Why Law Firms and Courts in Particular Should Dump Microsoft
Giving a notoriously corrupt and chronically law-breaking company control over one's systems and data is a recipe for disaster. Many lawyers agree, but they talk the talk, not walk the walk. The same applies to distinguished or high-level courts.
For the first time in my life I (and also my wife) filed lawsuits [1, 2] against someone who had long abused us. So I got further insight into how the British legal system works. I also spoke to many law firms and communicated with courts.
Over time I came to realise that Microsoft, an American firm with really bad reputation, has a technical grip on systems and data of police departments [1, 2, 3, 4], law firms, and courtrooms. I last revisited the issue 2 years ago in relation to NDAs.
I worry that law firms and courts are giving Microsoft too much control. We'll cover that in depth - maybe even a mini-series - in the future (now isn't the right time, but that time will come). Aside from the fact that Microsoft is increasingly intrusive, e.g. taking screenshots all the time while falsely advertising that Orwellian surveillance as "AI". This is a serious problem for law firms and courts, not to mention various types of businesses, police departments and so on. We already know, based on verified reports and unequivocal admissions from Microsoft (e.g. [1, 2]) that Microsoft grossly misuses its technical ability - even if it's illegal - to read people's E-mails and other communications (e.g. audio, video) for commercial reasons - to the point of snooping on journalists and probably lawyers and judges too.
In the lawsuits we filed Microsoft is a party of interest. It's closely involved in this case (the employer of the second SLAPP's Claimant at the time of the Publications), so there's clearly a problem*. It would be absurd to let the employer of one party be the host of any of this communication, more so at the court level. Imagine Microsoft inviting judges over to Microsoft's headquarters to issue a judgement on Microsoft (at the Microsoft campus). This is what is sometimes happening here, except digitally (digital realm, not physical realm).
Microsoft is quite unique in this regard; a company like Boeing does not have control over data and systems of British police, courts, and law firms. It should not be OK for Microsoft to be the exception.
So in general, what we have is high-quality, slam-dunk evidence of abuse/misuse of process by foreign people working for a foreign company looking to hide its criminal activities from the general public. And it would be wrong for the process to be deal with by this company.
In fact, given various provisions and promises associated with legal protocols, it probably should not even be legal to use Microsoft.
An associate explains: "The other thing which is important but universally ignored would be the details in the Microsoft licensing which not even law firms read, whether they have an "IT department" or not."
Printed out, argues this associate, all the relevant licenses and EULAs are about 2cm of A4 paper for your standard, fully stocked, fully updated Windows desktop. It's worse if any Microsoft services or servers are involved.
"The tldr there," the associate explains, "is that the license grants (or did when I last read through such a stack) the right for Microsoft to read and change files on the computer remotely, not limited to system files**."
That then has severe repercussions for attorney-client privilege in the case of law firms and courts - a subset of privacy.
We hope that, over time, no cases in any courts will be accessible to Microsoft. More so in cases that implicate Microsoft itself. █
__________
* Microsoft must not have access to any of the communications at any point. This is very clearly a case of abusive litigation by two American people, professionally and personally connected, filing two connected frivolous cases using the same lawyer and same barrister for strategic reasons. There's an impending complaint with the SRA over this abusive litigation; several law firms deem this abusive, and that's based on the legal/technical term, moreover based on their studying of the filings (press NGOs referred these to them). It must be noted that one common denominator here is Microsoft-affiliated people trying to suppress, remove, or censor information that is embarrassing to Microsoft. It would be harder to recover the cost from them who engage in abusive litigation, as they hide in their dad's home or some cabin in a forest. They have a "limited liability" "gun for hire" with hardly any money left in the bank, so holding the lawyers financially accountable for abuse would be hard too.
** Cambridge English: PUT/STICK THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT! Merriam-Webster: PUT/STICK THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT
