Microsoft Fends Off Data Request, FBI Gets Data Another Way 152
An anonymous reader writes "In a time when the government avows that it cannot carry out justice without issuing secret warrants and National Security Letters to anyone other than the suspect, it is truly noteworthy when news breaks that the FBI, facing push-back from the likes of a company such as Microsoft, finds that it can indeed gather the information it needs for its investigation through a regular search warrant applied directly to its suspect. Such was the case on Thursday. Court documents (PDF) reveal that Microsoft filed a petition against the National Security Letter (NSL) it received involving one of its customers, citing violations to the First Amendment. The FBI later withdrew the NSL and went after their suspect in the old, Constitutionally-sound way. A federal judge ruled last year that the NSLs impinge on free speech' That judgement has been stayed, of course, pending appeal."
FBI doesn't need to violate the Constitution... (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words, roping in government information gathering abilities is an exercise in futility. If Google/Microsoft/Apple/IBM/etc. won't directly surrender confidential or sensitive personal information, they can get it another way. In effect, citizens have no right or expectation of privacy from the government.
In other news today: water still wet, fire still hot. Film at eleven.
Re:FBI doesn't need to violate the Constitution... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody in all of these debates has been arguing that the government shouldn't have access to information to investigate crime, catch terrorists, etc.
We just want them to be made to follow the rules, especially the Bill of Rights.
Re:FBI doesn't need to violate the Constitution... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, you know, what the net effect was that they went back and got a good old fashioned warrant from a judge.
They didn't go directly to Microsoft and successfully get the information without any oversight. They had to get a judge to sign off on it.
This is the way they're supposed to be getting it. Judges may or may not rubber stamp it, but at least it's gone through a process -- lately they've just been getting information without a warrant or oversight on the basis that they want it.
If anything, this is (hopefully) the beginning of things swinging back to these agencies being required to show cause and follow the proper procedures, instead of just side-stepping those and getting it on demand.
Re: (Score:1)
Hey Alouicious... (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow. (Score:1)
Keep it up - with every post, you provide more information. Keep going - eventually, somebody may notice you. Not your strident posts, you. You may get the help you need then, unless you make it the rest of t
Re: (Score:1)
Keep up the good work - once we have you actually thinking and typing your troll posts, maybe we can work on helping to heal the scars your parents left on you, the scars the schoolyard left on you. Nobody in his right mind would trust your software in an enterprise setting of course, but maybe you could hold down a job as a computer operator or a print monkey somewhere.
I
Too close for comfort, eh? (Score:1)
And you haven't answered my question - have you progressed to torturing and killing small animals, or is your participation as an A/C here on /. filling that need for you?
Abused during childhood? Check.
Likes to torture/kill small animals? Check (by proxy, through the internet and online forums).
Serial murder?
Huh? (Score:1)
I'm still curious - have you progressed to torturing and killing small animals, or are you still heading down the road to true psychopathy?
If you believe anybody here will believe that (Score:1)
Abused during childhood.
Likes to torture and kill helpless animals (by proxy via the internet).
Only one last step to go - unless you've already gone there?
Can't you come up with something original? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Millions of Americans died because of this! (Score:1)
Forcing the FBI to follow due process will be the dea... wait, you mean nobody died and the FBI got what it wanted legally? Isn't the FBI aware that they're supposed to wait until after everyone dies to do anything so they can insist that they need more unconstitutional powers to protect us?
Clearly someone did not get the memo.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If you read the documents, the FBI wanted data on the activities of a Microsoft enterprise customer not one of the common people.
Re: (Score:1)
If you read the documents, the FBI wanted data on the activities of a Microsoft enterprise customer not one of the common people.
"If you're not cop, you're little people"
Microsoft is gonna get in a lot of trouble (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Pfft, that's nothing. I've been on Double-Secret Probation for several years. The one to be concerned about is Super-Double-Secret-We're-Serious-This-Time Probation.
Re:Microsoft is gonna get in a lot of trouble (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
They could end up on Double-Secret Probation.
I know the reference, but, somehow, I got the image of someone bent over, blindfolded, pants around their ankles...so no more premium cable for me.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're discounting the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" effect. I bet you cleaned up in the recent "surface" post though.
Wait a minute... (Score:3)
Or has
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying this is a thinly veiled publicity stunt to help restore MS's reputation?
Re: (Score:2)
Either that, or we have made ourselves so paranoid of spying (with good reason!) that we have made to boogeyman more powerful than he really is....
Sometimes I suspect our speculations have become fact via repetition.
I personally, am going to fire one up, sit back, and observe. The world has become a Tragic Comedy, and I feel the third act is near.
Re: (Score:1)
.... /. claim MS gives the (favorite three letter agency goes here) backdoors to all of their clients machines?
That was in the era where software was delivered/obtained and installed on the users computer. This is the age of server based subscription applications. They were only allowing back doors into other people's equipment, never MS server total access if they could help it.
--
Do unto others, never me. -- MS
Hurray! (Score:5, Funny)
Hooray! Go Microsoft!....
What?... What did I say?
Re:Hurray! (Score:5, Interesting)
It's ok, there's still time to be cynical: perhaps they've just woken up to the fact that Cisco are hurting bad [infoworld.com] after they lost everyone's trust, and don't want to face the same downturn.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
A stopped clock is right twice a day.
