Microsoft sues federal government over data access policy |

Microsoft sues federal government over data access policy

Microsoft Corp. sued the Justice Department in a bid to block authorities from taking customers’ emails without their knowledge, ratcheting up pressure on an administration already engaged in a high-profile privacy dispute with Apple Inc.

The lawsuit, which names the Justice Department and Attorney General Loretta Lynch, is the most aggressive step yet by Microsoft in a two-year feud with the government over customer privacy and its ability to disclose what it has been asked to turn over to investigators — issues that echo Apple’s fight to preserve the encryption built into its iPhones.

Microsoft called the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act unconstitutional, citing its own First Amendment free speech rights and its customers’ Fourth Amendment right to know if the government has searched or seized their property. The law essentially places the company under an unlimited gag order, according to the complaint filed Thursday in federal court in Seattle.

While it’s concerned with protecting civil liberties, Microsoft said it also wants to preserve its ability to sell Internet-based services that customers trust.

“It’s very important for businesses to know when the government is accessing their file room, whether the file room is down the hall or in the cloud,” said Microsoft President and Chief Legal Officer Brad Smith, noting that consumers and privacy groups have expressed concern about the issue. “People shouldn’t lose their rights simply because technology is moving to the cloud.”

The Justice Department is reviewing the filing, said spokeswoman Emily Pierce.

Cloud transition

The rapid growth of cloud computing, in which customer data is stored by providers such as Microsoft, Apple, and Google in the technology companies’ own data centers, has increased the frequency of warrants seeking data and government abuse of its search powers, Microsoft said in the filing. The law in question predates the invention of the World Wide Web by three years and was enacted more than two decades before widespread use of cloud computing, Microsoft said.

“The government, however, has exploited the transition to cloud computing as a means of expanding its power to conduct secret investigations,” according to Microsoft’s filing.

Bill Fitzpatrick, the district attorney in Onondaga County, New York, and president of the National District Attorney’s Association, slammed Microsoft’s actions, calling them “obscene.”

“I don’t know what’s in the water over there at Microsoft or Apple corporate headquarters, but this is ridiculous,” he said. “If I’m tracking a serial sex offender, child pornographer or a human-trafficking ring, I can’t tip these people off.”

No time limit

Secrecy orders on these warrants generally prohibit Microsoft from telling customers about the requests for lengthy or even unlimited periods, the company said. Over the past 18 months, federal courts have issued nearly 2,600 secrecy orders to Microsoft, and more than two-thirds had no fixed end date, according to the filing. That means the company can never tell customers, even after an investigation is completed.

“When you extrapolate it to all the providers, the number of gags must be astounding,” said Greg Nojeim, senior counsel at the Center for Democracy & Technology, which Microsoft briefed before filing the suit.

Microsoft conceded that there may be times when the government is justified in seeking a gag order to prevent customers under investigation from tampering with evidence or harming another person. Still, the Redmond, Wash.-based company says the statute is too broad and sets too low of a standard for secrecy.

IPhone fight

The conflict between privacy and criminal investigations intensified for the entire technology industry in February, when Apple was ordered to help the FBI break into the iPhone of one of the shooters in a terrorist attack in California. Microsoft was among a long list of technology companies that supported Apple’s refusal to comply, saying it would threaten customer security and set a dangerous precedent. The government withdrew the request last month, saying it had found a way to get into the phone without Apple.

Microsoft has been tussling with the government on similar issues for even longer.

Since National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden exposed clandestine data collection by the United States and implicated companies such as Microsoft for aiding the government, the software maker — led by Smith — has been fighting back against what they see as government overreach. The ongoing issues have meant that technology companies, once faulted by privacy advocates for mining user data and profiting from things like targeted advertising, are now in a position to take a stronger stance on user data security.

In December 2013, in the wake of Snowden’s revelations, Microsoft offered customers new legal assurances, including pledging to tell businesses if the government had requested their data, or to fight any such gag order in court.

Since then, the software maker has litigated cases in that situation and has found that an increasing number of confidential requests are coming in. The majority are for consumer accounts, not business customers, Smith said.

“This is a significant development, and part and parcel of the continued push-back by the American tech sector over surveillance (since) the Snowden disclosures,” said Catherine Crump, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley.

Microsoft’s other public case against the Justice Department concerns the question of whether the U.S. government can demand that American technology companies turn over files stored in their overseas data centers. That case, which relates to data held in Ireland that involves a narcotics investigation, awaits the ruling of a three-judge panel of an appeals court in New York.

“The concerns we are articulating are shared broadly in the tech sector,” Smith said. “I fully expect we will hear from a number of other tech companies.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.