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

Microsoft Sues Justice Department Over Secret Customer Data Searches

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 68 posts

Re: Microsoft Sues Justice Department Over Secret Customer Data Searches

#31

Post by jsprogrammer »

mtgx wrote: post #4

Indefinite gag orders are definitely unconstitutional, and it has been proven before in Court. There should be an automatic limit as well for when the gag orders expire, like say 1-3 months, or whatever is considered "reasonable" for an investigation. After that, the government should have to get extensions every 3 months from a judge. After 2 or 3 years, the extension should be obtained only from a federal judge. An…

Any gag order would be unconstitutional. One may explain their expected consequences of saying a particular thing, but another always has a right to speak whatever they want.

Re: Microsoft Sues Justice Department Over Secret Customer Data Searches

#32

Post by coroutines »

icloudsearch wrote: post #30

Throwaway because I am currently under investigation. Apple inadvertently notified me that had subpoena'd my iCloud backups. I suspect that they violated the gag order in error. As a result they expedited their physical warrant and raided me 2 days later. As someone targeted by a federal investigation, it is clear that the government will vacuum up as much information as possible without my knowledge. Hopefully Micro…

Stay strong, Snookie.

(in seriousness - good luck)

Re: Microsoft Sues Justice Department Over Secret Customer Data Searches

#33

Post by morganvachon »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #20
KirinDave wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So... there's no evidence the "Justice Department can search your computer if Win10 is installed" assuming your device is actually secure. Bad passwords, no supported integrated TPM or other issues (common to custom built machines) will comprimise your local device security and thusly make them the easiest method of attack. If served a lawful subpoena, ANY cloud service provider may be required to hand over your data…

As a note "no integrated TPM" is common among retail machines too. TPMs are generally shipping with business line PCs just as Dell OptiPlexs and Latitudes, but not with consumer PCs like Dell Inspirons and Vostros.

Dell Vostro is a business line, but it's the cheapest one and doesn't always have "pro" features like TPM and vPro.

Re: Microsoft Sues Justice Department Over Secret Customer Data Searches

#34

Post by gardano »

vox_mollis wrote: post #12
dcgudeman wrote: post #2

'Microsoft’s filing zeroes in on a provision of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, written in 1986. The company argues that indefinite gag orders violate the First Amendment right to inform customers about the search of their files “as soon as secrecy is no longer required.” Additionally, the suit claims that the law “flouts” Fourth Amendment requirements that the government give notice to people when their p…

concerned about the fact the Amazon didn't attempt one of these lawsuit earlier. I have no idea why you're bringing up Amazon since the article is about Microsoft. That said, assuming you're asking the question about MSFT: Microsoft has always been a lapdog of the Feds, as evidenced by handing over hotmail data simply from a pleasant LEA request, to centralizing and backdooring skype, to removal of the elephant diffu…

While I disagree with the tone of your comment, I would have to agree that Apple has made it a good and responsible action to oppose such open-ended Federal requests.

Re: Microsoft Sues Justice Department Over Secret Customer Data Searches

#35

Post by capote »

vox_mollis wrote: post #12
dcgudeman wrote: post #2

'Microsoft’s filing zeroes in on a provision of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, written in 1986. The company argues that indefinite gag orders violate the First Amendment right to inform customers about the search of their files “as soon as secrecy is no longer required.” Additionally, the suit claims that the law “flouts” Fourth Amendment requirements that the government give notice to people when their p…

concerned about the fact the Amazon didn't attempt one of these lawsuit earlier. I have no idea why you're bringing up Amazon since the article is about Microsoft. That said, assuming you're asking the question about MSFT: Microsoft has always been a lapdog of the Feds, as evidenced by handing over hotmail data simply from a pleasant LEA request, to centralizing and backdooring skype, to removal of the elephant diffu…

> I have no idea why you're bringing up Amazon since the article is about Microsoft.

I have no idea why you're bringing up that you have no idea why he's bringing up Amazon since the article is about Microsoft since the article is about Microsoft and the comment is about Amazon.

