
Microsoft Allowed to Sue U.S. Government Over E-mail Surveillance - pcs
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-09/microsoft-can-pursue-suit-over-u-s-sneak-and-peek-searches
======
KirinDave
Microsoft has an interesting stance here. As EU entities are major customers
for both Windows and Azure, they're working quite hard to make sure to assure
these parties that the US Government doesn't have undue influence over them.

They're adding secure links and solutions they cannot eavesdrop on to Azure,
and getting pretty aggressive with pushing back against US surveillance.

The US benefits from EU privacy laws even without being there.

~~~
johnchristopher
I agree with your analysis but what happens when China or a country like NK is
the new economic powerhouse to please over EU ? Will US companies lobby the US
the other way then ?

It's the Stallman argument again: don't defend privacy (free software) because
it's convenient (hey, it's free and high tech enough), defend privacy because
it's a principle that aligns with your ethics, not your economic interests.

~~~
cmiles74
I don't believe corporations can really have ethics in any meaningful way. For
sure there are people who work there, often with a good amount of control, who
may be ethical. On the whole, however, they report to boards or committees. In
my opinion, it's much easier for a group of people to talk themselves out of
acting ethically.

Having economic interests line up with corporate interests sounds as good as
it gets, to me.

~~~
Retric
Companies often act ethical when the rules support this. If you tax pollution
or other externalities then company's take them into account. And people
generally prefer working with ethical companies which is a bonus. However when
you don't tax pollution companies that act unethically have a huge advantage
and win driving more unethical behavior.

------
awinter-py
Their argument that cloud can't survive invasion of privacy is probably right,
but ignoring government, cloud operators threaten the privacy of their own
users.

G and MSFT both have stories from the early days when their employees went
into cloud email accounts to check up on users. In G's case it was a rogue
sysadmin stalking some high school kids, for MSFT it was looking at a
journalist's hotmail acct to prosecute a leak.

The NSA has their own version of this, LOVEINT, where analysts stalk their
significant others (or desireds or exes).

I can't think of any guarantee a company can provide to say this isn't
happening, esp on social platforms. Crypto-based platforms _might_ do it (see
the danish sugar beet auction, which uses a form of secure multiparty
computation) but that's not MSFT's argument here. Also unclear how crypto
platforms affect the ability to roll out new features and debug.

~~~
sergers
Back in summer 2006 between semesters, I worked at a Microsoft call center for
Hotmail plus/premium (people/companies who paid premium account, and some ISP
rebranded Hotmail accounts).

We had full access to billing, we also had full access to people's accounts.
We could look at emails, look at deleted items weeks after del (restore in
rare circumstances).

The thing is we didnt mess around. The tools to do this are heavily logged and
audited.

There was an incident of guy looking into his gf account.

Within a week the guy was repramanded and let go.

~~~
awinter-py
what did he do with his girlfriend's information, and how was it discovered
that he looked?

Do you know if she was ever told? If yes, what was her reaction?

~~~
striking
> > The tools to do this are heavily logged and audited.

> how was it discovered that he looked?

That's how they figured it out. Because someone who wasn't fulfilling a
support ticket accessed an email account.

------
drodgers
That the free speech arguments are going ahead is nice, but the judge also
hammered another nail into the coffin of the 4th amendment:

 _Robart rejected the tech giant’s argument that the so-called sneak-and-peek
searches amount to an unlawful search and seizure of property. Former Attorney
General Loretta Lynch had argued that federal law allows the Justice
Department to obtain electronic communications without disclosure of a
specific warrant if it would endanger an individual or an investigation._

~~~
ZenoArrow
It takes more than a judge's comments to change a constitution.

~~~
yarou
True, but a judge's job is to _interpret_ the Constitition.

~~~
ZenoArrow
Sure, but different judges are free to interpret the constitution without
reference to specific interpretations. Therefore, it's not a nail in the
coffin of the 4th amendment, it's just a temporary misuse (IMO).

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> Sure, but different judges are free to interpret the constitution without
reference to specific interpretations.

Aren't the lower courts subject to the interpretations of the higher courts?

~~~
ZenoArrow
For rulings, yes, though they can be overturned:

[http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-
court-c...](http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-
cases.htm)

Is what we're seeing here a ruling, or merely a dismissal of a claim before
the trial starts?

------
portref
Dog and pony show from enthusiastic PRISM partners.

"We've changed, honest!"

~~~
37
In the time of _fake news_ and _alternative facts_ , it is quite difficult to
discern who is telling the truth and who isn't. After the revelations of
programs like PRISM and XKeyscore it has become undeniable.

I think the general population is beginning to realize this. Obviously it
takes time for people to understand things, but this information is years old
at this point.

The question now is, "what do we do about it?"

~~~
criddell
> what do we do about it

Which _we_ are you asking about?

Since this is HN, I'm guessing you are asking about technologists and
founders. I would say they should end surveillance on their users. Stop using
ad-tech and analytics that tracks users. Log as little as you possibly can.
Stop with the excessive rights grabs over your user's data.

But HN is also a lot of people like me - typical users. To them I would say
use ad-blockers every where. Use HTTPS everywhere. When you are asked to give
up privacy, consider what you are getting in return. For me, I'm comfortable
with using Google services because it feels like I'm getting a lot. But with
Windows 10, I'm giving up a lot of privacy for nothing in return.

I have no idea what to say about people like my parents. They have no problem
with universal surveillance. Privacy is important only for protecting
themselves from fraud. Same goes for my kids. They care even less about
privacy than my parents.

~~~
tracker1
re: windows 10... for most people it was a free major OS upgrade, increased
security, modern browser with more frequent updates. I feel it was worth it as
a free (as in direct monetary cost to me) upgrade.

I've got mixed feelings about the amount of telemetry data they collect.. I
don't use cortana, and have disabled most of the options I can disable
regarding this. That said, I mostly like the new UI/UX, and would prefer to
have friends and family on a version of windows that is clearly better
supported moving forward.

I wouldn't say that is _nothing_ ... I also run a mac laptop, and my most used
home PC, is the htpc connected to my tv running Ubuntu. Android phone and
tablet... I'm not only using windows, but can appreciate what it does offer in
trade for that privacy concern.

~~~
criddell
I too like Windows 10. I just wish Microsoft would charge what they need to
charge and make sharing optional. At first the enterprise edition had switches
to turn off the data sharing but as I understand it, even enterprise edition
users have to let Microsoft watch them work now.

You're right though - lots of people did get it as a free upgrade. I'm not
sure I'd like Microsoft off the hook though since a significant number were
tricked into it. Plus I think my point applies even more aptly to users that
didn't upgrade to W10. Microsoft added the data sharing features into Windows
7 and 8. So they literally were essentially forced into sharing private data
with Microsoft for nothing in return.

------
CaptSpify
It's very rare that I say this, but go Microsoft!

------
Fej
We will have our Fourth Amendment. I'm actually not surprised it's Microsoft
leading the charge here. After all, if they capitulate, their presence in the
EU will be greatly diminished.

------
Zak
It seems to me that requiring fixed end dates for the gag orders would greatly
mitigate the problem. It would be possible to extend them, individually, for
cause.

------
ngold
I wonder how this will play out in other tech arenas.

------
Sami_Lehtinen
Some companies are smart and run EU & US operations completely separately.
This is exactly why they're doing it.

