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

Microsoft will give the FBI a Windows PC data encryption key if ordered

windowscentral.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 346 posts

Re: Microsoft will give the FBI a Windows PC data encryption key if ordered

#301

Post by heavyset_go »

TZubiri wrote: post #221
Zak wrote: post #140

The headline is misleading. It says that Microsoft will provide the key if asked , but the linked statement to Forbes says Microsoft will provide the key if it receives a valid legal order . These have different meanings. Microsoft is legally entitled to refuse a request from law enforcement, and subject to criminal penalties if it refuses a valid legal order. It does illustrate a significant vulnerability in that Mi…

The latter is not news, it's the way it has been for quite some time, not just for IT providers, but for businesses in general. If you are running any kind of service, you should learn how warrants work in the country you are hosting in, come the time, if your service grows, eventually you will have to comply with an order. If you want anything else you will have to design your system such that you can't even see the…

CALEA and courts have compelled companies to install systems that allow them to track/record targets' communications and data, even if their own systems weren't designed with such abilities in mind.

From[1]:

> USA telecommunications providers must install new hardware or software, as well as modify old equipment, so that it doesn't interfere with the ability of a law enforcement agency (LEA) to perform real-time surveillance of any telephone or Internet traffic.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_...

Re: Microsoft will give the FBI a Windows PC data encryption key if ordered

#303

Post by yellowapple »

da_chicken wrote: post #271
1718627440 wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Microsoft is legally entitled to refuse a request from law enforcement, and subject to criminal penalties if it refuses a valid legal order. This is a problem, because Microsoft operates in a lot of jurisdictions, but one of them always wants to be the exception and claims that it has jurisdiction over all the others. Not that I personally am of the opinion, that it is wise for the other jurisdiction to trust Micro…

You're arguing for corporate sovereignty. I think you need to rethink your position.

I don't think corporate sovereignty is needed for that; just blowing up Microsoft into a bunch of independently-operating entities, one per relevant jurisdiction.

Re: Microsoft will give the FBI a Windows PC data encryption key if ordered

#304

Post by danans »

amelius wrote: post #264
danans wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When someone is arrested, the police can get a subpoena to enter your house, right? That's a warrant. A subpoena is an order to appear in court.

And by the way ICE officers can still enter your house even if they don't have a warrant. Apparently.

Yeah, one wonders what a warrant actually means at this point.

Re: Microsoft will give the FBI a Windows PC data encryption key if ordered

#305

Post by synecdoche »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #252
lqstuart wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don’t like the behavior of a company voluntarily doing something, your problem is with that company. If you don’t like a company complying with the law, your problem is with the law. It is unreasonable to expect anyone or any company to break the law or violate a court order to protect you. If you don’t trust the institutions issuing those court orders, that is an entirely reasonable stance but it should be ad…

> The fourth amendment protects against warrantless search and seizure, it is not carte blanche to fill up your hard drive with child porn and expect Microsoft to fall on their swords to protect you. I was understanding and felt your points had validity until you threw out this gross, emotionally manipulative, horrible misrepresentation of my stance.

Only if you see it as that. More charitable is to see it as an example and clear case to illustrate of what might be beyond coverage of the amendment.

Re: Microsoft will give the FBI a Windows PC data encryption key if ordered

#306

Post by Dylan16807 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #280
Dylan16807 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's why full disk encryption was always a no-go for approximately all computer users, and recommending it to someone not highly versed in technology was borderline malicious. Do you feel equally strongly about people using drives that can fail? Is selling a computer without redundant drives also borderline malicious? > In the real world, there is always a recovery path. To accounts there is. But data gets lost a…

> Do you feel equally strongly about people using drives that can fail? Is selling a computer without redundant drives also borderline malicious? No. Drives wear out and fail, like all hardware. Much like the compressor in your fridge, or V-belt in your car, you can extend the service life of your drive through proper care, and replace it when it fails to keep the system running. And in practice, hard drives are reli…

> And in practice, hard drives are reliable enough that, with typical usage patterns, most people don't need RAID

And most people aren't going to forget a password they put in almost every day that never changes. I don't see why that kind of full disk encryption is so bad.

Re: Microsoft will give the FBI a Windows PC data encryption key if ordered

#308

Post by Spooky23 »

seemaze wrote: post #283
Spooky23 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, you’re just not reading carefully. You must parse everything about this stuff carefully as the words are always crafted. It’s usually more productive to read with a goal to understand what isn’t said as opposed to what is said. They said “legal order”, which includes a variety of things ranging from administrative subpoenas to judicial warrants. Generally they say warrant if that was used. A “request” is “Hi Mic…

>the article states that Microsoft only gets 20 a year, and is responsive to 9 or fewer requests. Apple seems to get more and typically is more responsive. That just makes me think that Windows is generally less secure and there are likely a larger number of instances where the AHJ doesn't have to request help from Microsoft to access the data.

Definitely possible.

It just seems like a very low number considering the hundreds of millions or billions of Windows devices.

Re: Microsoft will give the FBI a Windows PC data encryption key if ordered

#309

Post by seanhunter »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #103
cornholio wrote: post #45

Beyond the crypto architecture debate, I don't really understand how could anyone imagine a world where MS could just refuse such a request. How exactly would we draft laws to this effect, "the authorities can subpoena for any piece of evidence, except when complying to such a request might break the contractual obligations of a third party towards the suspect"? Do we really, really, fully understand the implications…

> How exactly would we draft laws to this effect, "the authorities can subpoena for any piece of evidence, except when complying to such a request might break the contractual obligations of a third party towards the suspect"? Perhaps in this case they should be required to get a warrant rather than a subpoena?

A subpoena (specifically a subpoena duces tecum[1]) is the legal instrument that a court or other legal agency uses to compel someone to provide evidence. Seems entirely appropriate in this case.

[1] The other kind is subpoena testificandum, which compels someone to testify.

Re: Microsoft will give the FBI a Windows PC data encryption key if ordered

#310

Post by hugh-avherald »

chaps wrote: post #241
Zak wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect businesses to spend money fighting court orders for customer data, especially if the orders are more or less reasonable. They do seem to be reasonable in the case that brought about this reporting, with substantial evidence that the suspects committed fraud and that evidence is on the devices in question.

Heh, I subpoena'd Microsoft once in part of some FOIA litigation I did against the White House OMB back in 2017. They, in no unclear terms, denied it. We were seeking documentation. I realize it's not a court order, but just want to add to the stack that there are examples of them being requested to provide something within the public's interest in a legal context (a FOIA lawsuit) where their counsel pushed back by s…

How did you sub poena Microsoft without a court order? Are you saying the court denied your application for an order to produce after Microsoft objected?
Post reply on HN