Re: Microsoft Sues Justice Department Over Secret Customer Data Searches

#36

Post by djsumdog »

tshtf wrote: post #5
dcgudeman wrote: post #2

'Microsoft’s filing zeroes in on a provision of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, written in 1986. The company argues that indefinite gag orders violate the First Amendment right to inform customers about the search of their files “as soon as secrecy is no longer required.” Additionally, the suit claims that the law “flouts” Fourth Amendment requirements that the government give notice to people when their p…

Amazon promised bi-annual transparency reports here: https://blogs.aws.amazon.com/security/blog/tag/Transparency+... However only one report (covering a 6-month period) has was issued and posted in the initial blog post on June 2015. None have followed: http://d0.awsstatic.com/certifications/Information_Request_R...

Maybe they got served a letter and it's all dead canary.

(more likely the people who decided that all have new jobs now)

Re: Microsoft Sues Justice Department Over Secret Customer Data Searches

#37

Post by djsumdog »

bpodgursky wrote: post #16
nkw wrote: post #15

As much as it is generally reviled (especially by those who hang around the Internet) I bet the Citizens United decision will help Microsoft a bit in this suit as it reaffirmed First Amendment speech protections do apply to corporate speakers especially in the context of political speech. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

Most of those who are against Citizens United do not understand how chilling to free speech the alternative would be. Hint: there's a reason the ACLU believes Citizens United was the right decision.

Citizens United was about a small outfit making a Clinton doco, yes. But the trouble was the decision didn't have to be as broad as it was. They could have limited the scope and achieved a similar effect.

Political parties are very interesting in the sense that they are not public; not really at all. (but they should be). That's an argument for stricter laws when specifically dealing with speech and campaigns.

Keep in mind, free speech has limits. Obscenity, classified material, threats of harm ... Free speech in the US, although more complete than many other nations, is still restricted.

Re: Microsoft Sues Justice Department Over Secret Customer Data Searches

#38

Post by thegasman »

_delirium wrote: post #23
cmdrfred wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So in a word where money != speech, speech is impacted negatively?

There are a variety of anti-Citizens-United positions, but the strongest (and most problematic) one is that corporations are not people, and the Bill of Rights secures rights only to people, therefore the First Amendment is inapplicable to corporations. That would, at the very least, require a revision in important precedents like New York Times Co. v. Sullivan [1], which assume that the First Amendment is applicable…

Corporations are people. They are taxed like people, they break laws like people, and they own property like people.

They just can't vote.

Re: Microsoft Sues Justice Department Over Secret Customer Data Searches

#39

Post by r0m4n0 »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #27
tshtf wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon promised bi-annual transparency reports here: https://blogs.aws.amazon.com/security/blog/tag/Transparency+... However only one report (covering a 6-month period) has was issued and posted in the initial blog post on June 2015. None have followed: http://d0.awsstatic.com/certifications/Information_Request_R...

Bezos talks a good game. He's got a record of promising to work for things like patent reform without much follow-through.

I can speak personally to a warrant Amazon literally said "no thanks" to. It took a while for me discover (and Amazon never informed me it occurred) but later in court, officials released Amazon's denial of the warrant on grounds of being too wide sweeping and vague. I will upload it later and redact all the details...

The exact same verbiage was used for a few other companies including Comcast who bent over backwards to lower their dragnet.

This statement by Bezos rings really true to me and they will keep my business.

Re: Microsoft Sues Justice Department Over Secret Customer Data Searches

#40

Post by function_seven »

wfunction wrote: post #26
tshtf wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon promised bi-annual transparency reports here: https://blogs.aws.amazon.com/security/blog/tag/Transparency+... However only one report (covering a 6-month period) has was issued and posted in the initial blog post on June 2015. None have followed: http://d0.awsstatic.com/certifications/Information_Request_R...

Maybe they meant biennial rather than biannual?

I always thought those two terms were equivalent, and that "semiannual" was the every-six-months one. Turns out I as wrong.[1]

[1] http://writersrelief.com/blog/2011/05/biannual-biennial-or-s...

Post reply on HN