Microsoft’s recent statement seems to endorse data collection by major tech companies under certain conditions.
Microsoft’s recent statement, posted on LinkedIn on August 29th, suggests that major tech companies can collect and manipulate extensive personal data from the public for profit or under Western government directives, but deem it unacceptable when other regimes do the same.
To clarify, nations like Iran have a documented history of using technological surveillance to reinforce oppressive measures against their citizens. However, for those remembering over a decade, Microsoft’s statement seems hypocritical.
Amy Hogan-Burney, the company’s cybersecurity spokesperson, authored and released the statement criticizing the treaty’s phrasing. This coincides with ongoing United Nations discussions about proposed legislation aiming to establish a legal framework for global collaboration against cybercrime.
Hogan-Burney indicates, “The treaty might not prosecute criminals but grant intrusive data access and surveillance, empowering authoritarian states to suppress dissent under the pretext of fighting cybercrime.”
While one can argue that the treaty’s initial draft, unveiled in May, allows varied interpretations, Hogan-Burney asserts, “It shouldn’t let authoritarian regimes criminalize digital content, introduce new surveillance powers, or criminalize security practices due to vague language.”
This argument has merit. Yet, Microsoft’s underlying intentions warrant scrutiny. The company was implicated in Edward Snowden’s 2013 whistleblower revelations, accused of sharing user data with the US National Security Agency. Moreover, Microsoft heavily invested in AI, reliant on user data for profit.
Considering democracies’ invasive data collection, often with Western tech firms, Microsoft targeting authoritarian regimes might not be prudent despite their repression.
Rather than positioning as an online integrity guardian, Microsoft’s LinkedIn statement, criticized for corporate posturing, raises a question: Does Microsoft fear democratically elected governments responding to growing awareness of data exploitation?
Undeterred, Hogan-Burney states, “The UN treaty draft lacks provisions for cybersecurity efforts. Ethical hackers identifying vulnerabilities should be protected.”
She argues that criminalization definitions lack “criminal intent” needed for legal penetration testing.
In the future, Microsoft supports white-hat hackers and dissidents in oppressive regimes.
Hogan-Burney adds, “Secret surveillance undermines human rights. Expanding state surveillance clashes with global data protection, hindering anti-cybercrime efforts.”
One might question existing data protection standards allowing Google, Microsoft, and OpenAI to profit from vast data without compensating providers.
China, Iran, and Russia are notorious, making them easy Western targets. Tech giants’ concealed activities demand vigilance.
Story credit
