Microsoft Sues Justice Department Over Secret Customer Data Searches

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
According to a lawsuit filed by Microsoft, not only does the Justice Department search customer's data stored in the cloud, the feds also issue indefinite gag orders that block the company from telling you. While the searches themselves are legal, Microsoft believes the gag orders barring it from telling its customers are unconstitutional.


The suit, filed in the federal court here, raises a fundamental question about the cloud computing era: Can the government force technology companies to remain silent about when and how federal agents search their customers’ data? Individuals would know if their home or hard drive were searched by investigators, but investigators now have the ability—and are using it in thousands of cases—to keep secret their searches of data stored on the cloud.
 
Now this type of this should be handled on a case-by-case basis as you do not want to alert terrorists or criminals that you are on to them.

Otherwise, if MS or any other company help the bad guys, then they should be charged with aiding and abetting.

As long as they have a court order, I see no reason why MS or any other company should interfere with an investigation by telling their customers.
 
Secret courts should be hung from the highest trees. Indefinite gag orders are bullshit. National security is an illusion. Remember the iPhone that had to be unlocked to catch more terrorists. We're waiting.
 
Thankfully, MS has the resources to challenge these NSA letters all the way to the end. Smaller companies that have been hit by these do not have the resources to challenge the constitutionality of the gag order. Rumor has it that an NSA letter with the gag order is why Truecrypt shutdown.
 
otherweeb said:
I agree with MS. If there's a search order the defendant?searchee? has right to know
Click to expand...

I think it was a provision of the PATRIOT Act that they could do this and not tell the target, but I am not certain.
 
Krazy925 said:
Secret courts should be hung from the highest trees. Indefinite gag orders are bullshit. National security is an illusion. Remember the iPhone that had to be unlocked to catch more terrorists. We're waiting.
Click to expand...

Your comments are too open and absolute for me. The Secret Courts, meaning the FISA Court, the only secret one there is, is in fact, not secret. It just deals with secret stuff and because the name is The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court this should clue you into the fact that it's business is foreign intelligence related, not US Law Enforcement related. Everyone keeps forgetting that and the media likes to forget to mention it in their articles.

And I can tell you from my many years of experience in the field, National Security is not an illusion, it's real. Doesn't mean that it doesn't get used as an excuse or a dodge, but that doesn't invalidate it one bit.
 
lcpiper said:
I think it was a provision of the PATRIOT Act that they could do this and not tell the target, but I am not certain.
Click to expand...
It's actually part of the new USA "FREEDOM" Act, which was enacted last year and is actually a lot worse than the PATRIOT Act ever was due to its conniving language.
lcpiper said:
Ack, I can't get to the article cause I am not registered.
Click to expand...
This archive shows the whole article without any blockage.
Microsoft Sues Justice Department Over Secret Customer Data Searches …
 
Govt wants a way to wire tap every form of communication without needing a court order. Till they get it we'll keep seeing stuff like this, etc etc.
 
lcpiper said:
Your comments are too open and absolute for me. The Secret Courts, meaning the FISA Court, the only secret one there is, is in fact, not secret. It just deals with secret stuff and because the name is The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court this should clue you into the fact that it's business is foreign intelligence related, not US Law Enforcement related. Everyone keeps forgetting that and the media likes to forget to mention it in their articles.

And I can tell you from my many years of experience in the field, National Security is not an illusion, it's real. Doesn't mean that it doesn't get used as an excuse or a dodge, but that doesn't invalidate it one bit.
Click to expand...

They enforce indefinite gag orders trying to circumvent their activities from even coming to light. That's definitely secretive. That IMO is a problem. If what they are doing is noble and for our best interest than they should be open to a discourse on how it works. Instead people such as yourself show up and tell people it's not a big deal when it clearly is.

I can tell you from my years working for the federal government that they could fuck up a wet dream.
 
Krazy925 said:
They enforce indefinite gag orders trying to circumvent their activities from even coming to light. That's definitely secretive. That IMO is a problem. If what they are doing is noble and for our best interest than they should be open to a discourse on how it works. Instead people such as yourself show up and tell people it's not a big deal when it clearly is.

I can tell you from my years working for the federal government that they could fuck up a wet dream.
Click to expand...

They is a very broad word, who's they?

They in this article would be the Department of Justice right?

See, this is the issue I have with most people and their comments on these issues. They fail to specify who "they" is. Different parts of the government have different rules to follow so people need to understand this and why it's the way it is. They also need to keep such things separated in their mind, something the media purposefully takes advantage of from what I have seen.

I don't disagree that the Feds can mess up the simplest of things. But there is a world of difference between different parts of the government and the nature of how and to what effect they screw things up. For instance, the department of labor doesn't often blow up hospitals but the DoD is another matter entirely right?

So if the "they" you are talking about is law enforcement , I can see suppressing notification until they either arrest someone or decide he isn't the fish they thought he was, and perhaps give this another limit, say one year just to throw something out there. That if they haven't done something one way or another within one year, then they have to notify the service provider that the gag order is null, or renewed under a new court order.

