> Well, except for the bit where they appointed themselves Sheriff without any legal authority.

AFAICT, this is factually incorrect. They acquired a court order, did they not? They didn't appoint themselves as anything. They asked a court, and a court agreed.

This is how the legal system should work.

If you have a problem with it, then you can petition for laws that bind a court to do something else instead. This is what I am saying: a court should be bound by law to ensure the target is adequately protected financially in this sort of case.

> This is how the legal system should work.

Nonsense. The legal system is a two party system where both sides get to make an argument and an independent arbitrator makes a judgement.

The way Microsoft are using the law, effectively the other party never gets to argue and the first they hear about the lawsuit is when Microsoft has already won.

That isn't how the legal system is meant to work. The Lanham Act is broken.

> The legal system is a two party system where both sides get to make an argument and an independent arbitrator makes a judgement.

And in exceptional cases, an independent arbitrator can agree to something different where justice would be better served by doing so.

Search warrants are an example.

I don't have any problem with judges having this sort of power, because somebody has to be able to intervene when justice requires it. A judge whose job is to remain impartial is the best we can do. Provided that judgements are able to receive public scrutiny as soon as is possible, and that the public can (through their elected representatives) write laws for what they want done in specific situations.

This case is receiving public scrutiny, so the system is working well up to now. What happens next remains to be seen.

If your country has a problem with getting what the public wants written into laws, then you have a political problem, not a legal one.

Eh, typically, a private company shouldn't get the privilege the NSA enjoys regarding one-party secret warrants.

I think Microsoft is liable for all the damage they did, (which could be in the 10s of millions of dollars), but There was nothing secret about this - the process server handed over everything, nobody was bound by law to not talk about this. This is nothing like the NSLs.

>Microsoft’s court maneuvering had played out in secret. Durrer’s company didn’t have the chance to argue its case in court. By the time Durrer was served with court papers on that June day, Microsoft had seized control of the company’s services and ejected the hackers using them, while also locking out all the legitimate users. Durrer eventually regained control of his company, but only after it had been offline for days.

The owner of a legitimate company was notified of the confiscation by MS of his business as and after it happened...

EDIT: Actually, read the entire paragraph under ‘As the hours creeped by, more and more people were falling offline.’ header.

I understand what happened in the Microsoft case - but it's important not to confuse this with an NSL. In the case of a search warrant, and Microsoft's court maneuvering's everything is done in secret, until it's executed (otherwise the parties could simply take action to avoid the warrant)- at which point everything comes out into the open.

In the case of an NSL, when it is served - the person who it's served upon is bound by law not to discuss it, and must keep it secret.

Totally different.

I invite you to Google the NSA's origin (especially it's special "birth certificate") and then think about your statement about the privilege a private company can enjoy.

In Canada (though the US is similar), you can file a petition under the mental health act, and have a court order a psychiatric evaluation. This means cops come to the person's house, and (forcefully if he/she refuses) escort them to a hospital of your choosing. The person doesn't get to do anything but act as seized property for almost a month before they get their first date in front a judge. This is how the legal system is meant to work.

In tax cases (according to Meads vs. Meads), the defendant is considered a tax evader if they argue before payment is made. You must first honor the contract before you're allowed to make the plaintiff prove you owed money in the first place. If they can't prove you actually owed, you get the money back. Not only is this how the legal system is supposed to work, but it's based on UNCITRAL (international trade law) conventions, meaning it's how this works in every jurisdiction (including sharia law jurisdictions).

Both sides eventually get to make an argument, but the arbitrator expects the defendant's performance (to restore the honor of the parties) before any arguments are made.

Judge Judy and The People's Court are valid ex acquo et bono courts, but one shouldn't take their conduct as the only way court proceeds.

> They acquired a court order, did they not?

This is what I don't understand. How can a private company get a court order to simple assume the operations of another private company?

By invoking obscure laws very cleverly I guess.

If Microsoft can do it, so can you. You have as much authority as Microsoft does. The only difference is that Microsoft flexed those muscles, while the remaining 7billion of us did not.

> If Microsoft can do it, so can you. You have as much authority as Microsoft does. The only difference is that Microsoft flexed those muscles, while the remaining 7billion of us did not.

well, that and a legal department. I don't know many solo entrepreneurs that could deal with the drawing of '3 inches' of legal documentation to serve someone with while maintaining any level of profitability.

I am my legal department, and am a solo entrepreneur. :-)