Source: https://es.scribd.com/doc/308631656/Microsoft-court-filing
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 06:37:22+00:00

Document:
Microsoft is suing the US government, claiming that searching through cloud data has taken an "unconstitutional" turn.
Microsoft Corporation (Microsoft) alleges as follows.
that Section 2705(b) is unconstitutional on its face.
in the rarest of circumstances.
it searches and seizes the private information or communications of individuals or businesses.
to prevent Microsoft from telling its customers (or anyone else) of the governments demands.
seriously jeopardiz[e] an investigation or unduly delay a trial.
guaranteed by the First Amendment.
customer that the government has obtained the customers private communications and data.
tailored to promote a compelling interest.
enforcing those rights), and its interest in avoiding findings of contempt.
U.S.C. 2705(b) and serve those secrecy orders on providers, including Microsoft.
Jurisdiction. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
2202 because this is a civil action for a declaratory judgment.
other legal process authorizing the seizure of sensitive information.
the full extent of government access to private, online information.
an investigation or unduly delaying a trial.
delayed upon making a further showing.
imposes temporal baselines lacking in Section 2705(b).
legitimate sweep. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
restraint on speech. In re Sealing and Non-Disclosure of Pen/Trap/2703(d) Orders, 562 F.
showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint. Capital Cities Media, Inc. v.
free discussion of governmental affairs. Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218 (1971).
legislature must use that alternative. Id.
warrants generally must be unsealed after investigations are concluded. See United States v.
manifests itself in at least three ways.
testimony given before a grand jury violates the First Amendment).
distinct from the governments overall experiences or other unspecified considerations.
impose a prior restraint on speech.
and provides no meaningful constraints. It therefore violates the First Amendment.
the provision on its face violates the First Amendment.
800 F.2d 1451, 1456 (9th Cir. 1986).
conduct are unconstitutional. City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 135 S. Ct. 2443, 2451 (2015).
result flouts fundamental Fourth Amendment principles.
may delay notice only for a limited period of time. See 18 U.S.C. 3103a; Fed. R. Crim. P.
premises. This technological fortuity, however, does not weaken the privacy interests at stake.
adopted. Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 34 (2001).
Microsofts Standing. Microsoft satisfies each element of the Powers test.
individuals and businesses to migrate their technological infrastructure to Microsofts cloud.
their customers to allow providers to assert their customers constitutional rights under Powers.
Industry Assn of Am., Inc. v. Verizon Internet Servs., Inc., 351 F.3d 1229, 1239 (D.C. Cir.
protect their own Fourth Amendment rights.
Microsofts customers and the customers of other, similarly situated providers.
DATED this 14th day of April, 2016.

References: v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.