How Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages • Hacker News Board

Re: How Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages

#81

Post by venomsnake » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 8:09 PM UTC

bad_user wrote: post #51

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…

Oh, come on. Developers only need to build some APIs - those APIs can be multi-purpose. They don't need to know that one such purpose is NSA spying - you can come up with dozens of other reasons for wanting a "back door". The actual interface that's used for responding to legally binding orders or subpoenas and that uses the APIs in question can be built by people on NSA's payroll. Besides executives, the only people…

Give me 12 (a dozen) reasons to break the encryption and security of your users that could be acceptable to a non brain dead engineer and exclude surveillance and government snooping?

Re: How Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages

#82

Post by RexRollman » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 8:11 PM UTC

mythz wrote: post #68

kvb wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see how "but maybe that's just me" (and the entirety of the first paragraph) could be read as snarky, but that's not how I meant it. It was a non-rhetorical question: what should a company like Microsoft do when faced with a court order? Does compliance with such orders make "privacy" campaigns nonsensical, if they still have meaningful privacy protections compared to competitors? Also, IANAL, but as far as I k…

No-one can violate the 4th amendment. The government is only seen to be violating it because they've chosen to interpret it under a different meaning that somehow allows them to collect private user data en-masse.

And everyone is Washington just stands by and does nothing.

Re: How Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages

#83

Post by venomsnake » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 8:12 PM UTC

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?

Take $5B out of the cash pile. Lobby to dismantle the laws or severely weaken it.

Re: How Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages

#84

Post by ahlatimer » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 8:13 PM UTC

forgotAgain wrote: post #58

ahlatimer wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 were Steve Ballmer, would you take that risk? They don't seem to mind taking risks when it comes to questionable tax deductions. They certainly could prosecute you for But they wouldn't. The type of activity the government is engaged in only works when people are passive. if you're served a lawful court order, you either obey it or risk the consequences, up to and including time in jail. When was the last time…

They don't seem to mind taking risks when it comes to questionable tax deductions.

I don't think that's taking a risk. From all accounts, the tax deductions they're taking are perfectly legal. Leaking government secrets? Not so legal…

There's an obvious reward for taking "questionable" tax deductions: lower taxes. What does Ballmer, specifically, gain from releasing classified information?

And really? You want to compare questionable tax practices that aren't actually questionable legally to something that can be construed as espionage?

But they wouldn't. The type of activity the government is engaged in only works when people are passive.

Those two statements don't follow. The government may cease these practices if people find out and come out against them, but that doesn't stop them from prosecuting the person that brought them to light.

When was the last time anyone of stature went to jail for defending the public against the government?

When was the last time anyone of stature defended the public from the government via illegal means?

It's a risk. Full-stop. You can get prosecuted for releasing classified information. And let's not even take it all the way to going to jail. The government can make your life a living hell just by prosecuting you for a crime, even if they're unsuccessful in getting a conviction.

Which leads me back to my first question, why would Ballmer take that risk?

Re: How Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages

#85

Post by csoghoian » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 8:13 PM UTC

jivatmanx wrote: post #38

"ACLU technology expert Chris Soghoian said the revelations would surprise many Skype users. "In the past, Skype made affirmative promises to users about their inability to perform wiretaps," he said. "It's hard to square Microsoft's secret collaboration with the NSA with its high-profile efforts to compete on privacy with Google." I have a feeling the FTC won't go after them for violating truth-in-advertising laws.

Having worked at the FTC for a year in the team that goes after companies for violating consumers' privacy, I can comfortably say that you are 100% right on that point.

The FTC (unfortunately) does not police deceptive statements about government surveillance.

Re: How Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages

#86

Post by loginalready » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 8:14 PM UTC

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…

Protest. Lobby. Seek publicity. Take the government to court. Put up a fight.

Note that when the EU data retention directive (which is often used here under the header "see, others are doing it to", even though it doesn't even come close to what the NSA does) was initiated, that's exactly what many telecom providers and ISP's did, before and after this came into affect. It didn't stop it, but it least it has brought it out into the open, making it an (still ongoing) public issue.

The remarkable part of what's happening in the US is the utterly quiet and extremely forthcoming complicity of major companies who otherwise don't seem to have any problem throwing a lot of resources at manipulating governments foreign and domestic.

And in the case of Microsoft, in it's monopolists heydays, even up to the point of structurally breaking the law.

Also, it's not like they are only quiet about it because the law tells them so: they actively deny it, hell, they even advertise with pure lies about the privacy of their services.

These companies aren't victims anymore. They are complicit.

Lastly, it should be quiet obvious that with absolutely no restriction in the wiretapping of foreign nationals, they are breaking the law in every country they do business in. Those foreigners, like myself, have no voice in US legislation.

From my perspective as a non-American, Microsoft is complicit in a full frontal attack on our civil liberties. We can't stop the US government, but we can certainly stop Microsoft e.a. from doing business here.

Re: How Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages

#87

Post by alec » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 8:17 PM UTC

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…

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/06/go...

"Google Lawsuit Challenges N.S.A. Domestic-Spying Apparatus"

the first hit on google for "google nsa lawsuit"

Re: How Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages

#88

Post by loginalready » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 8:21 PM UTC

The headline is surprisingly understated, where usually the opposite is the case.

After reading the article, the headline might as well have been "Microsoft handed the NSA the keys to friggin' everything."

The tin-foil hat conspiracy theory of the NSA having a backdoor in every Windows system on the planet suddenly doesn't seem that far fetched anymore.

Re: How Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages

#89

Post by mythz » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 8:21 PM UTC

xradionut wrote: post #45

ahlatimer wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

that's not defense, that's corruption.

Re: How Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages

#90

Post by vabmit » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 8:27 PM UTC

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…

Well that quote may be a technically accurate statement. They don't "provide" data directly to the NSA with out a secret FISA order. But, the new leak article seems to suggest that they weaken their cryptography, perhaps turn over private keys, re-architect their topology, and adjust their technology to allow the NSA to trivially easily intercept/get the data of every single Microsoft technology user.

A little bird told me that Microsoft was the most "helpful" out of all the big tech companies. If this new article is accurate, I hope that statement also was. I'm rather pro-US/NSA. But, even I find this new leak very disturbing if it's accurate and true.

Being realistic, I bet all the other big American tech companies are doing similar things. For example, my thinking is still that FB gives law enforcement a "god view" of all information and communications (even if it is in a round about way, like Microsoft allegedly does).