The post concluded with Microsoft's commitment "to respecting human rights, free expression, and individual privacy." FISA Orders and FISA Directives) that we may receive so any national security orders we may receive are not included in this report." It received 7,014 for the U.S., which affected 18,809 user accounts. In September, the company noted, "we are not currently permitted to report detailed information about the type and volume of any national security orders (e.g. Microsoft published the first six months of law enforcement requests for user data it was the Redmond giant's second such report. Regular Janes and Joes are always kept on the outside, trying to see through a fogged up window at the truth on the inside.unless someone like Edward Snowden clues us in with leaked dirt. Sure, tech companies are miffed, which is good for them on numerous levels, including staying connected to how it feels to be among We the small People. Surprise - or not so much at all - "the government has made no effort to explain how sharing those reasons with the providers or their counsel would endanger national security." The tech companies concluded that "unless the government agrees to take appropriate steps to permit counsel for the providers to access the unredacted version," then all the redacted portions of the September 30 filing should "be stricken."įindLaw previously pointed out that "at Microsoft, John Frank has Department of Defense Top Secret clearance 'for the purpose of facilitating Microsoft's interaction with the Government concerning classified matters'." And "at Google, general counsel Kent Walker has FBI Secret clearance, while legal director Richard Paul Delgado has Top Secret clearance with the FBI." Yet these same people can't be trusted to see unredacted versions of the government's legal argument? The tech giants have maintained all along that not allowing them to publish aggregate numbers violates free speech. Instead of keeping the reasons a secret, the government did share its arguments with the court in September yet it chose to black out those arguments with a heavily redacted motion so tech companies couldn't see them. Just because the government says so is not good enough. The tech companies then banded together and it's been an ongoing legal battle. Foreign Intelligence court, asking to disclose "aggregate statistics" about the number of requests for user data that they receive under the U.S. Individually, they filed motions with the U.S. This all circles back to PRISM revelations courtesy of Edward Snowden, and the tech companies wanting to set the record straight that they don't give the government direct access to their servers. Now those companies are suing the government by claiming that by not sharing "why its assertions are facts," the government is depriving "the providers of their First Amendment rights." It is that type of FISA conversation from Big Brother that little-brother tech companies Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Yahoo and LinkedIn are fighting against. If you were a kid who heard that reason, then you know it's entirely unsatisfactory. If you are a parent, you may have tried that tactic.
0 kommentar(er)
