Posted on 04/15/2017 11:49:59 AM PDT by Whenifhow
Microsoft tries to thread the needle of transparency by telling its consuming audience as much about governmental collection of data as possible. Toward that end Microsoft releases a biannual transparency report.
Within the latest transparency release Microsoft reports in the first half of 2016 they received a massive increase in FISA orders; primarily from U.S. governmental agencies.
• “For the latest Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) data reported, Microsoft received 1,000-1,499 FISA orders seeking content disclosures affecting 12,000-12,499 accounts, compared to the 0-499 FISA orders seeking disclosure of content impacting 17,500-17,999 accounts reported for the previous period.
We received 0-499 National Security Letters in the latest reporting period, which remains unchanged from the previous period.” (link)
Why would there be such a significant spike in FISA orders during the first six months of 2016?
Due to legal compliance restrictions Microsoft cannot divulge the actual number of FISA Court Orders, only the range. As you can see there was at least a doubling of requests (Prior: 0-499 ~vs~ Now: 1,000-1,499) perhaps much more.
However, simultaneous to the increase in the number of FISA orders, the requests were on fewer accounts. So FISA using agencies were seeking more total data but on a smaller number of accounts.
Posted April 14, 2016 by Brad Smith – President and Chief Legal Officer, Microsoft
“But based on the many secrecy orders we have received, we question whether these orders are grounded in specific facts that truly demand secrecy. To the contrary, it appears that the issuance of secrecy orders has become too routine.” “The urgency for action is clear and growing. Over the past 18 months, the U.S. government has required that we maintain secrecy regarding 2,576 legal demands, effectively silencing Microsoft from speaking to customers about warrants or other legal process seeking their data. Notably and even surprisingly, 1,752 of these secrecy orders, or 68 percent of the total, contained no fixed end date at all. This means that we effectively are prohibited forever from telling our customers that the government has obtained their data.”
https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2016/04/14/keeping-secrecy-exception-not-rule-issue-consumers-businesses/#sm.000190npf3yarf6st8f28s0obchab
Microsoft sues DOJ to challenge restrictions on data collection disclosures
“Microsoft today filed a federal lawsuit against the Department Of Justice, challenging restrictions that prevent the tech company from disclosing to its customers when the government issues a warrant seeking users’ email content or other sensitive information.”
https://www.scmagazine.com/microsoft-sues-doj-to-challenge-restrictions-on-data-collection-disclosures/article/650571/
Microsoft-DOJ Lawsuit
https://mscorpmedia.azureedge.net/mscorpmedia/2016/04/ECPA-Complaint.pdf
“Microsoft sues US government, asks court to declare secrecy orders unconstitutional” By Joel Hruska on April 14, 2016 at 4:46 pm. “Microsoft isn’t arguing that the government should be forbidden to access information in exceptional cases, but that Section 2705(b) gives too much power to the government. It sets no limits on surveillance, does not require the government to justify its actions, and does not allow for a review of the surveillance order in the event that circumstances change. The company is also arguing that Section 2705(b) violates the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure…….”
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/226664-microsoft-sues-us-government-asks-court-to-declare-secrecy-orders-unconstitutional
Keeping secrecy the exception, not the rule: An issue for both consumers and businesses
Posted April 14, 2016 by Brad Smith – President and Chief Legal Officer, Microsoft
“But based on the many secrecy orders we have received, we question whether these orders are grounded in specific facts that truly demand secrecy. To the contrary, it appears that the issuance of secrecy orders has become too routine.” “The urgency for action is clear and growing. Over the past 18 months, the U.S. government has required that we maintain secrecy regarding 2,576 legal demands, effectively silencing Microsoft from speaking to customers about warrants or other legal process seeking their data. Notably and even surprisingly, 1,752 of these secrecy orders, or 68 percent of the total, contained no fixed end date at all. This means that we effectively are prohibited forever from telling our customers that the government has obtained their data.”
