Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Microsoft responds to NSA allegations

<< < (2/4) > >>

wraith808:
Deny:
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.
-Renegade (July 16, 2013, 11:25 PM)
--- End quote ---

In that specific case, I think they were referring to the fact that they comply with the rule of law towards such things, i.e. you need a specific warrant, but they don't just let the government have direct access to all e-mails.  At least, that's what I took it as.

Renegade:
In that specific case, I think they were referring to the fact that they comply with the rule of law towards such things, i.e. you need a specific warrant, but they don't just let the government have direct access to all e-mails.  At least, that's what I took it as.
-wraith808 (July 17, 2013, 07:56 AM)
--- End quote ---

There are more examples in there. That was just the first one.

I'm simply unwilling to show the slightest bit of leniency for any of these people anymore. No more charitable reads. They must be absolutely explicit and unequivocal. If there's any wiggle room, I'm assuming the worst. That's the safest bet as far as I can see. But even then, just how many unequivocal lies have we been told? I think I'm being far, far more than reasonable.

40hz:
I think they were referring to the fact that they comply with the rule of law towards such things
-wraith808 (July 17, 2013, 07:56 AM)
--- End quote ---

Yet another attempt at spin control...

Translation: We were constrained - by law - to knowingly break the law.

Hmm...problem!

They could have gone public over that with small fear of any legal reprisals sticking. But they didn't. They instead chose to hide behind the excuses that were being spoon fed to them.

And besides, who wants to disrupt the cozy relationship that Microsoft has with the US government? There's legislation Microsoft wants enacted. And court cases surrounding IP issues Microsoft wants resolved in a manner congenial to Microsoft's own business interests. To say nothing of all the licenses for Microsoft products and services our government purchases from them each year...

Nope! That's too good a boat to rock on mere principle or respect for the Constitution. Far better to roll with Obama's administration on this one. Besides, Washington has already promised to indemnify all the corporate participants should the shit ever really hit the fan. So no worries!

Two things to remember and think about:


* The old saying that goes: "Truth and justice dies wherever greed and self-interest rules."
* A little bit of history. Because back in 1945, 23 government and corporate employees were put on trial for certain heinous actions on their part. Actions which the defendants characterized and as merely "following orders." That defense argument didn't wash with the tribunal hearing their cases. And it isn't going to wash for Microsoft either. Because the the rule that emerged from that tribunal was that crimes are committed by men, not abstract entities.
Now we all know it's extremely doubtful to the point of certainty that anybody in Microsoft (or the US government) will ever face criminal charges for any of this. But that's not the same thing as accepting their assertions they are entirely innocent of any wrongdoing.

wraith808:
I'm simply unwilling to show the slightest bit of leniency for any of these people anymore. No more charitable reads. They must be absolutely explicit and unequivocal. If there's any wiggle room, I'm assuming the worst. That's the safest bet as far as I can see. But even then, just how many unequivocal lies have we been told? I think I'm being far, far more than reasonable.
-Renegade (July 17, 2013, 08:58 AM)
--- End quote ---

Yeah... you've got me there.  But the fact that MS was willing to call out the NSA and DOJ in a public forum is what was telling for me.  Other than if it's a smokescreen for changes to the relationship that aren't really changes.  *sigh*

Renegade:
@40hz - Well put.

Because the the rule that emerged from that tribunal was that crimes are committed by men, not abstract entities.
--- End quote ---

This is a very real problem - "abstract entities" have been granted "human rights". They are not human, and have no legitimate claim there. Incorporation is effectively an abdication of responsibility for any wrong-doing, and has been abused in horrific ways. We are seeing a lot of that now. The entire information abuse aspect is merely one side of the die.

But the fact that MS was willing to call out the NSA and DOJ in a public forum is what was telling for me.
-wraith808 (July 17, 2013, 10:39 AM)
--- End quote ---

You've got a good point there. But my gut just tells me that they're only trying to shift blame, i.e. CYA (cover your ass). The US is a litigious society, so that shouldn't be very controversial there.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page