Now if "they" is an Intelligence Agency and the subject is a foreign national, all new ball park. The subject has no rights under US law and if he is a valid intelligence target there is nothing to discuss. That's just the way it is. I know some guys here who aren't US citizens might not like that, but that is how it's always been and I don't see it changing any century soon.

They is important all the way around.
 
Last edited:
Krazy925 said:
Remember the iPhone that had to be unlocked to catch more terrorists. We're waiting.
Click to expand...

It wasn't to catch more terrorists. They were conducting an investigation and were looking for more clues. That was their job. I don't like the way they tried to force Apple to do it, but the data on the phone was used for the investigation - not catch more terrorists. The going after Apple part I think was part of a grander scheme to get them future access a bit...

Wouldn't the Freedom of Information Act require them to divulge that information when asked? Or is that overridden by other "scary terrorist protection acts"?
 
lcpiper said:
(...)

Now if "they" is an Intelligence Agency and the subject is a foreign national, all new ball park. The subject has no rights under US law and if he is a valid intelligence target there is nothing to discuss. That's just the way it is. I know some guys here who aren't US citizens might not like that, but that is how it's always been and I don't see it changing any century soon.

They is important all the way around.
Click to expand...

lol wut?
 
Wierdo said:
The best way to protect our freedom and avoid a police state is blind trust. /s
Click to expand...

I have seen anything asking for blind trust. I don't blindly trust them. But some people can't see that arguing that what is being reported is inaccurate is not the same thing as defending something. Face it, if you are ignorant about what the problems are and the circumstances surrounding them, people can convince you of anything.

I finally was able to get to that article, or at least an article that very closely hits the same subject.

Microsoft sues U.S. government over data gag orders

One thing that comes to mind is what effect does the new security surveillance program that targets cleared government workers have on these reported numbers. Now that the government has begun mass surveillance of government workers, how is it, what mechanisms are they using to gather this information?

Microsoft ticked off statistics to make its point that secrecy had become habitual: In the last 18 months, the Redmond, Wash. company received 5,624 federal demands for customer information or data. Of those, 2,576, or 48%, were tagged with secrecy orders that prevented Microsoft from telling customers that it had been compelled to hand over their information. About 68% of the gag orders -- 1,752 to be exact -- had no end date.
Click to expand...

I am just wondering how much of this sudden surge of data requests and gag orders is directed against the government's own employees and contractors because if you think about it, just how does the government do that when there has never been a mechanism for doing this before.

I don't think you can begin mass surveillance on over 100,000 people and not see a serious increase in these numbers.
 
Hi All

What irks me is that recently it would seem companies are the ones interested in protecting me and my data rather than the entity put in place to regulate any and all abuse (A.K.A. the "god damned government")
 
if they execute a warrant in person they have to show it to you before they enter the premise... of course if you destroy anything they tend to assume it was something making you guilty which is equal to innocent until proven guilty by a court of law... so if they go through your stuff and use it to built a case directly isn't that basically using your own testimony in absentai to try and convict you before you ever see a jury? I know felons are not technically citizens anymore so don't have rights but shouldn't you have a right to see what they looked at a get a copy to hand to your attorney?

Seems like these days if someone is inconvenient all you have to do is make up a bunch of stuff about the person, buy a cop diner or take them to the movies to look into there stuff so when they look the next person assumes there was grounds to look and assumes everything their in theirs... so if you wanted to convict an innocent person all you would have to do is fine someone with not enough money to pay people to monitor their stuff, then go through their stuff with warrants so they do not know anyone not legally bound to tell them there is an issue, until you find someone willing to change the data and magically find it on the person's electronic data... I know I had a bad up copy of my email's on my microsoft site and when the data limit got full it all got corrupted and I had to go to back up from the year before. Sure I should have made sure there was plenty of space if I was backing up my email but if people can go through that without telling you then what is stop someone who is just cs from saying their is cop looking through the stuff while looking for personal files... clearly they say do not post anything to the internet you don't want the world to see but wouldn't microsoft have an even stronger case if their cs and ts reps all had some kid of track record of ethics? I understand the gag orders when you need a little more evidence but isn't evidence supposed to be something you can see and understand as average person with no special degree? Some file on a computer some where that tells were the drug buys are happening... I can see why they might want to keep watching so they can go to a physical location to get actual evidence... but the constitution provides against unlawful search and seizure, since the RIAA made every agree that even if you make a copy if you download a copy of someone's stuff without their permission it is stealing, then clearly downloading a copy of your personal data is seizure, kinda like you go on vacation and come back and say something is missing where did my furniture go... the door is still locked so there was no forced entry... must be an act of god since without forced entry the cops usually shrug and say not enough to go on... and if they are also asking for the keys to everyone data and plan on borrowing when ever they feel like since you don't get to find out about the warrant thus have the ability to challenge the execution of the warrant or be physically present to see that nothing is added or removed without a receipt? I understand the NSA mandate is to go snooping for trouble then telling the other alphabet soup agencies to go find out if the data is good or bad and arrest anyone based on physical evidence... but someone is clearly not understanding the ethics part of this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top