I wish we pushed for a law that said you can only serve a warrant for a data request to the person whose data you want. I think from a human rights principle it makes the most sense. The only reason the government can take it from <i>third parties that store our data for us</i> is because it&#x27;s &quot;easier&quot; for them to do that, and because there hasn&#x27;t been enough pushback against it.<p>Imagine if the government said &quot;hey, that money in your bank account, we can just automatically take our taxes from it, because we&#x27;re not really taking it from <i>you</i>, we&#x27;re just taking it from the <i>bank</i>.&quot; Probably not the most accurate analogy, but I think you see where I&#x27;m going with this.<p>Since the ruling that invalidated Safe Harbor, Microsoft has been pushing for laws and agreements between nations that say law enforcement shouldn&#x27;t be coming to Microsoft (as a cloud service provider) with a warrant for data requests, but to their <i>corporate customers</i>. So for instance, if FastMail uses the Azure cloud service, they&#x27;re saying that if the government wants access to a user&#x27;s data, they shouldn&#x27;t be going to Microsoft but to FastMail with the warrant.<p>It&#x27;s a small improvement, but Microsoft and all of the other companies should be pushing so this works for <i>all</i> of their customers, not just the corporate ones. It&#x27;s exactly the same principle, but Microsoft just takes the easier way out here, because that still gets them off the hook, and it&#x27;s really what they care most about. The corporations (even if they are &quot;people&quot;) shouldn&#x27;t be having <i>more rights</i> than <i>actual people</i>.