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

Microsoft calls for dismissal of U.S. Supreme Court privacy fight

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 79 posts

Re: Microsoft calls for dismissal of U.S. Supreme Court privacy fight

#31

Post by da_chicken »

mtgx wrote: post #7

I was afraid this was going to happen, after Microsoft became one of the primary supporters of the CLOUD Act recently. https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/03/21/microso... It's also the second time in the last few months that Microsoft has settled with the government instead of pushing forward the privacy fight. The government pinky-promised that it wouldn't abuse the gag orders anymore, and that's all it…

This isn't Microsoft's fault. Don't blame Microsoft because they're unwilling to continue a case which what just rendered moot.

The law changed and the case now lacks merit. The legal question at issue in the SCotUS case can't magically include the CLOUD Act. That's not how the courts work. Microsoft will have to start over and file complaints against data requests under the CLOUD Act, but since that involves a different question of law this case before SCotUS is moot. Regardless of the decision in this case, the Federal government could just make another request under the CLOUD Act.

Re: Microsoft calls for dismissal of U.S. Supreme Court privacy fight

#32

Post by mtgx »

craigc wrote: post #4

It is really sad and disturbing to me how little coverage the CLOUD act has gotten. A law was passed quietly that was snuck into page 2,201 of an unrelated spending/budget bill just before Congress voted on it to allow warrantless surveillance by foreign governments and law enforcement on any US citizen, and not one mainstream media source has written about it. It was signed into law by Trump just a couple days later…

Not just a lack of media coverage, but no debate in Congress either. The bill was sneaked into the omnibus spending bill. That sort of thing is usually reserved for a certain type of bills (and I don't mean just budget bills, sadly) ...

Re: Microsoft calls for dismissal of U.S. Supreme Court privacy fight

#33

Post by olympus »

gm-conspiracy wrote: post #26
olympus wrote: post #3

While the new law isn't the best, this particular course of action based on the law seems completely reasonable. New law -> new warrant -> no reason to continue wasting government $$ on fighting a court case that now has federal law clarifying the issues. Microsoft gets to save some money as well.

No warrant needed now. That is part of the problem

The article specifically says the Justice department is dripping the case because they have a new warrant and Microsoft is complying.

Re: Microsoft calls for dismissal of U.S. Supreme Court privacy fight

#35

Post by mtreis86 »

buvanshak wrote: post #23
mtreis86 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Random stuff isn't what soldiers risk their lives for. Many see their community as an extension of their family. Others are idealistic. Some didn't realize the risk. It isn't random though.

> Random stuff isn't what soldiers risk their lives for. I mean orders from higher authorities. Are the soldiers given reason or entitled for one? They are just supposed to obey, right?

Yes they are given reasons, volunteers tend to fight better that way. They are supposed to obey but they, in the USA anyways, swore to protect the constitution.

"They suffered and they did their duty so a sheltered homeland can enjoy the peace that was purchased at such a high cost." Eugene Sledge

Re: Microsoft calls for dismissal of U.S. Supreme Court privacy fight

#36

Post by wu-ikkyu »

tsmarsh wrote: post #29
tdhoot wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> warrantless surveillance by foreign governments and law enforcement on any US citizen Source? I only see that it allows foreign governments to get information on their own citizens, even if that information is stored on US soil.

It’s edge cases like this that make me wonder about the whole concept of nations. It makes citizens sound like property / cattle. “I believe my cow pooped on your lawn. I demand the right to inspect your lawn for my cows poop to retrieve the poop. Expect further consultation if we decide you illegally benefited from that poop. I don’t care that you are ok with the poop or that the cow came to your lawn and pooped the…

National boundaries are kaput on the World Wide Web.

Re: Microsoft calls for dismissal of U.S. Supreme Court privacy fight

#37

Post by PurpleBoxDragon »

sbov wrote: post #34

Why does this sort of thing not require an amendment to the constitution?

Because the current 9 people, who are not at all in touch with either the original writers or the current population, get total say in what the Constitution actually says. It is just like the rulings that allowed obscenity exception to the first amendment, a fully automatic exception to the second amendment, or for the commerce clause to apply to a person growing food for their own animals to eat,

Now, maybe in this case the 9 will claim it does require an amendment, but so many current exceptions and weird interpretations have been allowed that I can't have faith in the decisions of the 9.

Re: Microsoft calls for dismissal of U.S. Supreme Court privacy fight

#38

Post by perpetualpatzer »

strstr wrote: post #10

Just going to give a shout out to the openness of the Supreme Court oral arguments. You can find them directly from the Supreme Court ( https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio/2... ) or in Podcast form ( https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/u-s-supreme-court-oral-a... ). First Mondays ( http://www.firstmondays.fm ) did an interview with Microsoft's Chief Legal Officer about the Supreme Court case an…

Agree that this isn't as surprising or impactful as others are reporting and strongly second your audio recommendations.

For the oral arguments, check out Oyez (https://www.oyez.org). I like it much better because it:

* has argument audio from cases going back 50+ years (as compared to 8 yrs on scotus.gov), so you can listen to big cases from before 2010 (e.g. Citizens United), and when modern cases draw heavily on prior decisions, you can go back and listen to the reasoning in the previous case (e.g. Vieth for Gill/Benisek, Bakke for Fisher).

* has the audio synced to the court transcript, which helps identify voices and follow when there's poor audio quality.

* has audio of opinion announcements when they're given (so you know the outcome and reasoning of the decision without looking it up)

* lets you sort by popularity, which makes it easier to find the cases that are important and interesting rather than merely politically charged.

Re: Microsoft calls for dismissal of U.S. Supreme Court privacy fight

#39

Post by mercer »

justinclift wrote: post #28
jstanley wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> added mandatory uploading and sharing of random end user docs to Win 10. What does this mean? Does Windows 10 automatically upload randomly-selected Word documents to Microsoft? Or something else?

Windows 10 is known to upload random end user docs to Microsoft. For example, if a computer with Win10 on it crashes / has some level of fault (etc), it can upload docs it determines are related to MS (to assist diagnosis). To bad if those docs happen to be medical records - or anything else sensitive. :( Note - that's just one example. Win 10 really is a privacy shit show.

Can this functionality be turned off?

Re: Microsoft calls for dismissal of U.S. Supreme Court privacy fight

#40

Post by liberte82 »

tsmarsh wrote: post #29
tdhoot wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> warrantless surveillance by foreign governments and law enforcement on any US citizen Source? I only see that it allows foreign governments to get information on their own citizens, even if that information is stored on US soil.

It’s edge cases like this that make me wonder about the whole concept of nations. It makes citizens sound like property / cattle. “I believe my cow pooped on your lawn. I demand the right to inspect your lawn for my cows poop to retrieve the poop. Expect further consultation if we decide you illegally benefited from that poop. I don’t care that you are ok with the poop or that the cow came to your lawn and pooped the…

Once corporations start deciding it's cheaper to just provide their own healthcare to its workers rather than going through the broken American system, watch out. Corporate fascism is the new feudalism.
Post reply on HN