Microsoft simultaneously combats, profits from and contributes to cybersecurity problems.
Latest in Microsoft
Monoculture risk is manageable for most systems, but that isn’t the case for government systems. For these systems, monoculture vulnerability is a national security risk.
Restraining orders and other equitable mechanisms of relief were never designed to address such a unique challenge as global cybercrime.
Chinese companies have more independence than Americans may realize—but the potential for interference in TikTok by the Chinese government is real, and there’s little that the app’s parent company can do about it.
The global regulation of cybersecurity is one of the most contentious topics on the international legal plane.
The Supreme Court heard oral argument Tuesday morning in United States v. Microsoft Corp.—a case that readers will by now be familiar with. (See a fantastic summary of Lawfare coverage here).
I have blogged a lot over the last two years on the pending case of United States v. Microsoft, the case on whether Microsoft must comply with a search warrant for foreign-stored e-mails. With oral argument scheduled for next Tuesday, I thought I would add a few final thoughts before we finally get a sense of where the Justices might be.
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 filed a complaint this week in the Northern District of California to challenge a Canadian Supreme Court ruling that requires Google to delist—that is, remove from its search results—links to certain offending pages. (I wrote about the Canadian case here.) In short, 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.
Last week, the Canadian Supreme Court upheld a ruling by the Court of Appeal for British Columbia that required Google to delist—remove from its search results—links to a website that appears to violate Canadian law (the result of an intellectual property dispute between Equustek and Datalink that otherwise does not involve Google; for more background on the case, see coverage