
Microsoft battles US over warrant for drugs case emails - ryan_j_naughton
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34185575#
======
junto
Microsoft deserves most of the criticism it has received over the years, but
in this case it deserves a pat on the back.

It is not easy to stand up to the US government. Many smaller firms do not
have the clout nor the funds to do so.

In making this stand, it will hopefully set a legal precedent, to make sure
that the USG abide by the rules of international law.

Here is the EFF's opinion on the matter:
[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/09/eff-applauds-apples-
re...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/09/eff-applauds-apples-refusal-
government-demand-imessage-backdoor)

Microsoft are not the only company batlling with the USG over user privacy,
Apple (iMessage and other user data) is also making a stand:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/us/politics/apple-and-
othe...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/us/politics/apple-and-other-tech-
companies-tangle-with-us-over-access-to-data.html)

~~~
Spearchucker
I suspect that for organisations like Microsoft and Apple it's about
profitability. If they can't protect their non-US clients' data they stand to
lose those clients. That loss must surely be greater than the legal cost of
"standing up to the US government".

~~~
junto
All corporations have a primary responsibility to benefit their shareholders.
That they can combine it with a noble cause is an added bonus.

Quite honestly, I don't think they would lose that many clients. The USG has
been trampling over the rights of non-US citizens for years. Snowden's leaks
showed just how bad that is. The truth is that the vast majority of those
people don't care enough to do anything about it.

Even people who do care (and are technologically minded) still have their
Gmail, Yahoo and Hotmail email accounts and online file storage. The effort
required to change is greater than the threat to their privacy.

That will not change until the loss of their privacy actually has a visible
and impactful effect upon those people. I.e. people start being persecuted by
the government for their beliefs or actions in private.

Modern western government's are too smart for that though. Those kind of non-
subtle sledgehammer tactics don't work in a society where bad publicity can't
be controlled. As an example, see the UK government's U-turn on immigration
policy after the public's reaction to a photo of a two year old drowned
immigrants's child on a Greek beach laying face down in the waves.

~~~
SixSigma
> All corporations have a primary responsibility to benefit their
> shareholders.

This is false. The mission statement of the company lays out its
responsibility and what shareholders can expect. Shareholders choose to invest
or not. A not-for-profit company is an example.

~~~
dyladan
A not for profit company still benefits the shareholders. The benefit is just
not monetary.

~~~
Dylan16807
That's not the definition of 'benefit' that junto was using. Let's focus on
claims, not wording.

------
phkahler
There is a continuing theme here. It's not about warrants or jurisdictions or
cooperation. Its secrecy. They don't want to ask for help from Ireland because
they want to do things in secret. They don't really want to get a warrant
either, but MS can and has required at least that much. End to end encryption
bothers them, not because it's unbreakable, but because they'd need to get a
warrant to search the persons stuff at the end node - and that would violate
their ability to snoop in secret. Granted, once you search one guys stuff, the
other bad guys will know you're on to them. But at the end of the day the
agenda seems to be a desire for secrecy (and autonomy). There are pros and
cons to that, I'm just pointing out what they're really after.

------
Nitramp
What's particularly worrying to me is that the US government has repeatedly
applied very odd standards in cases like these. E.g. for a long time,
government agencies upheld that they were allowed to read anybody's email
without even obtaining a warrant, as long as the email is stored in the cloud.

Giving a country with such low legal standards and civil rights protection
access to large swaths of all data is wrong.

~~~
schoen
In case people think you're making this up, the issue is about opened e-mails
older than 180 days under the Stored Communications Act.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stored_Communications_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stored_Communications_Act)

(The government's view is that the Stored Communications Act, even with this
exception, is much _more_ protective than what would be constitutionally
required, because of the third party doctrine, which says that
constitutionally you don't have any expectation of privacy in information that
you gave to a third party.)

------
throwaway1967
What Microsoft should do is put a business moratorium on the US government and
refuse to do business with them. Refuse to sell them any products, to equip
them in any way whatsoever. All branches of government, all levels of
government, should be denied access to Microsoft's product.

That would fix this and many other problems in one fell swoop.

~~~
adventured
It wouldn't. The US Government is extraordinarily dangerous and powerful. In
the case of Microsoft taking such action:

1) The Feds have the guns. That specifically includes the general threat of
guns-out federal agents storming the Microsoft campus for trumped up reasons
to make a raw show of power. Microsoft's stock would plunge.

2) They have the IRS, Homeland Security, DOJ, FCC, FTC, SEC, and every other
agency they could possibly need to break Microsoft's leadership and its board
of directors. It would be done within a month and would be tragically easy.

Just the smallest potential of this type of scenario would have MSFT
shareholders shitting their collective pants.

The US Government directly lords over all interstate commerce, in dozens of
ways. They could, within the span of a few days, rule that Microsoft was
impeding interstate commerce, posing a danger to national security, and they
could order federal agents to take control of Microsoft; that wouldn't occur,
it would merely be hinted at, at which point most of the board would
immediately resign as would the CEO; the US Government would then watch as a
new temporary board and CEO is installed. The US Government is able to force
ports open - if need be - on the same basis they would use to force Microsoft
'open.' They could do it with either a soft touch, or be as forceful as
necessary.

~~~
iribe
Also, you can argue that Google has been punished for daring to stand up to
the US government (for example wanting to warn wikileaks about surveillance of
its employees). Perhaps it's coincidence, but the Obama administration
recently sided with Oracle in its litigation against Google. That is the sort
of thing you can expect when going against the US government. Also, you give
up help when it comes to things like antitrust lawsuits.

------
mtgx
Could be relevant:

[http://www.dw.com/en/europeans-allowed-to-sue-over-
privacy-b...](http://www.dw.com/en/europeans-allowed-to-sue-over-privacy-
breaches-in-new-eu-us-data-agreement/a-18702437)

------
XzetaU8
Because dublin is such a safe heaven to store data.

[https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/uk-spy-
base-g...](https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/uk-spy-base-gchq-
tapped-irish-internet-cables-1.2019492)

~~~
secfirstmd
Yeh, we in Ireland have been a target for GCHQ for decades, long before PRISM
and ECHELON. However, it doesn't negate the fact that the US, UK Courts don't
have the right to violate our sovereignty as they see fit. Unfortunately
politicians in Ireland would rather dig the head in the sand (as usual) on
this sort of issue.

