Shared publicly  - 
Breaking news. For the first time ever. MSFT agrees with Google. 
Антон Кузнецов's profile photoNick Iacullo's profile photoToxic Reverend's profile photoJB• Just KEWL's profile photo
Cole Mickens
Bit snarky for a public post! "For the first time ever." Surely that's not really true ;)
They also agree that they shouldn't destroy the world because then there'd be no more money, right?
+Google sure had an extra helping of sassy sauce on their pancakes this morning...
Microsoft is up to something; those dicks always are.
Ging De
I thought it was published by theonion...
+Cole Mickens +Alex Ander +Ritish Oemraw Considering all the "Don't get scroogled" and "Droidrage" campaigns and ads from MS, I'd say this is an extremely mild dig.

On topic: Glad to see another major player stepping up.
Thanks for sharing! Nice bit of good humor too saying #Microsoft  and +Google agree on something. Dont wait so long to agree on something else!!
Google you are too funny. But I'm still mad at you about GSF 2013. My invention was a medical and technological breakthrough, but I'm not a regional finalist? Seriously?
+Anthony Riddle Ooh, Microsoft and Google should tell apple "Don't be a bad apple, side with the good guys" (pun intended) xD
Information is power, right? So it would seem Google, Microsoft, Apple and Facebook combined would be powerful.

Place these companies outside the US could be an idea that would definitely show the country just how powerful, and it would mean no more court orders for user data!
+Neil Rooney It does seem like a PR move, at least partially. These companies got a lot of bad press over the weekend and this is a good way to turn some of that around. And, if it ends up promoting change, then everyone wins...
Is this an official account? What a weird post.

I like it.
+iPan Baal That is the most insane request possible. Not even Google will mess with the US Gov't... And no, they are not more powerful than the US Gov't... If they get denied we have to eat it, but at least they are trying... They will not risk multi-billion dollar per year business just to show you something that is illegal to show.
+iPan Baal I'm sorry, you're being a bit delusional about the power of social media. It is not anywhere near where you think it is.
+iPan Baal 1) You're blowing things out of proportion, or comparing apples to oranges if you will. This couldn't have happenend 30 years ago because more than half the companies mentioned in the report and the respective impacts they've caused in the world and in your country didn't even exist 30 years ago. Scandal outbreak has always existed, regardless of social media.
+iPan Baal 2) You're not the true political power. You don't make the laws. You don't get to decide. You don't have fucking mass destruction weapons in case things get real ugly.
+iPan Baal 3) You've also (likely) been led to believe that all those revolutions in the MIddle East really happened because or with significant aid of social media sites and platforms. That is not entirely true.
+iPan Baal "Make sure your corporations are hounding your government everyday" - now here things get a bit silly. I'm sorry, whose corporations? You really think all this going back and forth between Google, MSFT and whoever else and the government is the purest of realities? There's no way to tell, buddy, and I'm not the one betting on most companies to be telling the whole truth.
Wrong! Microsoft also joined Google in the PRISM program.
+iPan Baal 5) Finally, don't forget revolution is social as well. "pussyfooting" is an interesting new vocab. Is there an underlying assumption in your discourse that to do nothing is some sort of woman-like attitude and to take a stand and transform things is "masculine"? ;)
+iPan Baal Sorry for the long reply, but you said a lot of things too in machine-gun speed. I don't completely disagree with you. Social media is powerful. But it is not some sort of Clark Went unaware of currently being Superman.
+iPan Baal  "Of course not, which is why we have to whip them."

Yeah, exactly! But we've got to build the whip. Social media by itself is not that.
Don't like what your government is doing to you? Elected officials ignoring your requests? Government agents trampling your rights? Then Revolt! They only have power because the collective populous has given it to them unchecked. This is, after all, where the right to bear arms comes from in the US Constitution. 
If we dont like the government, we could completely overthrow it it is written in the declaration of indepedence
+iPan Baal you need a Valium or something, you're getting way too excited.
Oh and you said because of social media we all knew about prism, well actually the story broke in a newspaper so ya, pretty old school.
In my opinion, this is meaningless. What is really happening is, coming out of the closet so to speak. No change to the practice.
+iPan Baal I was being completely serious, you are extremely neurotic and agitated. This is the second thread I have seen you rant in today, your paranoid delusions and obsessive rants are similar to what I would expect from someone living in a trailer in the middle of the desert and who wears a colander wrapped in tin foil on their head to protect them from signals from 'the others' 
Judge Alex Kozinski on Third-Party Privacy: "Kiss It Goodbye"
In  Reason Magazine, the chief judge of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals explains how the 4th Amendment is under attack in  the age of technology and government overreach
Matt Welch                                                                                                                                                                                      June 10, 2013
In a case in 1929, the police tapped somebody's line. So the guy was in his house and talked to somebody on the other end. The police were outside on the telephone pole where they tapped the line and listened to the conversation. And the claim was, "Look, this is an invasion of privacy. It was an invasion of my protected sphere of what I expect to be held secure from the government." The Supreme Court said "No. Since the telephone pole doesn't belong to the homeowner, it belongs to the telephone company. The wires don't belong to anybody. There's no trespass. No Fourth Amendment violation."
That was in place for about 40 years, and finally in 1967 the Supreme Court in a case by the name of Katz came up with the idea that they'd finally had enough. And what happened in Katz was: Katz was making a bet or having some sort of an illegal conversation involving gambling in a phone booth and the police knew he was going to be there because he did this every day, so they had a microphone on the top of the phone booth and they managed to hear his half of the conversation. Based on that, they convicted him of crime. He said: "Violation of the Fourth Amendment. They didn't have a warrant; they didn't have probable cause.  "The government answered, "But we didn't invade the space. He was in a phone booth and outside." The Supreme Court said, "We're going to jettison the idea of trespass and what we're going to have is a doctrine based on a 'reasonable expectation of privacy.'"
So, what the Fourth Amendment now protects, in addition to places, it protects people's reasonable expectation of privacy. Which is good—if you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
In a world where people use phone booths to have telephone conversations, the Supreme Court could say that what you say on the telephone is private. But what happens in a world where people shout in their cell phones in the supermarket and in the airport? You can hear anybody's conversation just like you could have heard Katz's conversation with the door of the booth open. The Supreme Court could say—and I don't think we're going there, I'm just trying to illustrate the problem for you—"Well, phone conversations are really no longer considered private. We have decided to no longer consider phone conversations private because look at how people treat them. They don't treat them as private."
So you've got that whole problem. You've got the problem of how you can now no longer communicate without passing a whole bunch of information through a bunch of third parties. Internet service providers, cable carriers, and so on.
And under another line of cases, the government can obtain any information that you freely disclose to third parties. I'll give you an example. If you keep your money in your mattress at home, they can't touch it. They can't look at it without getting a warrant. But if you give it to a bank then you've disclosed it to a third party; it's no longer private and the government can obtain it without complying with the Fourth Amendment. It's a doctrine that has huge implications in the era of electronic communications, because basically we don't ever communicate with each other anymore, except maybe in the bedroom, that doesn't go through some sort of an electronic means. And this is a huge problem.

The Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor wrote about it in a case by the name of Jones. That was a case where they attached a GPS tracker to somebody's car. And the Supreme Court said that was a violation of the Fourth Amendment because they attached the GPS tracker to the car. Leaving it open to the question: "What if they can track it without having to attach anything to the car?" Incredibly difficult, incredibly complex question. It really will test who we are and what we think about individual privacy when the Supreme Court finally addresses the issues head-on.
From his denunciations of Wall Street greed to his critiques of the auto manufacturers, Obama and his team have done little to disguise their mistrust of big business -- except when it comes to one very large, very influential technology company.
In Google (GOOG, Fortune 500), the $22-billion-a-year online-advertising Goliath, Obama appears to have found a corporate kindred spirit. Google executives, led by CEO Eric Schmidt and co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page, are scary smart and supremely self-confident (much like the President himself), and despite their company's growing power, they depict themselves as advocates for consumers.
Google managers and employees were some of the strongest supporters of candidate Obama, donating around $803,000 to his presidential campaign, according to the website Among corporate employees, only staffers at Goldman Sachs (GS, Fortune 500) and Microsoft (MSFT, Fortune 500) gave more.
CEO Schmidt actively stumped for the candidate and served as an informal economic adviser during the campaign, and after Obama was elected, Schmidt and other Google executives forked over $25,000 apiece to help pay for the inaugural celebration.
Because the company and administration are so like-minded, it should come as no surprise that Google executives soon found themselves assuming roles in the Obama administration.
Nevertheless, Google's newfound access in Washington is striking for two reasons: Obama and his team pride themselves on maintaining a distance from corporations -- before taking office the President pledged to close the "revolving door" of industry executives who go on to regulate their former corporate peers. 
The United States' National Security Agency (NSA) maintains a database containing hundreds of billions of records of telephone calls made by U.S. citizens from the four largest telephone carriers in the United States: AT&T, SBC, BellSouth (all three now called AT&T), and Verizon.
The existence of this database and the NSA program that compiled it was unknown to the general public until USA Today broke the story on May 10, 2006.[1] It is estimated that the database contains over 1.9 trillion call-detail records.[2] According to Bloomberg News, the effort began approximately seven months before the September 11, 2001 attacks.[3] As of June 2013, the database is codenamed MARINA and stores the metadata for at least five years.[4] A similar database to MARINA exists for email and its code name is Pinwale.

The records include detailed call information (caller, receiver, date/time of call, length of call, etc.) for use in traffic analysis and social network analysis, but do not include audio information or transcripts of the content of the phone calls.
The database's existence has prompted fierce objections. It is often viewed as an illegal warrantless search and a violation of the pen register provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and (in some cases) the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Now, comes word that Google and other search engine providers have opened their vast stores of Data-Mining Data to the NSA. In fact, the agency has just opened the world's largest data collection and storage center in the isolated town of Bluffdale, Utah. If you had any expectation of privacy, kiss it goodbye.
Even if you have nothing to hide, do you like being treated as if you do have something to hide? Think of it, the Government will have access to any intimate conversation, email, or conversation you have ever had with others. They will know where you have went on vacation, where you shop, and everything else about you! All this because some terrorists from a foreign land attacked us on our own soil. Now we are all treated as possible terrorists.

Good work, MSFT.

MSFT's Windows Azure platform uses CNNIC SSL certificates in China, which are issued by an organization controlled by government.

No need to say more. 
MSFT is the most accurate name for them.
Because only money is important for this company.
STFU MSFT. Your stock will perform better that way. Either you make fun of your self, or give other a chance to do so ^^
I don't know... Silicon Valley, Mountain View... All these places make me think Malta would be a nice place for Google, Facebook, Microsoft and other such companies, right? There's lots of mountains and probably also silicon!

So, again. Google and the other tech giants actually have a lot more power than one might think. Just move the companies out of the US, and we will see who's the strongest. What impact would such a move have on the US economy?

But staying in the US, they don't stand a chance against the government.
Really great news! Transparency is really needed in the tech sector right now
Oh. My. God! Did hell freeze over while I didn't look?
I'd like to know what their real game plan is... 
Microsoft will charge newspapers a license to carry remarks that Google makes that they claim were copied. 
+Ahmed Bawany it probably just won't make enough money to be profitable or something you know how the almighty dollar is so much more important than our health.
HAHAHAHA XD Google's got attitude. 
Add a comment...