MSN hands over search queries to US govt.

Google resists

An attorney for the ACLU said Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL received identical subpoenas and chose to comply with them rather than fight the request in court.

A Microsoft representative said: "MSN works closely with law enforcement officials worldwide to assist them when requested....It is our policy to respond to legal requests in a very responsive and timely manner, in full compliance with applicable law."

The fact that other search engines have complied with the broad Justice Department request was "very worrying," Siy said.


update: MSN search team responds on their blog

Now if they just hadn't kept logs in the first place, there wouldn't be a problem...

androidi wrote:

A Microsoft representative said: "MSN works closely with law enforcement officials worldwide to assist them when requested....It is our policy to respond to legal requests in a very responsive and timely manner, in full compliance with applicable law."

What if the Law Enforcement officials are abusing their power?

W3bbo wrote:

What if the Law Enforcement officials are abusing their power?

I think we seem to forget that it's not the job of these companies like MSN or Yahoo or Google to define the law, or what the enforcement officials can and cannot do.

Anonymity and freedom on the web is a thin veil that could be snatched away by legislation and government control at any time - and if that ever looked like it was going to happen, who would you complain to; Microsoft?

Yes, of course Law Enforcement officials could be abusing their power.  It's not down to ISPs to fight corruption - it's down to the people, and other enforcement agencies.

Badgerguy wrote:

Anonymity and freedom on the web is a thin veil

Oh certainly "Mark"

Badgerguy wrote:

...that could be snatched away by legislation and government control at any time - and if that ever looked like it was going to happen, who would you complain to; Microsoft?

I'd complain to the government first, then the company responsible for caving into rediculous demands so easily.

Badgerguy wrote:

It's not down to ISPs to fight corruption

Whyso? Why can't ISPs "put their foot down" and say that they don't agree with a certain government's practices?

The BBC is banned from Zimbabwe for slightly similar reasons, but that's a damned more ethical position to be in rather than aiding and abetting Mugabe.

people will simply stop using these services, and will go to alternatives....

I mean what the heck, there are more developers out there that would be willing to make a search engine that is simply "free" from this "Big brother" stuff.

W3bbo wrote:

Whyso? Why can't ISPs "put their foot down" and say that they don't agree with a certain government's practices?

Because that's unethical and immoral.

Depends on your belief system, however.  [A]

Michael Griffiths wrote:

W3bbo wrote:Whyso? Why can't ISPs "put their foot down" and say that they don't agree with a certain government's practices?

Because that's unethical and immoral.

Depends on your belief system, however. 

Many people beleive the act of complying with an immoral law is immoral.

Kental wrote:

W3bbo wrote: Whyso? Why can't ISPs "put their foot down" and say that they don't agree with a certain government's practices?

To encourage anyone and everyone, including companies based in a country, to violate that country's laws and politics (by ignoring government entirely) is to invite anarchy.  I can't just NOT pay a speeding ticket simply because I think the speed limit should be 55 instead of 35 and I think that their "demands are ridiculous."  That would be no different from this.  If you don't agree with it, try to get it changed, don't just say "I don't agree, tough."  Companies that want to co-exist with the government(s) they operate under have to suck it up sometimes, I think.

I was thinking more along the line's of Yahoo's actions that resulted in a Chinese blogger getting imprisoned.

W3bbo wrote:

Whyso? Why can't ISPs "put their foot down" and say that they don't agree with a certain government's practices?

To encourage anyone and everyone, including companies based in a country, to violate that country's laws and politics (by ignoring government entirely) is to invite anarchy.  I can't just NOT pay a speeding ticket simply because I think the speed limit should be 55 instead of 35 and I think that their "demands are ridiculous."  That would be no different from this.  If you don't agree with it, try to get it changed, don't just say "I don't agree, tough."  Companies that want to co-exist with the government(s) they operate under have to suck it up sometimes, I think.

