back to article 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 …

  1. 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. The fact they didn't suggests to me that it might not have been fully legal in the first place. Just my thoughts.

    1. Kevin Johnston

      Quite, clearly the current laws and International agreements are too rigid and do not provide the opportunities to have a quick firkle to see what can be dredged up to justify a proper warrant. After all, if you have nothing to hide - put your data in the cloud

    2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      "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.

    3. 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.

    4. Snorlax Silver badge

      @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.

  2. Richard Jones 1
    WTF?

    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.

    1. Adam 52 Silver badge

      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

      1. William 3 Bronze badge

        NYT is a propaganda shit rag.

        You saying "it's in the public interest" doesn't make it in the public interest.

        1. The_Idiot

          ...and

          @William3

          ... your saying 'NYT is a propaganda shit rag' doesn't make it so - or not so - either. At least, in this Idiot's view. While the words 'in my opinion' may have (apparently) lost their popularity, in my opinion they still have value.

        2. Roger Varley

          There is one helleuva difference between "the public interest" and what "the public are interested in". Media organisations consistantly cite the former while providing the latter.

        3. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge

          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.)

          1. JimmyPage Silver badge
            Stop

            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.

            1. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

              Re: RE: But what harm came from releasing pictures of bomb fragments?

              "Err on the side of caution, not sales."

              Not corporate policy. Sorry.

              1. Fatman

                Re: RE: But what harm came from releasing pictures of bomb fragments?

                <quote>Not corporate policy That does not increase shareholder value. Sorry.</quote>

                FTFY!

          2. 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!"

      2. Whitter
        Unhappy

        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.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "See the result of the Manchester data auction."

      (Anon cos I fear i can hear the downvotes already)

      Wel, its not as if their boss would use classified intel to brag in front of foreign visitors?

  3. 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.

  4. Long John Brass

    In other news

    Power junkies, desperately looking for a fix; Demand more powers

  5. nijam Silver badge

    "...the government's inability to have its cake and eat it too."

    ...the government's inability to have your cake and eat it too.

    FTFY

  6. 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.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like