EmailDiscussions.com  

Go Back   EmailDiscussions.com > Discussions about Email Services > Email Comments, Questions and Miscellaneous
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Stay in touch wirelessly

Email Comments, Questions and Miscellaneous Share your opinion of the email service you're using. Post general email questions and discussions that don't fit elsewhere.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 9 Sep 2015, 10:09 PM   #1
janusz
The "e" in e-mail
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: EU
Posts: 4,933
Microsoft battles US over warrant for drugs case emails

On email privacy, data centre location etc....

Quote:
Microsoft is returning to court to continue its fight against the US government's demand that it hand over emails stored at an Irish data centre. The messages involved are alleged to contain details of narcotics sales.

In 2014, a court ruled in favour of the government's claim that because it had jurisdiction over the US-based company, it could force it to hand over data it controlled, even if stored abroad.

But Microsoft suggests that would put it in breach of privacy laws. Instead, the company argues that the US "must respect the sovereignty of other countries" and has indicated that Washington should use legal assistance treaties if it wants access to information held in Ireland and other data centres outside the United States.

Ireland has already said that it would consider such a request "expeditiously".

So, the stand-off is being viewed as a test case that will determine the extent of the US government's powers over tech companies that offer cloud-based services
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34185575
janusz is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 12 Sep 2015, 04:58 AM   #2
zimmermanfan
Essential Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 200
Smile

This publicity stunt is very amusing. The US will of course go through proper channels to get the information, just as they did in Canada with drug dealers using hushmail. Microsoft knows that.

This middle-step is nothing more than a deceptive trick to get a headline that says "MS cares about privacy" -- in hopes that it will get more attention than the story about Microsoft embedding spyware in their Windows 7 and 8 security updates (ref: http://www.pcworld.com/article/29782...acy-storm.html ) <== that happened just 1 week prior.

Also note that Microsoft is a CISPA-supporter. This means they proactively lobby against consumer privacy.

Microsoft also embeds identity info in the metadata of MS Word documents without users knowledge or consent. This company is reckless and abusive with users privacy.

Last edited by zimmermanfan : 12 Sep 2015 at 05:06 AM.
zimmermanfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15 Sep 2015, 01:23 PM   #3
rockman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Seattle
Posts: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmermanfan View Post
Microsoft also embeds identity info in the metadata of MS Word documents without users knowledge or consent.
Are you referring to this metadata?
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=How+to+min...tadata+in+Word

Quote:
This company is reckless and abusive with users privacy.
I wouldn't say reckless, but not 5 star either.
https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-bac...-requests-2015

Quote:
Also note that Microsoft is a CISPA-supporter. This means they proactively lobby against consumer privacy.
I didn't think so anymore.
http://www.cnet.com/news/microsoft-b...iting-privacy/
rockman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 Sep 2015, 04:53 AM   #4
zimmermanfan
Essential Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockman View Post
Are you referring to this metadata?
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=How+to+min...tadata+in+Word
Are you claiming that because those who are already aware of the metadata injection can proactively prevent or remove it, that somehow the unwitting victims of the default injection cease to be victims of an attack on their privacy? It's not the informed users who have cause for concern.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockman View Post
I wouldn't say reckless, but not 5 star either.
https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-bac...-requests-2015
It's cute that you think that because Microsoft got 3 out of 5 stars on that silly table this makes Microsoft favorable in terms of privacy.

Are you saying that because MS is just 60% aligned with just one out of hundreds of EFF principles, they cease to be reckless with all EFF principles?

Also note that one of those stars is for opposing "backdoors". CISPA is one of the front doors. Bruce Schneiere pointed out in one of his articles that spokespersons of large tech companies will say there is no backdoor when there is in fact a frontdoor, and vice versa. They choose their words very carefully, without ever claiming at the same moment that there is no backdoor or frontdoor.

Also note that "opposing" a backdoor doesn't mean there isn't one. It's a meaningless category so EFF can give some stars out. If a teacher always picks on a bad kid and never finds cause for reward, the kid loses hope in even trying to do good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockman View Post
Did you read that article? It proves my point. Microsoft endorses CISPA, but at the same time they don't want to appear to be supporting it from their customers viewpoint. It's evident in the back and forth weasel-wording. Microsoft likes CISPA because it removes legal liability when they overshare. This is why 800 corporations support it.

Microsoft spokespersons pretend to advocate for "balance" (just as the CISPA authors themselves do), but what they fail to see is that court ordered warrants are the balance. Unwarranted info sharing inherently breaks the already existing balance.

Their double-speak is almost as desperate as using the Irish drug case to direct attention away from the spyware they were caught putting in security updates.

Last edited by zimmermanfan : 20 Sep 2015 at 05:13 AM.
zimmermanfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 Sep 2015, 09:18 AM   #5
rockman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Seattle
Posts: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmermanfan View Post
Are you claiming that because those who are already aware of the metadata injection can proactively prevent or remove it, that somehow the unwitting victims of the default injection cease to be victims of an attack on their privacy? It's not the informed users who have cause for concern.
No, I can't claim anything, just participating in the discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmermanfan View Post
It's cute that you think that because Microsoft got 3 out of 5 stars on that silly table this makes Microsoft favorable in terms of privacy.

Are you saying that because MS is just 60% aligned with just one out of hundreds of EFF principles, they cease to be reckless with all EFF principles?
The EFF published this stuff as food for thought and guidelines to help folks make informed decisions. Yes, the information they present can indicate "favorable" terms either way. At least EFF is attempting to shine some light on it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmermanfan View Post
Also note that one of those stars is for opposing "backdoors". CISPA is one of the front doors. Bruce Schneiere pointed out in one of his articles that spokespersons of large tech companies will say there is no backdoor when there is in fact a frontdoor, and vice versa. They choose their words very carefully, without ever claiming at the same moment that there is no backdoor or frontdoor.

Also note that "opposing" a backdoor doesn't mean there isn't one. It's a meaningless category so EFF can give some stars out. If a teacher always picks on a bad kid and never finds cause for reward, the kid loses hope in even trying to do good.

Did you read that article? It proves my point. Microsoft endorses CISPA, but at the same time they don't want to appear to be supporting it from their customers viewpoint. It's evident in the back and forth weasel-wording. Microsoft likes CISPA because it removes legal liability when they overshare. This is why 800 corporations support it.

Microsoft spokespersons pretend to advocate for "balance" (just as the CISPA authors themselves do), but what they fail to see is that court ordered warrants are the balance. Unwarranted info sharing inherently breaks the already existing balance.

Their double-speak is almost as desperate as using the Irish drug case to direct attention away from the spyware they were caught putting in security updates.
Double-speak acknowledged. Don't you just love lawyers and politicians?

Not to derail the thread, but to what Microsoft spyware are you referring?
rockman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +9. The time now is 04:31 PM.

 

Copyright EmailDiscussions.com 1998-2022. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy