Microsoft Allowed To Sue US Government Over Email Surveillance (bloomberg.com) 56
A judge has ruled that Microsoft is allowed to sue the U.S. government over a policy that prevents the tech company from telling its users when their emails are being intercepted. From a report on Bloomberg: The judge said Microsoft has at least made a plausible argument that federal law muzzles its right to speak about government investigations, while not ruling on the merits of the case. "The public debate has intensified as people increasingly store their information in the cloud and on devices with significant storage capacity," U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle said in Thursday's ruling. "Government surveillance aided by service providers creates unique considerations because of the vast amount of data service providers have about their customers."
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure why Robart is concerned with precedent in this case, since his reason for blocking Trump's travel ban basically came down to "Because I said so."
There is a 29 page ruling. [wsj.com]
Granted, I haven't read it all (I just skipped to the DENIED at the end), but I think it's a little more nuanced than, "because I said so."
Re: (Score:1)
not if you're a fan of the screaming shitgibbon, aka 45.
Re:The more important part not mentioned... (Score:4, Insightful)
As of now, every supporter of the current POTUS can point to your post as a valid reason why surveillance is necessary and justified. After all, "it's wrong. Sad. Terrible. Totally biased. False news." Please don't arm the current administration - they already have the upper hand in muzzling and controlling the news media, don't surrender social media to them as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Granted, I haven't read it all (I just skipped to the DENIED at the end), but I think it's a little more nuanced than, "because I said so."
At no point in his ruling did he mention the law (U.S. Code SS 1182 - Inadmissible aliens) [cornell.edu] that gives the president the power to do this. He didn't rule on the constitutionality of the law that allows the ban, he ruled based on his perceptions of the intent of the ban, so basically "Because I said so." Trump could have just as easily banned immigrants from Lichtenstein if he had the inclination that they were a hot spot for terrorists.
Consistent in that the plaintiffs may have a case (Score:2, Informative)
While I agree with you it's pretty clear Congress explicitly granted the President discretion to block entry by whatever criteria he deemed prudent, Robart is consistent between the two cases in holding that the plaintiff may have a non-frivilous case. That's the question before Robart in both cases - is it possible that the plaintiffs may be right, so their interests should be protected as the case is allowed to proceed.
Robart didn't rule that Trump's actions were illegal, he ruled that the question merits
Fyi - the actual law that Robart ruled on in Trump (Score:2)
Fyi here is the actual text of the law at issue in the case of Trump's travel order:
--
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate
--
In the long run, th
Re: (Score:2)
The law may be bad or it may be good, but it's clear. It does give the President full discretion.
The U.S. was founded in part on the principles that its bad to have that much power concentrated into an office governed by a sole person. Of course part of the country only cares in this case because the person doing the banning isn't in their political tribe, but I don't have to find their reasons pure if they accomplish the same result I favor. Not that I disagree with the sentiment though. We should restrict immigration from those areas and make sure we have adequate screening in place for applicants, b
Re:Fyi - the actual law that Robart ruled on in Tr (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't difficult to understand - it used to be taught to every schoolchild under the subject heading "Civics".
Court is to interpret law, not override it (Score:2)
> the Judicial Branch may override such acts.
> This isn't difficult to understand - it used to be taught to every schoolchild under the subject heading "Civics".
You seem to have forgotten something from your childhood civics class. The role of the judicial branch is to *interpret* the law, not *override* it.
There is little to know interpretation required of this law - it's wording is quite clear.
What *can* override a federal law is the *Constitution*. If you wish to make a claim that the Constitu
Re: (Score:2)
If you wish to make a claim that the Constitution overrides this law I'd be glad to discuss that with you. If so, which article of the Constitution do you have in mind?
I'd have to go back and check the Circuit Court's opinion, but I believe it was the Establishment of Religion, Due Process, and (I think) Equal Protection clauses.
Court: Due process for people it doesn't apply to (Score:2)
The circuit court cited the due process clause in respect to lawful permanent residents. The White House had issued instructions that the policy doesn't apply to lawful permanent residents. The district court indicated that the White House might, in the future, change that policy, and if they changed it there would potentially be a due process issue. That sounds like twisted reasoning to me - stay the actual, existing order because some other order which could be issued in the future might be wrong.
By tha
Re: (Score:2)
The circuit court cited the due process clause in respect to lawful permanent residents. The White House had issued instructions that the policy doesn't apply to lawful permanent residents. The district court indicated that the White House might, in the future, change that policy, and if they changed it there would potentially be a due process issue. That sounds like twisted reasoning to me - stay the actual, existing order because some other order which could be issued in the future might be wrong.
