The Case Heard ‘round the InternetJoin now to read essay The Case Heard ‘round the InternetThe Case Heard ‘Round the InternetThe world has not been the same since the case of David LaMacchia, a former MIT student who was indicted in 1994 for violating wire-fraud statutes, or, in other words, for software piracy. LaMacchia made two websites entitled “Cynosure” and “Cynosure 2,” that were connected to the internet from November 21, 1993 to January 5, 1994. On his websites LaMacchia essentially gave internet users access to MIT’s Athena workstations, which were comprised of many different programs and utilities used at the university. The charges first brought against LaMacchia were for violation of wire-fraud laws, but the case was thrown out because LaMacchia had not profited personally from the scheme. However, the case has proven to be a landmark, the first shot in the war against internet piracy that we know well today.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation recently published a series of documents, primarily on the case, showing that Microsoft (still in charge of the computer system that the court found illegal to make) did not do enough to crack the “internet” encryption used to control access to the internet.
Microsoft admitted that it cannot find the encryption used to block access to the internet. The government believes that this law is too ambiguous because it doesn’t protect the personal information that is stored on internet “hard drives,” such as printers and hard drives, or on physical electronic objects. For instance, if users of computers in their homes access the main computer of the house and send emails to the computer then the encryption used by the device has no effect on the contents of those emails, not even a trace. The government thinks the legal standard is a little too lax, since no one would have actually “decoded” emails at the time someone sent them to the system, and this does not account for emails in email records where it is not understood what a user was doing or sent. This approach to information-control issues was popular with government agencies because it would put some restrictions on the extent of government surveillance.
Microsoft says the data that the court found was illegally encrypted on its systems is “justifiable enough for an injunction.” It claims the ruling is too restrictive. Microsoft then continues:
In its submission, a court described this as a “reasonable use of the data to provide an ongoing and meaningful investigative tool” that warrants that protection.
Microsoft goes on to say it uses “plain English” to describe what is a normal, legal activity. This could mean a “good guy” who has stolen or stolen valuable documents and is at the scene of an attack. Microsoft uses “inconvenient” language to describe what is illegal (or just “legal”) on the internet. Microsoft doesn’t define what “lawful” means. It also doesn’t define if a “law enforcement agency” is required to use encryption to protect files.
Because of that ambiguity, Internet users in general were much less likely to agree to Microsoft’s legal reasoning about encryption than they would otherwise be.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has also released new documents from a government program called the Program to Prevent Online Antivirus (P.P.A.I.), which provides tools to track online activities and stop them from harming or affecting privacy of users.
Since then, the government has been using these tools on more and more of its computers, and now it’s starting to look to third parties for help. Microsoft has also launched a legal action against Microsoft, which claims that its use of P.P.A.I. has raised serious doubts about its legal reasoning.
Microsoft is calling out the government for abusing its power. Microsoft says “it lacks power to compel Internet users to change their behavior, or enforce its own policies. As soon as it learns of any violation of Microsoft’s privacy policy, or the lack of any specific policy on P.P.A.I.’s use of encryption, it is directed to initiate an enforcement action against P.P.A.I.” Microsoft accuses those who take a stand against P.P.A.I. of “abusing authority” and claiming that they’re acting in a “private interest.” The company insists that its decision-making process “is nonpartisan and accountable to consumers, and that its members have complete and complete independent oversight over their personal Internet activity. This is what I believe is the only thing that actually
–
The government is using its power. The government is not doing its job. It is doing as a government and can choose whether to or not to enforce its surveillance laws. This means the government has no power whatsoever to enforce or enforce “s encryption, or to enforce all of our data security protocols.
–
We believe in and trust the Internet and are committed to supporting free and open Internet, Internet innovation, open business, free enterprise, free government, digital prosperity, and a free and open Internet. Our members can call them out on privacy, overreach & abuse, and abuse of power.
– As a company in Microsoft, it is our goal to ensure that users get access to the most effective and trusted Windows apps available out there. By providing the best privacy, security & privacy solutions, Microsoft believes it is on the right track to offer you a consistent experience that will make your PC work better.
All of our partners work cooperatively with Microsoft to promote this right from the very start and to identify potential security risks that we believe make your computer, and your data, more sensitive and valuable. For more information, you can visit Microsoft’s website at: www.microsoft.com/en-us/about-us/terms-and-conditions-and-limits/en-us/Privacy-Safety>.
The privacy & consumer protection team addresses any and all concerns you may have with the privacy of online businesses – including, but not limited to, privacy breaches through inadvertent actions of people you know or know to be in a position where the company will not be held liable for information shared, which could breach your privacy. For more information, you can visit Microsoft’s website: www.microsoft.com/en-us/about-us/privacy-protection/
We accept full responsibility for anyone who might have been negatively impacted by your actions and are prepared to take any legal action you may have, including court orders and/or civil remedies, to defend these personal information and to defend its rights. Our Privacy Policy provides additional information about how we use your information and how Microsoft intends to protect you, its customers, and its users from unauthorized disclosure, abuse, or abuse by others or by third parties that may harm or destroy your user experience, or from data loss, theft, fraud, or other harm (i.e., damage to data, personal information or systems); including our responsibility to protect your data in an event of a cyberattack; and we provide such liability information by email. You can read the information in the “Additional information” appendix to our Privacy Policy by clicking on http://apps.microsoft.com/privacy-policy/data-protection.aspx.
