Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 76641	2007-02-08 00:03:00	Should Microsoft Obey NZ Law or Amercian Law.	KiwiTT_NZ (233)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
523629	2007-02-08 03:03:00	This story is a beat-up. Microsoft did obey NZ law once shown a court order, & I can think of many other kinds of local companies who'd refuse to provide information without one. They are organisations whose reputations depend on their customer guarantee of privacy. M/S has a lot to lose if it appears they blithely hand over info without dur process, even if it's a police request. I've worked for one myself. After an anti-Springbok tour demonstration, senoir local police came to my TV station & asked to view our film, obviously for identification of protesters. To the horror of journalists - realising the public distrust we'd get later - our boss complied. That led to a strict ruling that a court order was needed in future. It was a matter of reputation... I think the lawyer who compared NZ & US law was simply muddying the waters here. More to the point - as PaulD mentioned - is why it took nearly 2 weeks to get a court order. That, plus the police comment that M/S " hadn't been obstructive," makes me think this case wasn't high on their priority list. It didn't have to take that long. The story was probably prompted by the victim's complaint of delay. And because it's Microsoft involved, it's news. If it was a NZ firm, we'd probably have never heard of it.	Laura (43)
523630	2007-02-08 03:12:00	This story is a beat-up. Microsoft did obey NZ law once shown a court order, & I can think of many other kinds of local companies who'd refuse to provide information without one. They are organisations whose reputations depend on their customer guarantee of privacy. M/S has a lot to lose if it appears they blithely hand over info without dur process, even if it's a police request. I've worked for one myself. After an anti-Springbok tour demonstration, senoir local police came to my TV station & asked to view our film, obviously for identification of protesters. To the horror of journalists - realising the public distrust we'd get later - our boss complied. That led to a strict ruling that a court order was needed in future. It was a matter of reputation... I think the lawyer who compared NZ & US law was simply muddying the waters here. More to the point - as PaulD mentioned - is why it took nearly 2 weeks to get a court order. That, plus the police comment that M/S " hadn't been obstructive," makes me think this case wasn't high on their priority list. It didn't have to take that long. The story was probably prompted by the victim's complaint of delay. And because it's Microsoft involved, it's news. If it was a NZ firm, we'd probably have never heard of it. But they're bound by the privacy act to give it (NZ firm or not aside for a moment). Is it not due process to hand over information when legally obligated to do so? I'm talking about all NZ firms here, as you have chosen to use them as an example. So the question IS whether the privacy act applies to Microsoft or not. I think it should, but it looks as though it's not enforcable in this case.	george12 (7)
523631	2007-02-08 03:39:00	But they're bound by the privacy act to give it (NZ firm or not aside for a moment). Is it not due process to hand over information when legally obligated to do so? I'm talking about all NZ firms here, as you have chosen to use them as an example. So the question IS whether the privacy act applies to Microsoft or not. I think it should, but it looks as though it's not enforcable in this case. I'm not familiar enough with the Privacy Act to comment on whether a section was breached (though think it's ironic that its purpose was to protect people's information). The police comment indicates otherwise, though.	Laura (43)
523632	2007-02-08 05:09:00	Should Microsoft reveal details of Chinese customers posting pro-democratic material using its online blogging service to the chinese government, so they can be tortured, jailed and executed? Should Yahoo and Google do the same? Should they reveal details of anti-Labour party bloggers to the NZ government? If so, why?... Yes. If Microsoft / Google / Yahoo / whoever wishes to do business in a particular country, then that company should be bound by the laws of that country.	pine-o-cleen (2955)
523633	2007-02-08 10:00:00	Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I am merely an opinionated geek raised in a family full of lawyers. Discussion of law at the dinner table is annoying but sometimes useful. Microsoft is bound to operate in New Zealand under the terms of New Zealand law. There is no question about this. That article is, however, misleading at best. The Privacy Act compels private and public organisations to divulge information to allow the law to be upheld. Rubbish. The Privacy act has specific exemptions, but there is no compulsion I'm aware of that requires such information to be simply given to the police on request. The Privacy Act has exemptions for restrictions on both the disclosure and collection of personal information when non-compliance is necessary: To avoid prejudice to the maintenance of the law by any public sector agency, including the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution, and punishment of offences This means they were permitted to disclose this information. This does not, however, "compel" them to do so. Under the circumstances Microsoft have made a pain of themselves by acting over-cautiously and requiring a court order. However, being a pain in the backside is not an offense. I wouldn't trust that article as far as I could throw it (That is, if it had a mass, and a significant one that would be suitably hard to throw. Maybe a few tonnes.).	TGoddard (7263)
523634	2007-02-08 12:05:00	Quite right T Goddard, much is withheld in the lofty name of the Privacy Act which is not provided for within the Act . Laura, the article may be a beat-up, it certainly appears that way, however the fact was that MS chose to be obstructive, yes obstructive, for their own reasons, not on the basis of NZ law or what is good for NZ or the victim (remember him?) . You make the point that the investigation could not have been a priority due to the 2 week delay in obtaining a court order and you are probably correct . Both the courts and polices' time and resources are precious, more reason for MS to be a good corporates citizen, to show some compassion for for the victim and empathy for the police in their struggle against crime . IMO, the important issues should not be allowed to be sullied by editorial chicanery . I'm wondering whether MS' moral high horse would be so high, if they would be so backward in coming forward in divulging privately obtained information if the hurt had been theirs at the hands of, say, software pirates . What's your best guess on that, a conundrum perhaps, yeah right! I also guess that the MS EULA has any grey areas of the Privacy Act covered . . . . maybe not, it's probably very US centric .	Murray P (44)
523635	2007-02-08 22:10:00	As an aside, what the hell has happened to NZ journalism, more specifically investigative journalism? It's either very shallow (i.e. none) or regurgitated "facts" from press handouts. Case in point, much of the Telecom reporting in the past and the current MS Vista stories.	Murray P (44)
523636	2007-02-08 22:50:00	... more specifically investigative journalism?And here is your answer. Whatever happened to Investigative Journalism (www.chartist.org.uk)	KiwiTT_NZ (233)
523637	2007-02-08 22:59:00	KiwiTT, I'll read the article more fully later, but a quick scan gives me the impression it is an apologist attempt to foist readership apathy onto the readership rather than the desire of the news organisations to ramp up quick easy titillation to make a quick buck. It's bit of both IMO, but who actually has the power and ability (if not the will) to uphold standards if not the journos' and their employers.	Murray P (44)
523638	2007-02-08 23:11:00	I would have thought the readers. If the readers didn't view or read the stories, then something would have to be done. However the majority of readers, just accept whatever comes from the mainstream media, whereas others with a bit more deeper interest, would gravitate to the more "alternative" media like www.alternet.org	KiwiTT_NZ (233)
1 2 3