ATTENTION: You are viewing a page formatted for mobile devices; to view the full web page, click HERE.

Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Microsoft responds to NSA allegations

(1/4) > >>

I've been trying to keep these together, but this is directly tech and such a holy crap moment, that I felt it deserved its own thread.

Microsoft responds to NSA allegations: "We believe the U.S. Constitution guarantees our freedom to share more information with the public, yet the Government is stopping us"

I just don't have the words.  And from Microsoft?

At least it's become a competitive liability to be associated with the NSA.  Maybe capitalism will win out where logic hasn't?  But then again, they'll probably choose a different name for the initiative, hide it off the books, and keep going like they are.

(from comments on reddit...)
"Introducing Altria. It's just like altruism only the opposite."

Altria Group, Inc. (previously named Philip Morris Companies Inc.) is a corporate business based in Henrico County, Virginia, United States of America and is the parent company of Philip Morris USA, John Middleton, Inc., U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company, Inc., Philip Morris Capital Corporation, and Chateau Ste. Michelle Wine Estates.

Skimmed through it. Seems like it's just misleading damage control.

Skimmed through it. Seems like it's just misleading damage control.
-Renegade (July 16, 2013, 10:43 PM)
--- End quote ---

The big thing is the fact that Microsoft is doing it.  Yes, it's damage control.  Not so sure about the misleading, but it could be.  But Microsoft is unapologetic about most things, so for them to actually blog this is the part that was amazing to me.

Not so sure about the misleading, but it could be.
-wraith808 (July 16, 2013, 11:08 PM)
--- End quote ---

Stuff like this:

We do not provide any government with direct access to emails or instant messages.
Full stop.

Then completely recant what you just said:
Like all providers of communications services, we are sometimes obligated to comply with lawful demands from governments to turn over content for specific accounts, pursuant to a search warrant or court order.

Specific? As in specifically everyone? :P

That's in there a lot. "We comply with..." Well, WTF do you call giving information to governments? Either you do or you don't. There is no inbetween. Saying that you don't BUT... is still a bit BUT, with the inevitable "yes we do" following behind it.

It's just more BS lies.

The thing is that it is no longer possible to give anything the benefit of the doubt anymore. If there is even the slightest possible interpretation for doubt there, then it's likely true.

One only need to look at James Clapper to see that is true. "...least untruthful..." Yeah. Right. How many times did he lie or switch his story? Running out of fingers? :P

Stoic Joker:
Superficially, this sounds good ... But, it also clarifies just how exposed cloud data really is, as providers have no vested interest in your personal privacy. Hence you can be easily subjected to intense scrutiny, having all of you correspondences spun out of context...with no forum for rebuttal...until it's too late.

Once you're in the 'system' you've already lost.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version