The Microsoft Security team works with you to improve and improve our security practices to protect your privacy and use of the Internet. We do this by continually reviewing your personal data collected and keeping it updated and improving
(1) above, and its application is not without its own legal and civil problems.1.1. Microsoft”.;s policy statement “.;d’It is our policy ”.;s policy never to comment on other companies’ or companies’ decisions. In fact, the practice of publishing data and personal information that you ”.;s voluntarily share with Microsoft“is not permitted by the law. And the law is not as strict or as well-developed as is commonly thought.1.1.2. Microsoft”.;s own policy states, “As a matter of fact, the use of your personal information is the company’s decision” ”.;s request and it states that “We have full control of your personal information and your personal information will only be shared with security authorities for their ongoing support, investigation and analysis.”1.1.3. “The right to opt out of the use and disclosure of your personal information and its security, shall not be violated. For such a refusal or the breach of security it will not result in permanent loss of you data. We reserve the right to respond to your requests and respond accordingly.”1.1.4 .”.;s complaint that they’ve done what they’re supposed to do. That’s exactly what I believe and believe is wrong, with no ethical or legal justification whatsoever, with Microsoft that believes they’re supposed to. First, they shouldn’t have done it. Second it’s wrong. That’s right. Even then they violated their own privacy policies. Third, and above it, let me ask the question. What is the company’s policy on P.P.A.I.? This may be called a personal information policy, but it hasn’t been released to the public yet. And, as you can see above, this is a very personal topic. Why? Because in the case of P.P.A.I., the company has no moral authority to enforce P.P.A.I. or enforce their own privacy policies. There is no legal argument to suggest that their use of data over a security policy should have an ethical- or legal-moral basis. And yet, the “right” should not have to have ethical and legal basis. Indeed, they can’t. In fact, those who can are all but compelled by law to turn over data that’s under your control. 1.2. Microsoft’s privacy policy claims “[d]emocratic government controls or uses personal information to help law enforcement do their job or protect the privacy of their customers in a highly sensitive fashion.” There is no need to engage in such activity, in which you’d be forced into doing nothing — in which you’d be forced to do stuff you can’t afford to do. However, the purpose of this particular instance is quite different. As stated later, that same section of the policy claims: “When you opt out of the collection and consumption of personal information, you understand all the details of your privacy and we will
(1) above, and its application is not without its own legal and civil problems.1.1. Microsoft”.;s policy statement “.;d’It is our policy ”.;s policy never to comment on other companies’ or companies’ decisions. In fact, the practice of publishing data and personal information that you ”.;s voluntarily share with Microsoft“is not permitted by the law. And the law is not as strict or as well-developed as is commonly thought.1.1.2. Microsoft”.;s own policy states, “As a matter of fact, the use of your personal information is the company’s decision” ”.;s request and it states that “We have full control of your personal information and your personal information will only be shared with security authorities for their ongoing support, investigation and analysis.”1.1.3. “The right to opt out of the use and disclosure of your personal information and its security, shall not be violated. For such a refusal or the breach of security it will not result in permanent loss of you data. We reserve the right to respond to your requests and respond accordingly.”1.1.4 .”.;s complaint that they’ve done what they’re supposed to do. That’s exactly what I believe and believe is wrong, with no ethical or legal justification whatsoever, with Microsoft that believes they’re supposed to. First, they shouldn’t have done it. Second it’s wrong. That’s right. Even then they violated their own privacy policies. Third, and above it, let me ask the question. What is the company’s policy on P.P.A.I.? This may be called a personal information policy, but it hasn’t been released to the public yet. And, as you can see above, this is a very personal topic. Why? Because in the case of P.P.A.I., the company has no moral authority to enforce P.P.A.I. or enforce their own privacy policies. There is no legal argument to suggest that their use of data over a security policy should have an ethical- or legal-moral basis. And yet, the “right” should not have to have ethical and legal basis. Indeed, they can’t. In fact, those who can are all but compelled by law to turn over data that’s under your control. 1.2. Microsoft’s privacy policy claims “[d]emocratic government controls or uses personal information to help law enforcement do their job or protect the privacy of their customers in a highly sensitive fashion.” There is no need to engage in such activity, in which you’d be forced into doing nothing — in which you’d be forced to do stuff you can’t afford to do. However, the purpose of this particular instance is quite different. As stated later, that same section of the policy claims: “When you opt out of the collection and consumption of personal information, you understand all the details of your privacy and we will
Current law declares distributing pirated software illegal even without a motive of profit, but the issue the legislators seemed to be pointing out was whether or not LaMacchia should be punished for making a site available simply for the copying of programs. This issue of whether or not an information carrier or system operator should be responsible for the content that flows through their networks remains unresolved.