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

Microsoft Defies Court Order, Will Not Give Emails to US Government

windowsitpro.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 120 posts

Re: Microsoft Defies Court Order, Will Not Give Emails to US Government

#101

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

gpm wrote: post #51
Joeri wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 stan…

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.

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.

Re: Microsoft Defies Court Order, Will Not Give Emails to US Government

#102

Post by lawnchair_larry »

waps wrote: post #91
mrich wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.

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.

Re: Microsoft Defies Court Order, Will Not Give Emails to US Government

#103

Post by bjornsing »

mariuolo wrote: post #11
revelation wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

> 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... :(

Re: Microsoft Defies Court Order, Will Not Give Emails to US Government

#104

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

rtpg wrote: post #99
waps wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

at what point in your conception of the world do unjust laws get struck down?

At the Legislature or Executive are both wrong answers, as the Judiciary is also a check and balance.

Re: Microsoft Defies Court Order, Will Not Give Emails to US Government

#105

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

AndyNemmity wrote: post #64
toyg wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if companies relocate operations in the same way they relocate certain things for tax avoidance. They already do. Umpteen companies run servers in this or that country for specific legal reason which are not necessarily related to taxation. Classic case: companies with dubious stands in regard to copyright law. The PATRIOT Act already forced a number of companies to open European datacentres to satisfy particularly…

>The PATRIOT Act already forced a number of companies to open European datacentres to satisfy particularly-picky customers; It's not picky customers, it's everyone. It's literally the first discussion that occurs. Any company in any part of the world wants their data in a datacenter near them, that follows rules they are comfortable with. It cannot be overstated just how important this issue is to foreign companies.

Especially as those customers might end up liable.

Re: Microsoft Defies Court Order, Will Not Give Emails to US Government

#106

Post by toyg »

randallsquared wrote: post #89
toyg wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

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.

Re: Microsoft Defies Court Order, Will Not Give Emails to US Government

#107

Post by toyg »

AndyNemmity wrote: post #64
toyg wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if companies relocate operations in the same way they relocate certain things for tax avoidance. They already do. Umpteen companies run servers in this or that country for specific legal reason which are not necessarily related to taxation. Classic case: companies with dubious stands in regard to copyright law. The PATRIOT Act already forced a number of companies to open European datacentres to satisfy particularly…

>The PATRIOT Act already forced a number of companies to open European datacentres to satisfy particularly-picky customers; It's not picky customers, it's everyone. It's literally the first discussion that occurs. Any company in any part of the world wants their data in a datacenter near them, that follows rules they are comfortable with. It cannot be overstated just how important this issue is to foreign companies.

> It's not picky customers, it's everyone. It's literally the first discussion that occurs.

In my experience that often wasn't the case until Snowden came about, but I guess it might depend on specific sectors.

I agree that now it's absolutely everyone.

Re: Microsoft Defies Court Order, Will Not Give Emails to US Government

#108

Post by rdxm »

Here's the 64k dollar question. If Snowden hadn't dropped the dime on the douchebaggery going on not just at NSA, but also w.r.t. the complicity/cooperation by all the biggies(Google, FB, MS, etc), would MS be doing this?

I assert that the answer is clearly a big No....anyone else agree with me??

Re: Microsoft Defies Court Order, Will Not Give Emails to US Government

#109

Post by the_ancient »

waps wrote: post #90
mercurial wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 elit…

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…

>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

Re: Microsoft Defies Court Order, Will Not Give Emails to US Government

#110

Post by mhenr18 »

rtpg wrote: post #99
waps wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

at what point in your conception of the world do unjust laws get struck down?

Probably at the point of not voting in the people who make those laws in the first place.
Post reply on HN