Microsoft sues DOJ to challenge restrictions on data collection disclosures
“Microsoft today filed a federal lawsuit against the Department Of Justice, challenging restrictions that prevent the tech company from disclosing to its customers when the government issues a warrant seeking users’ email content or other sensitive information.”
Microsoft-DOJ Lawsuit
https://mscorpmedia.azureedge.net/mscorpmedia/2016/04/ECPA-Complaint.pdf
“Microsoft sues US government, asks court to declare secrecy orders unconstitutional” By Joel Hruska on April 14, 2016 at 4:46 pm. “Microsoft isn’t arguing that the government should be forbidden to access information in exceptional cases, but that Section 2705(b) gives too much power to the government. It sets no limits on surveillance, does not require the government to justify its actions, and does not allow for a review of the surveillance order in the event that circumstances change. The company is also arguing that Section 2705(b) violates the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure…….”
Microsoft tries to thread the needle of transparency by telling its consuming audience as much about governmental collection of data as possible. Toward that end Microsoft releases a biannual transparency report.
Transparency Report
https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2017/04/13/microsoft-releases-biannual-transparency-reports/#sm.0000mrjhtwzyjeo610qavw5p6b01w
Section 2705(b) gives too much power to the government. It sets no limits on surveillance, does not require the government to justify its actions, and does not allow for a review of the surveillance order in the event that circumstances change.
I find that part about no review when circumstances change interesting. The Obama Admin likely used the Russia excuse to tape all phone conversions of the Trump campaign. Then once they have the “legak@ hook, it doesn’t matter if there is not a single Russian connection; they can continue to evesdrop on the campaign.
I find that part about no review when circumstances change interesting. The Obama Admin likely used the Russia excuse to tape all phone conversions of the Trump campaign. Then once they have the “legak@ hook, it doesn’t matter if there is not a single Russian connection; they can continue to evesdrop on the campaign.
____
Another point made in one of the comments on the conservative treehouse link was “what do they even need any warrants for at this point with Microsoft ( and Apple and Google?”
quote:
The interesting question few have asked themselves is this. One of the few big revelations from Snowden ( to me anyway ) was the partial list of PRISM partners, and that Microsoft was the first and primary partner. We’re talking about post-9/11 to mid-2000’s before smartphones and while we were in the Windows XP to Longhorn/Vista transition period. [ If you are really deep into these weeds you may know that Longhorn underwent a sudden lengthy rewrite in beta ]. People involved in these fields firmly believe that because of that early date of co-operation ( likely facilitated by the DoJ persuasion of the anti-trust blackmail action and judgment/settlement ) every single point in Microsoft’s product line is thoroughly compromised already.
So that interesting question is, exactly what do they even need any warrants for at this point with Microsoft ( and Apple and Google … )? Well, in the case of Microsoft, it’s a good guess to assume that they have 100% access to everything from Windows Phone hardware and software, SQL, networking, cloud, email down to Windows NT file encryption. What might be the answer is that they are getting all the info they need in realtime … and then they go back for warrants retrofitted to legalize the earlier action and make it usable by other agencies and countries not in the shadows.
PING
Another lead to follow?
Or just a piece of the puzzle ?
That leaves a nice paper trail.....follows the increasing nervousness of the team.
The Obama/Hillary jitters mount as they realize Hillary is in BIG trouble
She cant draw crowds as Trump fills stadiums.
Fake News they contrived about Trump didn't do the job.
The infamous Obama interview as he stumbles talking about Trump.
They realize they've GOT to do SOMETHING.
LIz, did all the Russia broohaha come right after the Murder of Seth Rich
Wonder if there is any paperwork to connect the two! ????
What might be the answer is that they are getting all the info they need in realtime … and then they go back for warrants retrofitted to legalize the earlier action and make it usable by other agencies and countries not in the shadows.
Bingo! The government has inverted the process. Wiretap first, then Warrent to provide ex post facto cover.
I know some clever Freepers are constructing that timeline as we type.
Bookmarking; thanks for the ping, Liz!
Thanks.....the “reasons” for the admin’s FISA requests could also prove interesting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.