
Microsoft and Law Enforcement Transparency - mwadams
http://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2015/03/27/when-transparency-alone-isnt-enough/
======
nvk
How about plugging the hole you made on Skype? That would be a great start :)

ie.

[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/11/snowden_leak_shows_m...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/11/snowden_leak_shows_microsoft_added_outlookencryption_backdoor_for_feds/)

[http://www.cnet.com/news/nsa-docs-boast-now-we-can-
wiretap-s...](http://www.cnet.com/news/nsa-docs-boast-now-we-can-wiretap-
skype-video-calls/)

[http://www.slashgear.com/microsoft-unlocked-skype-chat-
backd...](http://www.slashgear.com/microsoft-unlocked-skype-chat-backdoor-tip-
insiders-26240382/)

~~~
LLWM
They're just asking for the laws to be changed, actual civil disobedience is a
bit beyond that.

~~~
Zigurd
It would not be civil disobedience. There's no law requiring you to turn over
cleartext if you don't have it, and Skype used to be structured such that, not
only was cleartext not recoverable, there was no practical way to find the
Skype packets.

~~~
LLWM
Sure, I'm reading between the lines a little here. But they deliberately
restructured skype to be less secure and more expensive. Unless your opinion
of MS's competence is really THAT low, it seems reasonable to conclude that
they were compelled to make the change.

~~~
Zigurd
Induced, convinced... but without a law "compelled?"

~~~
LLWM
Sure. Otherwise they would fix it.

------
rubbingalcohol
It's good to finally see Microsoft step up on surveillance reform. Obama and
Cameron's plan to mandate backdoors and outlaw end-to-end encryption will only
hurt the tech industry in the long run. Here's hoping Microsoft puts their
lobbyists where their blog post is.

~~~
DiabloD3
I agree, especially when we already have laws (HIPPA, PCI DSS, etc) that
basically already require end to end encryption that cannot have backdoors.

And, I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure the financial and healthcare sectors (and
any vendors that work for them, ie, every major vendor including Microsoft and
Google and Amazon) would just ignore Obama and Cameron: being fined by the
government for using real encryption is a lot less money than being sued by
your customers who rely on certain standards.

Due to the political climate lately on HN, I expect to be downvoted, but I
don't care. The sooner we dump this political baggage the better, its simply
not profitable to keep kowtowing to the Republican Party and the foreign
equivalents.

~~~
austincheney
To be clear Obama is not a member of the Republican party. You mention Obama
specifically and then dumping "this political baggage" and follow it up with
the "Republican Party".

~~~
venomsnake
On Surveillance, war on terror, war on drugs and war for fun, Obama is
republican. All his policies are continuation of Bush era ones. They diverge
on social issues.

~~~
Gregordinary
Regarding the war on terror and foreign policy in general:

Bush-era policy was actually a 180 from what he campaigned on in 2000. Bush
campaigned on a non-interventionist foreign policy while Al Gore pushed for
"Nation Building". Nation building was consistent with operations and
campaigns carried out during the Clinton administration. Clinton signed the
Iraq Liberation Act making it the official policy of the United States to
support regime change in Iraq. A few months after signing we carried out the
Operation Desert Fox bombing campaign in Iraq. There were other operations and
similar polices as well.

Granted you can probably continue this line back through George H.W. Bush and
prior, but my point is I'm not sure Obama's policies on surveillance, war on
terror, & war on drugs are all republican stances. Rather they are a
continuation and expansion of policy that has been in effect at the national
level for decades. Party is irrelevant.

~~~
venomsnake
I stand corrected. Anyway the inclusion of Obama in the debate was
appropriate.

