Interesting People mailing list archives
any answers for Dan
From: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 16:13:53 -0500
------ Forwarded Message From: "Baker, Stewart" <SBaker () steptoe com> Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 11:55:42 -0500 To: "'Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law'" <froomkin () law miami edu>, Dave Farber <dave () farber net> Cc: "Gillmor, Dan" <dgillmor () sjmercury com>, "Albertazzie, Sally" <SAlbertazzie () steptoe com> Subject: RE: <[IP]> any answers for Dan I think you guys may be hobbled by a lack of imagination -- or maybe an unstated assumption that the US government is usually The Bad Guy. Why aren't French, or Chinese, or Saudi, intelligence authorities "government agenc<[ies]> of competent jurisdiction"? Any of them probably have legal authority to order changes to the Microsoft products sold within their borders. Or maybe even outside their borders, although I am reasonably hopeful that Microsoft would not acquiesce in that. Taking your question on its own terms, though, in the US, there are some law enforcement provisions that prevent disclosure of "cooperate-with-us" orders served on third parties. Classified information is also legally protected from disclosure, occasionally even if the disclosing party never received a clearance. And, of course, when Michael says "contractual" he's said a mouthful -- every government agency is authorized to enter into contracts and (probably) to insist that the contract and its performance not be made public. All that said, I don't see why this is especially exciting in context. This is an exception from an API disclosure provision that is unlikely to ever seriously inconvenience Microsoft, which is after all mostly in the business of disclosing -- hell, touting -- its APIs, not hiding them. For the few it wants to keep secret, the settlement provides many ways to do so. This provision probably could have been left out without changing the competitive effect of the order. To my mind, what's more interesting is that Judge Kollar-Kotelly's opinion actually does tweak the settlement in a few ways -- but only in the proceeding brought by the non-settling states. (The settlement itself is entirely unchanged except for a provision about the court's power to act on its own.) Which means that those nonsettling states are in a privileged position to insist on enforcement of the tweaks. Which means that the interest of the computer industry in who gets elected attorney general of Connecticut just got a lot higher. Maybe somebody should be gathering campaign contribution data. ------ End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com To unsubscribe or update your address, click http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=125275&user_secret=1aa8f2d6 Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- any answers for Dan Dave Farber (Nov 02)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- any answers for Dan Dave Farber (Nov 04)