I'm a little suspicious though. Why is Microsoft pushing so hard for this? What's in it for them?
> What's in it for them
The very lucrative European business market. If they can't be assured that their data is safe with Microsoft (and out of US govt hands), they will naturally move to using non-US based competitors.
Compliance is important and because we occasionally have to handle production data inhouse this has far-reaching consequences.
It's not just that we can't use US-based cloud services for production. We can't use them for anything. Anything like slack, gsuite, jira cloud are not suitable for handling the sensitive data. Even something as simple as using recaptcha required vetting by our data protection officer.
I understand that there are more risks to moving data around but some companies will be better than you are at a thing.
It's very dependent on what your risks are. Data integrity is a big one, though non-siezability by US govt is important to others.
The text is very broad, and it has been argued that it's a stealth protectionism measure. For me to be able to do business with US-based cloud providers next year, the US law needs to change so that if an account has a "this refers to an EU citizen" bit set, that completely prevents US courts and law enforcement from acquiring any information about it without proving probable cause at an EU court of a specific crime that is of sufficient severity and criminal in both EU and the US. I don't believe that will happen.
1. They comply with quite a number of information requests , even if they seem to oppose the weakening of legislation in place or overly-broad requests.
The NSLs under FISA are particularly concerning, because they can't even report the number they receive, only "within certain ranges set by the government". This is the same for all US companies, and Amazon are more upfront than most, but it's also a reason for avoiding a US company like Amazon.
2. Location. Where is your data? AWS' regions are quite broad in the legal sense, and sometimes crosses borders that your data would not be allowed to (X-data must remain in Y-region, cannot be copied or transferred). However, determining whether or not your data would cross such a border can be quite difficult.
Basically, if you provide SaaS for corporate customers and handle their PII (HR records, occasionally some medical data attached) then the intersection of various demands ends up fairly restrictive.
Presumably the business mandate is that they want to sell their cloud solutions (particularly for stuff like Outlook) to customers who don't look favorably upon the US getting access to all their data with a mere subpoena & not even being informed about it.
The Justice Department is not the White House, a fact that the primary current occupant of the latter has, publicly and repeatedly, bemoaned.
I'll add that a rule changed by the Justice Dept can be changed again. A law may be needed.
It wouldn't be the first time someone who thought they might lose backed down to avoid setting a precedent. Police departments did it with cases where people challenged the use of Stingrays, for example.
I.E. This seems a lawfare move to step back general gag use, so that they can step forward again in specific gag use, rather than risk losing and finding future gags severely restricted. Microsoft is being polite because sometimes it might be reasonable for government to gag a subpoena, without it being a national security issue.
I'm not sure it's entirely newspeak. If you look at the list of departments that were gathered together to form DHS , it does make some sense to have them all in the same organization.
DHS was made after 9-11 in 2001 by rolling a lot of other agencies together with a new overarching executive agency.
Is this a statement thing?
It's just an anglified états-unien (and similar in many languages).
In March the Obama administration denied it for months. Now it is a matter of fact.
Sniff. I remember when I was young and idealistic.
The Obama administration was clever enough to investigate people around Trump such that they would have pretty much everything he said in the can.
What was highly irregular, and arguably illegal, was Susan Rice at the NSC authorizing the "unmasking" of the people involved as well as a wide intergovernmental distribution. She really had no business doing that, and it effectively leaked every aspect of the investigation.
Well, maybe not now, the damage is done. But it would've, and in time US tech companies' reputation will be repaired. As a foreigner, it doesn't seem like the repair process has started yet. Hope I'm wrong.
I clearly see that generic flamebaiting is forbidden, yet how is simply humor (even if being abrasive to part of US population who can read in between the lines and downvoted to abyss) counted towards it.
Somebody clearly didn't like my comment, it got flagged, it got downvoted, but I feel not that this amounts rule violation. I always sought of HN as being better at treating unpopular, yet correct comments than other places
Americans, the argumentation for interception correspondence and private life perlustration provided by your 3 letter services and whole executive branch in general is laughable.
They talk about busting terror cells, then proceed to dig your personal data on facebook or somebody's very very private Snapchat conversations, as if Osama Bin Laden, with his alleged $ billions in the bank, has nothing else to do than writing a web diary with all his plans exposed in plain sight or sexting with his groupies.
The prime interest of this STASI style mass perlustration are not the so called "terrorists," but your and other citizens private life, and it is laughable for anybody to claim that this is anything other than that.
And it looks even more laughable when somebody goes beyond not only taking that as given, but even tries to insinuate a posh opposition and say to US government "you are not doing the mass domestic espionage in constitutionally correct way, you should do mass surveillance differently" as if mass surveillance can be ever become legal in USA.
Microsoft probably sees and routinely fulfills thousands of data perlustration requests a months, but rather than saying "What you do is fucking illegal, you will get that data only over my dead body," they say "Dear uncle Sam, we have a lot of dirt on you, and in particular the request no. 9877989 with very weak legal argumentation in it, play nicer with us in the future"
I doubt anyone on this site disagrees with you. We're not the ones you need to yell at.