Microsoft announced this morning that it has bolstered the security of several of its digital products, bringing stronger encryption tools to its OneDrive and Outlook.com services. <\/p>\n
In the wake of revelations that the United States government was tapping the core fiber cables of the Internet, snooping on traffic between the data centers of large technology companies, and working to weaken encryption, a loose, industry wide effort has been undertaken to build digital dikes to keep prying eyes out of customer data. <\/p>\n
As weve noted, this is an interesting moment when user well-being and the profit motive of corporations find common cause: Less government, more privacy. (The cause-effect pull here is mildly tautological, but lets move on.) <\/p>\n
According to a blog post that it released this morning, Microsoft has addedTransport Layer Security encryption to Outlook.com, allowing email sent by users of the service to remain encrypted while in transit. Microsoft cited several email providers, includingYandex and Mail.Ru as partners in the effort the receiving email service must supportTransport Layer Security encryption or it doesnt work. <\/p>\n
Outlook.com, along with OneDrive also now both sport Perfect Forward Secrecy encryption. <\/p>\n
Google, Yahoo, and others have also made strides to tighten their security. Yahoo encrypted information moving between its data centers, and promised an encrypted version of its messaging product. Google has made similar efforts. <\/p>\n
All quite reasonable, right? Not to some in our government. Congressman Mike Rogers recently had sharp words for technology companies who are in favor of stronger protections against government surveillance: <\/p>\n
While Im on my soapbox, we should bereally madat Google and Facebook and Microsoft, because theyre doing a very interesting, and I think, very dangerous thing. Theyve decided to come out and say we oppose this new FISA bill, because it doesnt go far enough. And when you peel that onion back a bit and say Why are you doing this? This is a good bill, its safe, its bi-partisan, its rational. It meets all the requirements for 4th Amendment protections and privacy protection and allowing the system to work. <\/p>\n
And they say, Well, we have to do this because were trying to make sure we dont lose our European business. I dont know about the rest of you but that offends me from the words European business. Think about what theyre doing. Theyre willing to, in their mind, justify the importance of their next quarters earnings in Europe versus the national security of the United States. Everybody on those boards should be embarrassed and their CEOs should be embarrassed and their stockholders should be embarrassed. That one quarter cannot be worth the national security of the United States for the next ten generations. <\/p>\n
The bill that Rep. Rogers is riffing on attracted ire. Around half of its co-sponsors voted against the laws final form when it was unceremoniously rammed through the lower chamber of Congress after what Ive heard was strong lobbying from the Executive Branch. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n