EDIT: My point being, if you want to change the way practices are done, there are processes in place to have them changed.  Whining doesn't solve the problem, it exacerbates it.  Go through and get it changed if you don't like it, don't just dissent.  You CAN get laws changed, I've seen several people work to do so, and they were quite effective in it.  You just need to be determined that something is wrong and work to change it.

Ahh, my apologies, I wasn't thinking along the same lines as you were.

Kental wrote:

Companies that want to co-exist with the government(s) they operate under have to suck it up sometimes, I think.

In the US, all federal laws must meet Constitutional requirements. All state laws must also meet the US Constitution requirements. But there are plenty of bad laws actively on the book -- those that won't be able to stand up to scrutiny.

Minh wrote:

Kental wrote: Companies that want to co-exist with the government(s) they operate under have to suck it up sometimes, I think.

In the US, all federal laws must meet Constitutional requirements. All state laws must also meet the US Constitution requirements. But there are plenty of bad laws actively on the book -- those that won't be able to stand up to scrutiny.

And those laws can be challenged and changed, or removed entirely in some cases perhaps.  Just saying "I'm not gonna do it!" hardly solves anything, and makes more crap for the Company to deal with.  Coming at it from a pure bureaucratical point of view, it doesn't make ANY kind of business sense to ignore a government mandate simply because you don't like it.  It makes far more sense to comply and then fight like hell to see it changed, or immediately challenge the legality of it.  Just ignoring it won't help.

There is nothing illegal about fighting a government request in court.  Google can refuse to turn over the records, and the govt can, if they so choose, take Google to court over it.  One side prevails, and the other one could accept it OR fight it some more upon appeal.  That's part of the American spirit, and it is perfectly legal (albeit costly) to do so.  Google may win or they may lose, but I applaud them for at least fighting for what appears to be their users' interests rather than unzipping and bending over on first command.

Kental wrote:

it doesn't make ANY kind of business sense to ignore a government mandate simply because you don't like it.

Oh really? It doesn't make any business sense to refuse to hand over your clients data without their say so's? Hmmm, that's pretty good business if you ask me.

Kental wrote:

It makes far more sense to comply and then fight like hell to see it changed, or immediately challenge the legality of it.  Just ignoring it won't help.

Google is not "ignoring" it. Here's how it's going:

Government man: Give me your data.
Google: No!
GM: But it's the law.
Google: It's a bad law.
GM: OK, for disobeying the law, I'm going procecute you.
Google: Even if you convict me, I'll just appeal -- all the way the the top.
GM: Oh yeah? We've got Alito.
Google: Oh, sh!t, what is it that you want again?

So, you see? Just do as you're told and everything's gonna be OK.

I wonder what would have happened if Google had complied? The internet is the success it is because it is so open. You get very good and very bad thins on it as a result. If it was tightly regulated, then it would get much less use, and people would resort to other methods (an 'underground' network, encrypted to prevent snooping).

I think Microsoft has an obligation to comply with the law and provide the goverment with the information it wants if the goverment willing to accept that any data must be cleansed of any information that could be personally identifying and undermine their customers' right to privacy. If, however, the goverment insists on having data with personally identifying information, I believe Microsoft has an obligation to refuse pending a warrant or court order justifying such an intrusion. Given the particulars of this case, I wish MSN had put up more of a fight...

BryanF wrote:

I think Microsoft has an obligation to comply with the law and provide the goverment with the information it wants if the goverment willing to accept that any data must be cleansed of any information that could be personally identifying and undermine their customers' right to privacy. If, however, the goverment insists on having data with personally identifying information, I believe Microsoft has an obligation to refuse pending a warrant or court order justifying such an intrusion. Given the particulars of this case, I wish MSN had put up more of a fight...

True enough.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with, say, Yahoo! handing over information that gets a Chinese blogger imprisoned. It's their country.

Now, in this particular case I'd have liked to see Microsoft/Yahoo! put up more of a fight, and challenge it like Google is doing.

Unfortunately, some of the recent anti-terrorism laws will probably see it fail.