Microsoft’s vice president of customer security, who is set to testify before the House Judiciary Committee, will criticize the government for what the technology giant views as overuse and abuse of nondisclosure orders — court orders preventing companies from notifying their customers when the Justice Department comes knocking for customer account information.
It is far too easy for law enforcement to target Americans’ emails, text messages and other data hosted by cloud providers, Tom Burt, Microsoft’s VP of customer security and trust, will tell lawmakers, according to selected remarks shared by Microsoft on Tuesday afternoon.
“We are not suggesting that secrecy orders should only be obtained through some impossible standard,” Burt is expected to say. “We simply ask that it be a meaningful one. … Without legislative reform, abuses will continue to occur — and they will continue to occur out of sight.”
In his testimony, Burt will also provide fresh data on the law enforcement requests that Microsoft routinely receives from the government, the company told CNN.
Microsoft’s congressional testimony comes after it said this month that it had received a Justice Department subpoena during the Trump administration that later turned out to have targeted congressional staff. Apple, which is not testifying, disclosed it had been under a gag order not to reveal subpoenas of records pertaining to lawmakers, congressional staff and journalists.
The companies were unable to disclose the existence of those subpoenas for years, due to court orders that blocked them from telling their customers. It was only until after the orders were finally lifted and the companies informed the subjects of the subpoenas that it became clear Congress was involved, the companies have said.
Still, the revelations sparked questions about the politicization of the Justice Department under Trump and whether specialized law enforcement tools intended for sensitive investigations were being turned against Trump’s perceived political enemies.
“Congress should prohibit the executive branch from conducting its investigations wholly in secret absent a strong showing of necessity supported by compelling evidence,” Smith wrote. “And even when the government does meet that burden, any secrecy order should be narrowly tailored in time and scope. Third parties responding to such orders should have a mechanism to challenge them. And indefinite gag orders should be unlawful.”