They did. As they said, White House counsel can say that the order doesn't apply to permanent residents, but because such a person is not in the chain of command, their statement does not carry the authority that an executive order carries. "The Government has offered no authority establishing that the White House counsel is empowered to issue an amended order superseding the Executive Order signed by the President... Nor has the Government established that the White House counsel’s interpretation of
Trump's (Drumpf's) Executive order isn't law. (Score:1)
Nice try. Still want to debate?
Re: (Score:1)
sure... An executive order is the POTUS' tool to implement law. For those of you who failed your civics courses the legislative branch makes law, and the executive branch executes law. That execution is lead by the POTUS of the moment. For instance when the ACA was shown to be a disaster and a political nightmare the POTUS delayed implementation of several provisions in direct conflict with what the law said... That is the purview of the POTUS. The wonderful thing about our system is taht all three bra
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Citation, please.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean, "Citation, please"? The citation is the article in the summary. GP is interpreting its content, which I thought he was pretty upfront about.
since his reason for blocking Trump's travel ban basically came down to "Because I said so."
Re: (Score:2)
So no citation.
My take is much shorter than your bullshit answer.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't cite an opinion if you're the one originally giving it. If you're going to be pigheaded about it, here's the citation: https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
He should be able to reconcile it. When the government can force a third party to divulge your information and then prevent you from knowing about it, and then deny that third party from acting in your interest both as custodian of that information and as the only party aware of the request, clearly something is wrong.
Think it through, the government won't tell me it's taking my data, and then claims only I can challenge that. Huh?
Re: (Score:2)
Lets be real about all this. To M$ this is nothing more than a marketing scam. The are by far the worse control freak perves on the planet, they make the government of China seem positively benign in comparison. Right in the EULA they say, they will allow government to access you hard disk drive and that is only possible by a compulsory software updates, a supposed security update to punch a whole right through your security and completely unblock able by design.
This is like M$ promising to secure you zip
Re: (Score:2)
Fourth Amendment protection
I'm surprised Microsoft went with a Fourth Amendment claim. It's not their data, its their customers'. What the government is interfering with is Microsoft's First Amendment rights (they can't tell customers when the government slurps up their e-mail) and tortious interference [wikipedia.org] between Microsoft and their customers in their agreement to keep their property secure.
If the Fourth Amendment can only be extended as far as an individual's physical property and the papers and effects contained therein, there is g
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because the first has been slapped around so much in recent times that it has barely a wisp of its intent left in tact.
Now if MS could somehow wrap this around the second amendment, it would be a surefire case. Because apparently we don't care about speech or privacy or many other rights, but damned if we'll let them take away our ability to put holes in things!
Re: (Score:2)
The car analogy isn't very good in the case of e-mail. It's not Microsoft's e-mail, it's mine. Microsoft is simply storing and moving it for me. If the government serves Microsoft with a warrant to read my e-mail and Microsoft hands it over, they must have stolen it from me.
'Stolen' in the same sense that people pirate music and movies. I'm not missing the e-mail, even though Microsoft took a copy of it. Just like Paramount Pictures isn't missing the latest Star Trek movie when I download a torrent of it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like a rental property. The police have to serve the tenant with the warrant, not the landlord.
If your legal education consists of TV cop shows, they are wrong. Landlords don't go around unlocking rental units for cops without exigent circumstances.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The more important part not mentioned... (Score:4, Informative)
A subtle but nonetheless important distinction.
Re: (Score:2)
Did it hurt when you went off the rails?
Microsoft's motive is money. This matter is very similar to Apple's quest to supply secure phones.
Companies who provide secure storage and communication hardware/software will become "best of breed" to consumer, business, and government markets.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. But in this case its a win-win -- MS gets to advertise stronger privacy guarantees (and doesn't have to spend as much time/effort/money responding to government requests,) their customers get to rest a tiny bit easy knowing that at least they'll be notified when their privacy is breached. And even society as a whole gets to benefit as it would provide precedent for other large data storage and collection providers to also tell the government to piss off.
The only one who doesn't benefit here is
Re:look, it's simple. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not disagreeing with you, but your last statement says it.
Edward Snowden is not relevant to anything at all.
Neither is empathy for clients.
It's just money.
But, both the "think of the children" approach and the profit motive are, as you say, coincident.
Microsoft doesn't really give a shit about the children.
Corporations are not people my friend (Score:1)
Microsoft doesn't have first amendment rights.