New Wearable Technology: Microsoft against the US government: no to the ban on informing users

Thursday, April 14, 2016

Microsoft against the US government: no to the ban on informing users – Il Sole 24 Ore

History of the article

This article was published April 14, 2016 at 23:11.
the last change is the April 14, 2016 at 23:13.

After Apple’s battle with the FBI, now is the time Microsoft, another giant Use technology, which engages in a battle with the government on issues regarding the privacy and security of user data protection. The company founded by Bill Gates does it going on the offensive, suing the Justice Department, in the person of Minister Loretta Lynch, and questioning the frequent recourse to so-called “secrecy orders” that prevent Microsoft to inform its users when the police or intelligence services, possibly in the context of anti-terrorism investigations, obtained by the judges for permission to spy on their email.

In the application, filed in federal court in Seattle, the city where the headquarters of Microsoft, the company claims that prevent her from informing users affected by the judicial authority measures is unconstitutional. In particular, according to Microsoft would violate the Fourth Amendment, namely the right of its members to know if the government is searching or seizing what belongs to them. Microsoft also claims that there would also be a violation of their right to inform their users, according to the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

The use of Microsoft, unlike the litigation between Apple and the FBI regarding access to data contained in the iPhone killer of San Bernardino massacre, is not about a single case. Rather, the Bill Gates company wants to question the whole legal process relating to “secrecy orders”. Microsoft’s intent, said the New York Times, is also to trigger a public debate on the frequent use of these secret tools of investigation and to carve out a leading role in the battle to defend the privacy and rights of digital users. The practical fallout of the action is in fact meant to be postponed in time, with the possibility that the process and the inevitable appeals can last for months, if not years, before a final judgment.