Get 40% Off
👀 👁 🧿 All eyes on Biogen, up +4,56% after posting earnings. Our AI picked it in March 2024.
Which stocks will surge next?
Unlock AI-picked Stocks

U.S. lawmakers say it is time to boost privacy protections around cloud data

Published 06/30/2021, 11:22 AM
Updated 06/30/2021, 12:46 PM
© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: A Microsoft logo is seen in Los Angeles, California, U.S. June 14, 2016. REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson

By Raphael Satter

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States needs to accord the same legal protections to user data held on tech companies' servers as it does to physical files stored in personal file cabinets, media attorneys and lawmakers said Wednesday.

The witnesses spoke at a hearing on whether the U.S. government overuses it secret subpoena power in a way that harms American internet users. The proceeding follows revelations that former President Donald Trump's U.S. Department of Justice secretly sought the phone records of reporters and Democratic representatives to investigate the leaks of classified material.

Word of the DOJ's investigations outraged lawmakers and prompted renewed talk of curbing the federal government's practice of secretly subpoenaing the cloud service providers - companies like Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT), Amazon.com Inc (NASDAQ:AMZN), Apple Inc (NASDAQ:AAPL) and Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOGL) Inc's Google - to win access to their users' emails, documents and instant messages without giving them a chance to defend their interests.

U.S. Representative Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat, said the tactic was "an end run on the protections that the Fourth Amendment is supposed to provide to every American."

Hearst Corp's chief legal officer, Eve Burton, spoke for many witnesses when she told the House of Representatives' Judiciary Committee that "the same protections must apply whether the information is sought in an office file or on a cloud server across the country or across the world."

That call received a warm reception from lawmakers from both sides of the aisle.

Representative Tom McClintock, a California Republican, said this kind of surveillance in the United States was "in direct contravention of its most fundamental law."

3rd party Ad. Not an offer or recommendation by Investing.com. See disclosure here or remove ads .

The only representative of the tech industry at the hearing, Microsoft executive Tom Burt, said that in the last five years his company had received 2,400 to 3,500 secrecy orders a year and that U.S. courts provided little by way of meaningful oversight.

"Providers, like Microsoft, regularly receive boilerplate secrecy orders unsupported by any meaningful legal or factual analysis," Burt told lawmakers. "Many of these orders should never have been approved by the courts."

Burt said that while the effort to target lawmakers and reporters disturbs many Americans, "what may be most shocking is just how routine court-mandated secrecy has become when law enforcement targets Americans' emails, text messages, and other sensitive data stored in the cloud."

Latest comments

Today Microsoft permanently banned me after 20 years of being a customer and $10s of thousands in business, after making zero comments, because I have Kuck in my name, the same name I used for over 20 years with them. Frack you Microsoft you are on the wrong side of history once again.
See post below. Reuters will not allow me to post references. So much for freedom of the press.
The FBI said otherwise. It was leaking of classified information, not individuals.
Per WSJ, The Trump Justice Department obtained communications records of some Democratic lawmakers in 2018 because they had been in contact with one or more congressional staffers whom prosecutors suspected of leaking classified information to the media, not because the lawmakers themselves were targets of the investigation, people familiar with the matter said.
Shameful reporting. The Trump Justice Department obtained communications records of some Democratic lawmakers in 2018 because they had been in contact with one or more congressional staffers whom prosecutors suspected of leaking classified information to the media, not because the lawmakers themselves were targets of the investigation, people familiar with the matter said. At the time, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was examining leaks of classified information, including potentially from the House Intelligence Committee.Trump Justice Department’s Leak Probe Wasn’t Aimed at Lawmakers https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-justice-departments-leak-probe-wasnt-aimed-at-lawmakers-11624478063
Risk Disclosure: Trading in financial instruments and/or cryptocurrencies involves high risks including the risk of losing some, or all, of your investment amount, and may not be suitable for all investors. Prices of cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile and may be affected by external factors such as financial, regulatory or political events. Trading on margin increases the financial risks.
Before deciding to trade in financial instrument or cryptocurrencies you should be fully informed of the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite, and seek professional advice where needed.
Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. The data and prices on the website are not necessarily provided by any market or exchange, but may be provided by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual price at any given market, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Fusion Media and any provider of the data contained in this website will not accept liability for any loss or damage as a result of your trading, or your reliance on the information contained within this website.
It is prohibited to use, store, reproduce, display, modify, transmit or distribute the data contained in this website without the explicit prior written permission of Fusion Media and/or the data provider. All intellectual property rights are reserved by the providers and/or the exchange providing the data contained in this website.
Fusion Media may be compensated by the advertisers that appear on the website, based on your interaction with the advertisements or advertisers.
© 2007-2024 - Fusion Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.