[seb_r]

Deutscher OneDrive-Nutzer: Razzia nach Upload verdächtiger Datei - Netzpolitik - derStandard.at ? Web
Obviously MS does automatically scan the data that users store in their cloud service and actively share the information gathered ( =report to the authorities).
This behavior is without any doubt unlawful in terms of the postal privacy in germany and austria as well - no matter if it is used for serious crime fighting or a very cost-effective way to detect copyright infringement.
Well it has been said often enough to avoid any cloud service and better run ownCloud. This is just another reminder.

[Harrie-S]

If this action was unlawful or not is up to the judge. But please also read below code of conduct.
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-GB/w...ode-of-conduct

And if they prohibit something they also have to check it.

[davidofmidnight]

From Microsoft-Servicevertrag - Microsoft Windows

"Häufig wird Microsoft durch Beschwerden von Kunden auf Verletzungen der Verhaltensregeln aufmerksam gemacht, wir setzen jedoch auch automatisierte Technologien ein, um Kinderpornografie oder missbräuchliches Verhalten ausfindig zu machen, das dem System, unseren Kunden oder anderen Schaden zufügen könnte. Bei der Untersuchung dieser Angelegenheiten werden die Inhalte von Microsoft oder den Vertretern von Microsoft überprüft, um das Problem zu lösen. Dies ist ein Zusatz zu den in diesem Vertrag und den Datenschutzbestimmungen beschriebenen Verwendungszwecken."

Which translates to:

"Often Microsoft is made aware by complaints by customers for violations of the code of conduct, we employ but also automated technologies to locate child pornography or abusive behaviour, which could add to the system, our customers or other damage. In investigating these matters, the content be verified by Microsoft or the representatives of Microsoft, to solve the problem. This is an addition to the purposes described in this agreement and the privacy policy."

[poddie]

I think you'll find that you have agreed to whatever scanning Microsoft does, thus negating your vastly simplified "without a doubt" judgement of their legal standing. If you don't think Microsoft has hundreds of lawyers reviewing their standing on these things, I'm not sure what to tell you. Something tells me their judgement is probably a bit more reliable than yours.

Everything is a tradeoff. If you can't stand for your files to ever have the chance of being scanned by someone, you need to simply stop your technology progress here and not use modern computing devices. Obviously, you will miss out on all the benefits the rest of us enjoy, but that is certainly your right.

[seb_r]

What this magazine (and others) point out probably got lost due to translation. Of course every user has agreed to the terms above. And therefore MS is allowed to process the data gathered by scanning media for example to generate customized ads or to identify spam or malware. They have the right to delete content or even exclude users from their service. Even if they reserve the right to share information they gathered with others - which I not even read in the terms quoted above - it is still unlawful to do so, at least in the countries mentoined in the article above where the postal privacy / telecommunications secrecy applies. In other countries it's different of course. Tho MS might think so, they are not above the law. And that is what causes the public outcry. Even if they did what they did with "good" intentions in this case here which is very understandable.
And you don't have to be a lawyer to know that whatever terms in whatever contract are not able to override any law. I'm sorry for those people that think just because MS is a big company and "has hundreds of lawyers reviewing their standing on these things" everything they do is according to current law - there have been many court trials in the past that show they don't.

[JamesPTao]

What a company reserves the right to do and actually does are not always the same thing. If you remember when the NSA was getting direct access to many companies servers with their permission (google one of the many) MS was one of the very few fighting that before it became trendy and looking good to do so.

[poddie]

What this magazine (and others) point out probably got lost due to translation. Of course every user has agreed to the terms above. And therefore MS is allowed to process the data gathered by scanning media for example to generate customized ads or to identify spam or malware. They have the right to delete content or even exclude users from their service. Even if they reserve the right to share information they gathered with others - which I not even read in the terms quoted above - it is still unlawful to do so, at least in the countries mentoined in the article above where the postal privacy / telecommunications secrecy applies. In other countries it's different of course. Tho MS might think so, they are not above the law. And that is what causes the public outcry. Even if they did what they did with "good" intentions in this case here which is very understandable.
And you don't have to be a lawyer to know that whatever terms in whatever contract are not able to override any law. I'm sorry for those people that think just because MS is a big company and "has hundreds of lawyers reviewing their standing on these things" everything they do is according to current law - there have been many court trials in the past that show they don't.

Sigh. I stand by my prior statement.

