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

We're Fighting the Feds Over Your Email

m.us.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 94 posts

Re: We're Fighting the Feds Over Your Email

#21

Post by 67726e »

rayiner wrote: post #17
lisper wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> your emails become the business records of a cloud provider That is simply ridiculous. Email stored by a cloud provider isn't a business record of the provider any more than the contents of a physical letter stored in a rented mail box is a business record of the box provider.

A physical letter in a rented mailbox is also generally not data-mined for the commercial purposes of the service provider. I think cloud companies essentially want the 4th amendment benefits of treating the cloud like real world private areas (e.g. bank lock boxes), without any of the obligations that come along with that. The "reasonable expectation of privacy" in things like safe deposit boxes or storage units is…

Are you telling me that a banker does not have the capabilities to access a rented lock-box? That only the renter has that key? What then happens if a renter dies and that key is missing?

Re: We're Fighting the Feds Over Your Email

#22

Post by lost_name »

67726e wrote: post #21
rayiner wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A physical letter in a rented mailbox is also generally not data-mined for the commercial purposes of the service provider. I think cloud companies essentially want the 4th amendment benefits of treating the cloud like real world private areas (e.g. bank lock boxes), without any of the obligations that come along with that. The "reasonable expectation of privacy" in things like safe deposit boxes or storage units is…

Are you telling me that a banker does not have the capabilities to access a rented lock-box? That only the renter has that key? What then happens if a renter dies and that key is missing?

If you're referring to safe deposit boxes, I believe they drill the lock and replace it.

Re: We're Fighting the Feds Over Your Email

#23

Post by [deleted] »

67726e wrote: post #21
rayiner wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A physical letter in a rented mailbox is also generally not data-mined for the commercial purposes of the service provider. I think cloud companies essentially want the 4th amendment benefits of treating the cloud like real world private areas (e.g. bank lock boxes), without any of the obligations that come along with that. The "reasonable expectation of privacy" in things like safe deposit boxes or storage units is…

Are you telling me that a banker does not have the capabilities to access a rented lock-box? That only the renter has that key? What then happens if a renter dies and that key is missing?

[deleted]

Re: We're Fighting the Feds Over Your Email

#25

Post by morsch »

fooqux wrote: post #15
higherpurpose wrote: post #12

If Microsoft was serious about this, they'd also offer end-to-end encryption for their e-mails (open source protocol, otherwise they shouldn't bother). But because they aren't doing this, it just shows they are more concerned about not losing business overseas than "fighting for your e-mail".

I'm no longer sure that is enough. Considering what happened to Lavabit, just offering end-to-end encryption is only going to work until the government decides they want what you have hidden. I doubt that Microsoft will put up as much of a fight, or take the high road out, like the Lavabit founder did. Fighting them on the legal front to stop such practices from starting may well be the best option right now. Even th…

Lavabit wasn't end-to-end encrypted.

Re: We're Fighting the Feds Over Your Email

#26

Post by rhino369 »

panarky wrote: post #6

Relevant excerpts: Microsoft believes you own emails stored in the cloud, and that they have the same privacy protection as paper letters sent by mail... The U.S. government can obtain emails only subject to the full legal protections of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment... A search warrant cannot reach beyond U.S. shores... [The US government] argues that your emails become the business records of a cloud provider…

>A search warrant cannot reach beyond U.S. shores...

Well, that is also part of this case. The court is going to determine how to fit data into the current caselaw. There is good reason for why the US can't order searches in another country.

But if Microsoft has servers in the United States that can routinely access their cloud servers, there is a good argument that data is really in the United States as well.

The business records argument is a bad one. However, I don't see any good reason for why the government shouldn't be able to access American companies cloud data with valid warrant.

Re: We're Fighting the Feds Over Your Email

#27

Post by lisper »

josefresco wrote: post #18
lisper wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might want to reconsider posting comments like that. You may think you're making a principled stand against the evils of paywalls (aside: how do you expect online publications to stay in business?) but in fact all you're doing is advertising the fact that you're either too lazy or too stupid to take the trivial steps required to get around one.

"too lazy or too stupid to take the trivial steps required to get around one" Or maybe he just doesn't want to? You know, on principle? Even skirting the paywall, you're boosting the WSJ's viewership stats which in turn, helps them sell more advertising/contributes to their "value".

> you're boosting the WSJ's viewership stats

That would be the case whether or not they had a paywall.

Re: We're Fighting the Feds Over Your Email

#28

Post by Kalium »

fooqux wrote: post #15
higherpurpose wrote: post #12

If Microsoft was serious about this, they'd also offer end-to-end encryption for their e-mails (open source protocol, otherwise they shouldn't bother). But because they aren't doing this, it just shows they are more concerned about not losing business overseas than "fighting for your e-mail".

I'm no longer sure that is enough. Considering what happened to Lavabit, just offering end-to-end encryption is only going to work until the government decides they want what you have hidden. I doubt that Microsoft will put up as much of a fight, or take the high road out, like the Lavabit founder did. Fighting them on the legal front to stop such practices from starting may well be the best option right now. Even th…

If memory serves, the feds had probable cause and a warrant when they want after Lavabit. Lavabit tried to fight it. Lavabit lost. So they shut down instead and tried to spin it as the feds shutting them down.

Re: We're Fighting the Feds Over Your Email

#29

Post by josefresco »

lisper wrote: post #27
josefresco wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"too lazy or too stupid to take the trivial steps required to get around one" Or maybe he just doesn't want to? You know, on principle? Even skirting the paywall, you're boosting the WSJ's viewership stats which in turn, helps them sell more advertising/contributes to their "value".

> you're boosting the WSJ's viewership stats That would be the case whether or not they had a paywall.

Which is my point... maybe the parent commenter does not want to do this - instead of being either lazy or stupid as suggested.

Re: We're Fighting the Feds Over Your Email

#30

Post by rayiner »

rhino369 wrote: post #26
panarky wrote: post #6

Relevant excerpts: Microsoft believes you own emails stored in the cloud, and that they have the same privacy protection as paper letters sent by mail... The U.S. government can obtain emails only subject to the full legal protections of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment... A search warrant cannot reach beyond U.S. shores... [The US government] argues that your emails become the business records of a cloud provider…

>A search warrant cannot reach beyond U.S. shores... Well, that is also part of this case. The court is going to determine how to fit data into the current caselaw. There is good reason for why the US can't order searches in another country. But if Microsoft has servers in the United States that can routinely access their cloud servers, there is a good argument that data is really in the United States as well. The bu…

The government's case here isn't a ridiculous one. I can't think of any other situation where there is 4th amendment protection of property in custody of a third party where the custodian has essentially unregulated and unrestricted access to the property and no consequences for loss or damage to the property. Its a really novel argument on the part of Microsoft to claim that your emails on their service are still your property, when none of the usual protections that apply to property held by third parties applies to that email.
Post reply on HN