Of course all this could have been avoided if the US had gone to Ireland and asked their courts to tell Microsoft to hand over the data. The fact they didn't suggests to me that it might not have been fully legal in the first place. Just my thoughts.
Microsoft court victory prompts call for data-grabbing regime
The Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism on Wednesday held a hearing to explore the government's inability to have its cake and eat it too. In July last year, three judges from the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the Stored Communications Act does not require Microsoft to reveal …
COMMENTS
-
-
Thursday 25th May 2017 23:06 GMT Doctor Syntax
"The fact they didn't suggests to me that it might not have been fully legal in the first place."
It sounds as if either they didn't have a prima facie case or that they were worried about showing their hand. Or maybe they just weren't aware of what the proper route was and now don't want to lose face by backing down.
There's certainly no need to start thinking of new procedures if you can't take the trouble to use the existing ones.
-
Thursday 25th May 2017 23:37 GMT dan1980
"The fact they didn't suggests to me that it might not have been fully legal in the first place."
. . . or that this was a problem that didn't exist used as atest case to attempt to set a precedent which, if they were unsuccessful, would be a catalyst for exactly what they are doing trying to do now.
The point is that they insist that what they are doing and want to do is right so having a court tell them they are wrong only sees them claim the courts are now wrong and need to be, effectively, circumvented by new powers.
-
Friday 26th May 2017 10:17 GMT Snorlax
@Your alien overlord - fear me: "Of course all this could have been avoided if the US had gone to Ireland and asked their courts to tell Microsoft to hand over the data."
They could have gone before an Irish court, but they didn't because they want to establish a precedent whereby an order from a US court is enough of an arm-twist to get US companies to comply. Simples.
-
Thursday 25th May 2017 21:26 GMT Richard Jones 1
Given the USA's bent staff's record of selling anything and everything to the highest bidding TV channel, who would respect them let alone trust them*. Sorry you can and they can stuff their clouds where the sun would never look at a bleached set of bones. Trust everyone except the damned corrupt and ill vetted useless Yanks to get anything right, sod the bent lot of them.
Phew, that is the toned down version, the first one melted the screen.
*See the result of the Manchester data auction.
-
Friday 26th May 2017 08:14 GMT Adam 52
The NYT has quite a nice article on this subject. If you can read to the end then they start to talk about other leaks that they, and I suspect most other people, feel were in the public interest.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/25/world/europe/manchester-bombing-leaks-donald-trump.html
-
-
-
Friday 26th May 2017 11:19 GMT Brewster's Angle Grinder
I can understand how prematurely releasing the bombers name harmed the investigation. But what harm came from releasing pictures of bomb fragments? The Guardian's Editorial sums it up nicely. (That's the first time I've ever said that.)
-
Friday 26th May 2017 11:44 GMT JimmyPage
RE: But what harm came from releasing pictures of bomb fragments?
We can't be sure.
But given what the experts on our side can glean from apparently nothing, it's a fair bet that a bad acting expert could ALSO glean something ??? Like a subtle change in the bomb configuration based on what was left behind after this one ???
Generally I'm anti-censorship for it's own sake. But - especially in the midst of ongoing research - the question should have been "What good came of releasing the pictures of bomb fragments ?". And if the answer is (as it is) "none", then don't do it. Err on the side of caution, not sales.
-
Friday 26th May 2017 11:46 GMT Simone
Re: Guardian article
That is not a summing up of the issues, it is a justification of the medias bad behaviour.
I can only reference the film and TV examples, but several of those have shown where holding back minor details of crimes have helped to reject the claim of someone taking responsibility for the crime. e.g.
Detective: "You gave the bomber the device? What brand of bag / type of detonator did it use?"
Glory seeker: "It was a North Face, black one..."
Detective: "Stop wasting our time!"
-
-
Friday 26th May 2017 11:24 GMT Whitter
NYT article
A simple enough read which at no point asks if or when an editor or journalist should restrain themselves. In the specific Manchester case, the desire to publish first was the driver - any consideration of how that would adversely impact an investigation was nowhere to be seen.
But the lack or ethical journalism isn't really the source of UK anger here: its the lack of professionalism in the USA intelligence network.
-
-
-
Thursday 25th May 2017 23:31 GMT dan1980
"In short, we want it both ways. We want a legal regime that both bypasses and respects privacy barriers, as the situation demands."
The problem with that is in who gets to decide which situations 'demand' which course of action and how.
And that's always the problem with these types of heavy-handed grabs - it's always about the government wanting to be able to deny rights and ignore due process at will, with only their say so as justification.
-
-
Friday 26th May 2017 10:43 GMT FuzzyWuzzys
Here's the money shot...
"But Smith cautions that the government should not resort to unilateralism by enacting a law that says US authorities can demand data stored from anywhere, without regard to applicable regulations. Doing so, he suggests, would encourage other countries to do the same."
Someone who realises that if we demand a back scratching, then all our mates will ask us for the same and we'll have a tough time saying no.