear to be fighting this battle. When it comes to other things, they are in the streets, funding lobbyists, building protest websites, and so on. But this, which threatens their entire business model (essentially trust-based), they haven't made a peep about. It may just be a gag order thing, sure. But with the level of access required for stuff like this, I…

The peculiar part for me with Google is that they seem to be somehow immune from all the revelations. People keep stand by it and get annoyed when reminded of their wrong-doings. I suspect at this point, they're not much different than Microsoft. But the "don't be evil" brand is still strong in the mind of many.

Re: How Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages

#26

Post by xradionut »

diggan wrote: post #24
forgotAgain wrote: post #17

If this is true then SkyDrive and Azure are toast. Perhaps all cloud storage as well.

No, I don't think you're right. I think, even if the article is right, people don't give a damn. People are not that clever to react to a thing like this.

"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."

Re: How Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages

#29

Post by chollida1 »

mythz wrote: post #10
mtgx wrote: post #3

I don't get Microsoft. Are they really that hypocritical to the core and so shameless? Why in the world would they launch a "privacy" campaign against Google when they're in a glass house themselves, and so vulnerable? Why the hell would they even put themselves on the spotlight like that? Or are they really that comfortable with lying, that they have no problem attacking others over something, even though they are j…

Microsoft often "competes" by trying to strangle competitors revenue streams even when outside their core business, where they are happy to lose billions on Bing and their online division if it also reduces Googles primary revenue stream: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/microsofts-online-sinkhole-8-5... Since Google's products are essentially "free" to end users, they don't criticize them on value, so they build an ant…

> Microsoft often "competes" by trying to strangle competitors revenue streams even when it's outside their core business, where they will happily lose billions on Bing and their online division if it can reduce Googles revenues:

This is true as you point out. However it's worth pointing out that Google is the exact same.

They release free products that Microsoft charges for loosing money to reduce Microsoft's primary revenue stream.

Post reply on HN