I find it hard to believe that countries have laws that would force Microsoft to store a user's child pornography on their servers just because the user insists on placing it there.

IF there is such a law, my suspicion would be that Microsoft knows full well about it and that it is just a matter of the law not catching up to technology... they would likely assume they could delete the porn anyway and fight it out in court if necessary. Who will be willing to sue them over this matter?

I understand the tin foil hat brigade believes there is something nefarious going on here... I just don't buy it. As I said, they always have the option to not use the service.

(I should note that I of course cannot read the article, so if I am completely misunderstanding what it is talking about I apologize. But it sounds like the usual "Microsoft it's scanning my files! Eeek!" paranoia to me.)

[davidofmidnight]

(I should note that I of course cannot read the article, so if I am completely misunderstanding what it is talking about I apologize. But it sounds like the usual "Microsoft it's scanning my files! Eeek!" paranoia to me.)

I did a Bing Translate, and the interesting paragraph says

What had happened? According to the representation of IT lawyer Udo Vetter, who legally represents the OneDrive users, that has collected large amounts of data. The client call themselves as "Internet Junkie" so cousin. He collect large amounts of material, which he then up load into his supposedly private cloud storage, including pornography. Thumbnail qualifies as child pornography have been in these "several thousand sound recordings" according to cousin."

The accused denies uploading child porn, yet he admits to doing it, even if it was "unintentional". So he got caught, and whether or not he knew, he has/had kiddie porn on his computer. So, he blames Microsoft.

[SteveNoza]

If this action was unlawful or not is up to the judge. But please also read below code of conduct.
Code of conduct - Windows Help

And if they prohibit something they also have to check it.

I suspect that the Code of conduct is in place so when someone gets busted for things like child porn, Microsoft can go in and get the files and not get busted for privacy issues. Even though I trust Microsoft with my stuff, I know it's not truly secure, SOMEBODY can get to it. Bottom line is if you have files that you want secure, don't hand them to others.

[JamesPTao]

Exactly. If Microsoft suspects pr has reason to believe someone is using their services for illegal purposes they should hold the right to be able to check. The info is on their servers after all. And if they knew and didn't check they could be held liable that's perfectly reasonable.

[JamesPTao]

If I owned a storage facility I would retain the right to be able to inspect the facilities in case there was a concern they were being used for illegal purposes. I would not exercise that right unless I had a real reason to be concerned and would respect my users privacy first and foremost. But having that in place would be needed because people do so.e really messed up things.

[horseybob]

Sigh... Privacy laws, including in Germany and Austria, are not intended to protect pedophiles. Nor would these same laws protect an organization hosting it, as they'd be culpable. Ergo, MS must, BY LAW, do this. As does Google, as does Apple, as does VZW, as does O2, blablabla... Based on country statutes. They are all highly constrained as to what they can do with any data, but if it's illegal, they are required to report it or face penalties themselves. Triple facepalm, indeed.

[rollindice]

Maybe the OP should check this video

[etad putta]

I enjoy being spied upon, makes me feel special.

[anon(8150199)]

What you don't mention is that it specifically scans for child pornography. And no, I won't disagree with them.
Wanna know it yourself? Learn German, simple as that.

[rockstarzzz]

So, I walked into a local supermarket. I kept browsing the store, looking at things, looking at prices. I occasionally picked things up and also after looking at them put them back in the shelf. I picked a few stuff and put in my basket. Then I kept walking around. I saw this really cute chocolate bar. It was so tiny and so cute. I had to buy it. But I wasn't going to pay money for it. No way. I thought, let me just slide it in my pocket, its not like a security guard is walking next to, right? But then it was against the rules of that supermarket. They prohibited customers from taking stuff without paying money for it. But then, I didn't care. They let me in the store, let me browse it, let me buy things when I wanted so who cares! So I slid this chocolate bar in my jacket pocket anyway and walked around as if nothing happened. I paid at the checkout of stuff I put in my basket. The girl at the till smiled while she served me. Then all of a sudden two security guards walked towards me and said "Sir, please come with us."

I was like WTF! What do you want? - I asked. They took me to their security chamber, asked me to empty my pockets. Guess what? They were spying on me to make sure I didn't break their rules that I agreed to abide with when I entered the store. They even told me they will share this footage with police so that law enforcement knew about my dishonest behaviour in supermarkets.

How rude! How dishonest! How wrong! I felt humiliated and angry. I decided from that point on, that I will come here and write this post on the forums to let everyone know that spying on me like this was totally unlawful and I hate this. I am going to start my own supermarket now.

