Failure by governments to agree on international cyber norms has left a vacuum that tech firms such as Microsoft aim to fill.
Latest in Microsoft
What the government and Microsoft argued before the Supreme Court on Tuesday morning.
Three points to consider before Tuesday's Supreme Court oral argument.
The Government Accountability Office last week published a report that, among other things, weighs in on the pros and cons of the NSA/CYBERCOM “dual-hat” system (pursuant to which the director of the NSA/CSS and commander of CYBERCOM are the same person). The report deserves attention but also some criticism and context. Here’s a bit of all three.
1. What is the “dual-hat” issue?
Google’s attempt to fight a global takedown order in Canada was stymied by the fact that the order did not pose a conflict of laws. So on Monday, Google walked into the Northern District of California to try to create one.
The Equustek decision is not crazy—to the contrary—nor is it a dangerous precedent for the right-to-be-forgotten battles being waged in Europe.
The most important policy question raised by the WannaCry ransomware fiasco is not the most obvious one.
A brief summary of yesterday's Second Circuit ruling that the government cannot compel Microsoft, or other companies, to turn over customer emails stored on servers outside the United States.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that the Stored Communications Act "does not authorize courts to issue and enforce against U.S.-based service providers warrants for the seizure of customer e-mail content that is stored exclusively on foreign servers."