There's a bit of a distinction here (Score:3)
In reading the documents, the NSL surrounded a Microsoft enterprise customer. This could have been around Azure or any other professional service that Microsoft offers to organizations. Since the documents provided don't disclose a who, it could be assumed that the FBI was looking into a company, not an individual. Since everything else around this case is sealed, we'll never know who or what organization was targeted by the NSL which again problematic in a free country.
I find this other statement hilarious.
The FBI obtained the requested information through lawful means from a third party, the Customer, in a way that maintains the confidentiality of the underlying investigation
It's obvious that the Customer knows now that they're targeted in an investigation and "lawful" means would imply that the NSL wasn't legal or possibly that the FBI uses "unlawful" means of obtaining information? I guess I just find the wording funny, I mean they could have just said "we obtained a search warrant and served it directly on the suspect."
Re: (Score:2)
Non-starter. No entertainment value. What do you want? News?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to know how they can do something "lawful" and obtain the information from the customer without disclosing what the "underlying investigation" is about?
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously though...you make a good point. It's all more cloak and dagger bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to know how they can do something "lawful" and obtain the information from the customer without disclosing what the "underlying investigation" is about?
Presumably (if "lawful" is correct) they would have had to disclose what the investigation was about to the judge, but I think the implication is that they didn't have to disclose it to the suspect.
Re: (Score:2)
true but other than a wire tap I can't think of anything that wouldn't require tipping the customer off. Oh well, someday we may know exactly what this was all about.
Re: (Score:2)
In reading the documents, the NSL surrounded a Microsoft enterprise customer.
It's worth noting that Microsoft only seems to include enterprise customers in their notification policy.
The millions of @live customers can get fucked when the FBI shows up with an NSL letter.
Re: (Score:2)
Regular Search Warrant (Score:2)
the FBI, .... finds that it can indeed gather the information it needs for its investigation through a regular search warrant applied directly to its suspect.
This works for past bad deeds. Where the evidence of a crime already exists and only needs to be collected. It doesn't help with collecting data in anticipation of future wrongdoing.
This works to deter people or organizations who don't want to get caught after the fact. It doesn't help in the event that organization doesn't care one way or another. Like the people flying planes into buildings. Sure, go ahead and charge them with a crime. They are beyond caring.
What this comes down to is: In order to live
Re: (Score:2)
What this comes down to is: In order to live in a society with the sort of freedoms we have beed accustomed to for the past few hundred years, we are going to have to live with 3000 lives more or less lost every decade or so. On the other hand, we could live in neat and orderly society. But I don't want to be caned for chewing gum in public. I'll put up with the occasional sticky wad under the bus seat in exchange for my freedom.
I think I'd go along with you and accept those risks in exchange for our freedoms and Constitutional tradition. Since that death toll is on par with the number of Native American/Alaskan/Eskimo/Inuit women who die in the same timeframe from injuries involving motorized land transportation, it's clearly a number that we can deal with.
Now if anyone says: "well, try telling that to the families of the victims of terrorism" I would have to counter that we don't feel compelled to put on sackcloth and ashes over
Re: (Score:2)
Now if anyone says: "well, try telling that to the families of the victims of terrorism" I would have to counter that we don't feel compelled to put on sackcloth and ashes over all the far more numerous but less dramatic deaths that occur all around us all the time.
And I would counter with, "you think our freedoms should be taken away? How about all the soldiers who have died throughout the past couple of centuries, including over half a million in the last century, to defend that freedom?"
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, we don't actually WANT the government "collecting data in anticipation of future wrongdoing".
Not now, not ever.
Whatever else happens, we do NOT need a Pre-Crime unit.
Re:Regular Search Warrant (Score:4, Insightful)
the FBI, .... finds that it can indeed gather the information it needs for its investigation through a regular search warrant applied directly to its suspect.
This works for past bad deeds. Where the evidence of a crime already exists and only needs to be collected. It doesn't help with collecting data in anticipation of future wrongdoing.
No, it's called probable cause. They don't need to have evidence yet, they only need to have probable cause that such evidence exists. If they can't show an actual reason why such evidence probably exists, why should they get to invade your privacy or take your stuff? That's what some big chunks of the constitution are all about.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Probable cause that evidence exists of a crime that has been commited.
What I'm saying is that collecting intelligence pointing to a crime that might be commited in the future is stepping over the bounds of how this country was originally envisioned. The occasional conspiracy may develop into a full blown crime or act of terrorism. But I'd rather lose 3000 people once every dozen years than give up the principles upon which this country was founded.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Probable cause that evidence exists of a crime that has been commited.
What I'm saying is that collecting intelligence pointing to a crime that might be commited in the future is stepping over the bounds of how this country was originally envisioned. The occasional conspiracy may develop into a full blown crime or act of terrorism. But I'd rather lose 3000 people once every dozen years than give up the principles upon which this country was founded.
Conspiracy is a crime, even if the crime you're conspiring about hasn't been committed yet. Therefore, if there is probable cause of conspiracy, then they can get a warrant to gather actual evidence. Thoughtcrime is not a crime, but once you start planning carrying it out with other people it is. I think we both agree that probable cause to invade our privacy or take our stuff is a legal requirement, we're just debating the one little point of thoughtcrime vs conspiracy vs carrying out the act.
But I'd rather lose 3000 people once every dozen years than give up the principles upon which this country was founded.
And which
Questionable (Score:2)
Confusion abounds (Score:2)
So the Slashdot is now generally in favor of NSLs and such? We obviously must be if Microsoft is against them.
Or is Microsoft not really against them but secretly complied while putting on a good public show in the court system and all?