[Jazmac]

OP, your google awaits thee. Tarry not and take up thy google device and abandon your chair forthwith.

[anon(9057135)]

You guys do realize that anything that has internet connection and was made in the past 5 years sends data and scans to the company right? You don't like it, DON'T BUY TECH. Seriously, If you have Child Pornography, The Police should be notified! Anyway, It is weird, BUT it also improves the service.

[EBUK]

I think you'll find that you have agreed to whatever scanning Microsoft does,

It doesn't matter what you agree to. If a clause is unenforceable by law, it's unenforceable full stop.

As an extreme example, if the MSFT agreement states that by using OneDrive I agree to them being able to take my children away from to to use as domestic servants, and I use OneDrive, the agreement is clearly ludicrous and MSFT wouldn't be able to enact it.

Nothing in the MSFT agreement supercedes local laws.

[neo158]

It doesn't matter what you agree to. If a clause is unenforceable by law, it's unenforceable full stop.

As an extreme example, if the MSFT agreement states that by using OneDrive I agree to them being able to take my children away from to to use as domestic servants, and I use OneDrive, the agreement is clearly ludicrous and MSFT wouldn't be able to enact it.

Nothing in the MSFT agreement supercedes local laws.

Exactly but Microsoft still have to comply with those local laws. This means they have a legal obligation to make sure you aren't using their services for anything illegal, otherwise Microsoft would be putting themselves at risk.

Put simply, if you have nothing to hide then this isn't an issue.

[smurfalarm]

It doesn't matter what you agree to. If a clause is unenforceable by law, it's unenforceable full stop.

As an extreme example, if the MSFT agreement states that by using OneDrive I agree to them being able to take my children away from to to use as domestic servants, and I use OneDrive, the agreement is clearly ludicrous and MSFT wouldn't be able to enact it.

Nothing in the MSFT agreement supercedes local laws.

I would be really surprised if there are any German laws that prohibit cloud storage service providers from turning over evidence of child pornography to local authorities.

[seb_r]

It doesn't matter what you agree to. If a clause is unenforceable by law, it's unenforceable full stop.

As an extreme example, if the MSFT agreement states that by using OneDrive I agree to them being able to take my children away from to to use as domestic servants, and I use OneDrive, the agreement is clearly ludicrous and MSFT wouldn't be able to enact it.

Nothing in the MSFT agreement supercedes local laws.

Thanks for pointing out in a way hopefully everybody understands now - FINALLY someone got it right. Indeed maybe the point of the article above got lost for some ppl due to translation as its not about the usual "Microsoft it's scanning my files! Eeek!" paranoia. And probably the lack of knowledge about other countries laws, like in this case europe where privacy still has some value - which is not surprising since there was a country where privacy was the exception and monitoring and surveillance daily routine. Ask those people who suffered under that regime for decades until 1989.
As being said in the article, giving out any kind of information based upon their own decision to third without a valid adjudication first is the questionable / unlawful act. And as we all know any evidence gained by the use of unlawful methods is usually not accepted by the court. So theres a chance this guy gets away with less than what he really deserves - and that is what none of us wants, right? Also MS will likely have to deal with charges as well for what they did besides the mistrust from users and some privacy groups already giving a statement about this.

[seb_r]

Exactly but Microsoft still have to comply with those local laws. This means they have a legal obligation to make sure you aren't using their services for anything illegal, otherwise Microsoft would be putting themselves at risk.

Thats correct. But not by violating another law.

I would be really surprised if there are any German laws that prohibit cloud storage service providers from turning over evidence of child pornography to local authorities.

Of course there is no such law and without any doubt MS has to give any kind of information requested by the authorities via adjudication from court which might be more helpful to the case than simply leaking a file. But this not empowers them to break local law either, right?

[rhapdog]

Here's a privacy law I wish more people understood: If you want privacy, then don't put it on the internet.

[neo158]

Thats correct. But not by violating another law.

Except that data might not be stored in Germany, therefore it wouldn't be violating German Laws. Why do you think that Microsoft is fighting the domestic US search warrant that wants data from the data centre in Ireland?

Of course there is no such law and without any doubt MS has to give any kind of information requested by the authorities via adjudication from court which might be more helpful to the case than simply leaking a file. But this not empowers them to break local law either, right?

Yes, from the courts in which the data centre resides NOT the country in which you reside.