ON THE PARANOIA FRONT - Microsoft on the Bandwagon

"Microsoft sues DOJ over demands for access to customer data" PBS NewsHour 4/15/2016

Here we go again.  The paranoia over privacy that helps criminals and terrorists hide from the law, even with a legal warrant.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In the wake of the FBI’s showdown with Apple last month, a new tech giant is taking up arms against government oversight.  Microsoft sued the Department of Justice Thursday, arguing that it is unconstitutional for the government to request access to a customer’s data while banning Microsoft from informing the individual in question.  Microsoft president Brad Smith joins Judy Woodruff for more.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  A high-profile showdown between a tech giant and the U.S. government over accessing private data.

This time, it’s Microsoft.  Yesterday, the company filed a suit against the Department of Justice in federal court.  Microsoft argues it’s unconstitutional for the government to ask for customers’ personal data or e-mails in most cases without the individuals’ knowledge.  The company says it’s received more than 5,600 requests for such data from the government in the last year-and-a-half, often from the cloud or remote servers.  And nearly half of those requests come with a ban from the government on alerting customers.

Brad Smith is the president of Microsoft.  He joins me from company headquarters in Redmond, Washington.

And welcome to the program, Brad Smith.

I do want to point out we invited the Department of Justice to join the interview, but they declined.

So, let me begin by asking you, what is it that the federal government is doing that Microsoft doesn’t like?

BRAD SMITH, President, Microsoft:  Well, what gives us concern is the fact we have received almost 2,600 — almost 2,600 of these so-called gag or secrecy orders over the last 18 months.

Over two-thirds of them have no end date at all.  So it means that we are permanently prohibited from telling customers that the government has accessed, read and obtained copies of their e-mails.  We feel that infringes on the constitutional rights of consumers and businesses to be secure from unreasonable government searches.

It infringes on our First Amendment right to speak, to share information with our customers.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Well, we know the Justice Department has not responded to the lawsuit.  They have not said anything publicly, but we know that in the past they have said these are investigations that involve criminals, people who are breaking the law, that involve — that are perhaps involved in potential terrorist acts.

Why not work with the government when they’re trying to go after the bad guys?

BRAD SMITH:  Well, this is an issue that we have discussed with various officials in government for some time.

And we readily recognize that there are many cases where there should be some kind of secrecy, that there is a real danger if information is disclosed.  But we feel that these kinds of secrecy orders have been — become too routine.  They’re being issued in cases that involve businesses, as well as consumers.

.....

...hence, the paranoia.  Like businesses can't be criminals or help terrorists hide?  Also, lets warn the criminals BEFORE they are brought to trial, think secret Grand Juries.  Oh, wait, the Black-WEB sites used by drug lords and terrorists to hide.  Humm.... could it be the big profits such companies make laundering hiding money?

WAR ON TERROR - Terrorists Going Dark

"Terrorists hiding behind impenetrable communication, says FBI" PBS NewsHour 11/18/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  How did the Paris terrorists communicate with each other and elude surveillance?  Investigators are eyeing readily available cellphone technologies that defy cracking by intelligence agencies and even the companies that created them.  Judy Woodruff takes a look at some of the encrypted apps and software being used to evade detection.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  Since the Paris attacks, there’s been lots of concern in Washington and other world capitals over fears of how terrorists can communicate by going dark, namely, using an array of technologies to hide from law enforcement before and after attacks.

In the aftermath of the Paris attacks, investigators are still hunting for answers to how the terrorists communicated with each other and eluded surveillance.  But their eyes are on the now ubiquitous cell phone, which can send coded information using free, readily available technologies that defy cracking by intelligence agencies and even the companies that created them.

In Washington yesterday, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Republican Richard Burr, said that very technology was probably at play in Paris.

SEN. RICHARD BURR (R), North Carolina:  Globally, we need to begin the debate on what we do on encrypted networks, because it makes us blind to communications and to the actions of potential adversaries.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  It’s called end-to-end encryption, meaning data gets encrypted or locked away with special codes on one device and is only decrypted when it reaches another.

Popular applications like WhatsApp, Apple’s iMessage, Threema and Telegram all operate this way.  Some of the encrypted apps, like Dstrux, also employ technology that makes messages disappear after they’re delivered, leaving no trace.

Terrorists conceal their work using other sites like JustPaste.it.  It is one place the Islamic State group posts messages and claims of responsibility without having to register.  The TOR browser bounces communications around a distributed network of relays run by volunteers, hiding both the user’s activity and location.

Terrorist groups have even created their own encrypted software specifically to evade detection by the National Security Agency.

"Do governments need access to encrypted messages to thwart terrorism?" PBS NewsHour 11/18/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Would greater government access to messages sent through secure communication technology help intelligence agencies fight terrorism?  Judy Woodruff gets views from Stewart Baker, former assistant secretary of Homeland Security, and Kate Martin of the Center for American Progress.