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

41–50 of 164 posts

Re: How Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages

#41

Post by mythz »

chollida1 wrote: post #29
mythz wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 primar…

Except Google's "free services" helps their strategy of keeping users on Google's services, enriches their Google profile and helps create targeted ads.

Re: How Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages

#42

Post by summerdown2 »

forgotAgain wrote: post #23
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 actio…

> To play devil's advocate here, what else would people have Microsoft do?

In the US, my understanding is that companies lobby for things they want politicians to do. If any of these tech giants wanted less surveillance, wouldn't that be how they'd facilitate it?

Re: How Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages

#43

Post by toyg »

ahlatimer wrote: post #36
forgotAgain wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 actio…

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. Absolutely, but even if they didn't, if you were Steve Ballmer, would you take that risk? They certainly could prosecute you for leaking secret information. That's even assuming that Ballmer knew about it. It could have been that they approached people who were in some positi…

> if you're served a lawful court order

... you challenge it, pulling out from campaign contributions, and making noise in the press. Microsoft (and Google, and Yahoo, and and and) have billions of dollars they could use to resist pretty much any law they wanted to.

Every day we complain that modern democracies are captive to moneyed commercial interests, and now we should believe that actually, they're completely powerless, oppressed by Big Bad Government? I don't think so.

Re: How Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages

#45

Post by xradionut »

ahlatimer wrote: post #36
forgotAgain wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 actio…

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. Absolutely, but even if they didn't, if you were Steve Ballmer, would you take that risk? They certainly could prosecute you for leaking secret information. That's even assuming that Ballmer knew about it. It could have been that they approached people who were in some positi…

In Microsoft defense, consequences could include threatening government contracts...

Re: How Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages

#46

Post by chollida1 »

mythz wrote: post #41
chollida1 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 primar…

Except Google's "free services" helps their strategy of keeping users on Google's services, enriches their Google profile and helps create targeted ads.

> Except Google's "free services" helps their strategy of keeping users on Google's services, enriches their Google profile and helps create targeted ads.

I get your point but the same sentence can easily apply to Microsoft. Microsoft wants to do the same thing:)

Re: How Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages

#47

Post by antoko »

znowi wrote: post #25
devindotcom wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Speaking for myself, but I'm sure others share the sentiments, its not that i think google is somehow "good". They're obviously not, the difference is that they're still a cool tech company doing cool things on a massive scale (or potentially very disruptive).

self-driving cars, balloon network testing in NZ, google fiber, and more mundane things like Golang and angular.

I don't give them a pass, its just that in the bad column they're the same as all the other actors in this drama, on the good column they're a damn cool tech company that can realistically change the world in fundamental and positive ways.

EDIT: also for the most part their interests are selfishly aligned with ours. They want a fast easy open internet. That contrasts pretty sharply with FB/MS/APPLE - who are more about hardware/walled gardens. Though all these lines seem to getting blurred.

Re: How Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages

#48

Post by rgulati »

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…

I don't get posts like this.

How is giving access to the government according to the law of the land the same privacy-wise as data mining personal emails to show ads?

The point of the privacy campaign was that Google mines the contents of personal email messages to show ads and to build your Google ad profile while Outlook.com doesn't. What's hypocritical about it?

I don't like their campaigns either but lets call a spade a spade and not resort to hyperbole and needless namecalling.

Re: How Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages

#49

Post by toyg »

acqq wrote: post #6

Allow me to be surprised this time, I don't see much new here, compared to what we already saw about Prism (all the slides). Maybe the only thing newsworthy this time is that additional documents confirm that Prism exist? I applaud this article of course, as it gives less chance for unnatural interpretations of the slides that we saw by pro-status-quo writers ("it's not really a direct access") -- now we have additio…

I think the confirmation that NSA and FBI have direct and unfettered access to all communication streams, is pretty huge. As you say, all calm-down-dear interpretations are now proven false. We are facing the worst possible scenario.

Re: How Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages

#50

Post by schoen »

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…

You asked:

"Are major companies based or operating in the US allowed to provide secure email and/or data storage without options for lawful surveillance from law enforcement?"

Compare 47 USC §1002(b)(3):

A telecommunications carrier shall not be responsible for decrypting, or ensuring the government’s ability to decrypt, any communication encrypted by a subscriber or customer, unless the encryption was provided by the carrier and the carrier possesses the information necessary to decrypt the communication.

Also, (b)(1):

This subchapter does not authorize any law enforcement agency or officer—

(A) to require any specific design of equipment, facilities, services, features, or system configurations to be adopted by any provider of a wire or electronic communication service, any manufacturer of telecommunications equipment, or any provider of telecommunications support services; or

(B) to prohibit the adoption of any equipment, facility, service, or feature by any provider of a wire or electronic communication service, any manufacturer of telecommunications equipment, or any provider of telecommunications support services.

Finally, (b)(2):

The [interception capability] requirements of [...] this section do not apply to [...] information services [...]

Post reply on HN