Microsoft Defends the Right to Inform Customers of the Government RequestsAdded: Saturday, April 16th, 2016
Category: Recent Headlines Involving File Sharing > Ridiculous Criminal Trials
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, www.extratorrent.cc, 2016
The tech giant sued the American government for the right to tell its clients that the authorities search their email inboxes.
Microsoft submitted a federal complaint in the name of the US Attorney General, arguing that the government has exploited the consumer trend for storing their private information on tech firms’ servers instead of storing it on their own devices. The company believes that this trend should not let the government search the digital storage space of a person without telling them. In response, the US government argues that doing so may tip off suspects of a criminal investigation.
Microsoft is making another attempt to lift the veil of secrecy surrounding today’s electronic surveillance. Previously, Twitter, Google and Microsoft made numerous attempts to have gag orders about surveillance requests removed. Today the tech industry has a renewed confidence in taking on the government – we are talking about Apple’s recent stare-down with the FBI.
Now Microsoft wants to prove that requesting indefinite gag orders on warrants for suspects’ emails is unconstitutional. In case of using regular searches or wiretaps, the government is usually required to notify the suspects they have been searched after some period of time. However, this doesn’t apply to digital communications like email. Instead, online communications are covered by legislation including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
Microsoft revealed that the government has forced it to maintain secrecy on more than 2,500 legal demands during the past year and a half. Moreover, in more than 2/3 of those cases, the gag order is indefinite, according to the tech giant.
Saturday, April 16th, 2016
|Whatever sins Microsoft may have committed in rising to the Top.|
This is something important and I am glad they are doing it. A search Warrant in the real world should be the same as the online world.
And it takes something with the resources of Microsoft to defend it. Which is sad but an individual could not afford it. But that is another story
|posted by (2016-04-17 08:55:33)|
|Freedom from unlawful search and seizure was so important to the founders of these United States that it is written into the Bill of Rights. They were adamant about protecting citizens from the injustices they had suffered under the British. . . And here we are today.....|
Whatif...Microsoft, Apple, Google, Twitter et al put their heads together and combined their effort on this subject?
Food for thought
|posted by (2016-04-18 05:20:49)|
|@"Previously, Twitter, Google and Microsoft made numerous attempts to have gag orders about surveillance requests removed. "|
Like they need permission, from a Court?
The lawyers for any of these companies, could have easily written terms in their end-user or privacy agreements (that precede, any, and all, order or litigation or requests for information), that they are loyal to consumers in the United States, and other countries, and pledge therein, to disclose when a request for surveillance or information is made against an account within 30 days, 90 days or 120 days of receiving an "administrative subpoena" and then also, declare a different timeline for a "specific subpoena," aimed at the name of a person or account.
Then at a later date, when the Secretary of the Treasure shows up with an administrative warrant (with a gage order attached) to spy on People broadly, such as People in a district, that do not have a high credit score, or are otherwise directing "Homeland Snuckerity" to surveil a person, business or household (because of "suspicious banking activity" that 19 year old bank-clerk reported) the company (ie: Twitter, Google and Microsoft) can just say, "hey there goverment official, we already have a contractual obligation to disclose this kind of information to our customers... you only have ... this many days as per our previous agreement with our customers."
Then after the days transpire, make the notice to the customer.
Very simple legal work: If you want to protect your customers, from intrusive "gag orders," you simply write it into your customer or end user or privacy agreement. Save the customers right to privacy, and limit the company from "pretending" like they are at the mercy of a run-away cabinet or oppressive regime.
This is like customer service 101: You want to protect your customers from unlawful administrative subpoenas with a gag order attached, ... guess what, you write that into your end user agreement.
It is not that complicated. Serve the customer first and push off the unlawful administrative warrants.
Tell the intruders if they want to act like Usurpers of Democracy, they are on barrowed time.
A big company like Google and Microsoft, can do the pushing if they have good legal counsel in the beginning.
Even a shallow company like Twitter can push back, if they have a decent lawyer who writes good terms in the privacy or end user agreement.
|posted by (2016-04-18 05:25:51)|
|Google and Microsoft are clown operations. They have the biggest legal departments and they are slow (as malasses) to dance with the People who brought them to the dance.|
|posted by (2016-04-18 05:34:30)|
|How do you say, skank lawyer, in your country? ...|
How do you say, "Head of a skanky legal department" in your country?
|posted by (2016-04-18 06:27:43)|
|Same for apple and face/spying companies.|
Apple's legal department could easily (easy-street) write "favorable" terms into end user and privacy agreements, and be a true market leader, if they were not so busy "cramming-down" (stinking) lop-sided contracts on the People of the United States and other countries, that faithfully, buy their products and upgraded technologies year over year over year.
(Slow to dance my love. What troubles befall a deer at the meadows edge?)
|posted by (2016-04-18 06:53:24)|
|Think for a moment........ Hhmmmmmm.. If a warrant can force disclosure of information that Microsoft or other has already agreed to keep private within the bounds of the terms of service; then would not a warrant also force such company to remain quite about an investigation if such a warrant so stated, despite any such statement about notifying the customer of such????||
Most Popular Stories