Microsoft Gets Industry Support Against US Search Of Data In Ireland 137
An anonymous reader writes Tech giants such as Apple and eBay have given their support in Microsoft's legal battle against the U.S. government regarding the handing over of data stored in an Irish datacenter. In connection with a 2014 drugs investigation, U.S. prosecutors issued a warrant for emails stored by Microsoft in Ireland. The firm refused to hand over the information, but in July was ordered by a judge to comply with the investigation. Microsoft has today filed a collection of letters from industry supporters, such as Apple, eBay, Cisco, Amazon, HP, and Verizon. Trade associations including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Digital Rights Ireland have also expressed their support.
All current governments are obsolete (Score:2, Interesting)
Does not matter if communist, socialist or capitalist. They are all obsolete. All them.
In my understanding, politicians should live only with what they provide to the population. They should not be responsible for public health-care if they are not obligated to use that very same service as well! They should also be obligated to use public transport, education, etc.
Oh, they don`t like the idea... ok, the door is at the left. Next!
Re: (Score:1)
Not sure why you got marked down for this, I agree. Though I would add that a country for the people and by the people should not be allowed to keep secrets from the people.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"all federal employees have to choose their plan from a plethora of private insurance carriers,"
Well, except for congress and maybe the military.
You know this whole thing is about preventing U.S. access to the business records in tax havens right? Or other issues that businesses do by jumping countries to avoid government accountability.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Fix (Score:5, Insightful)
The US cannot force a sovereign foreign company? The US can force (or "persuade") entire countries and groups of countries to dance when they play the pipe, you think this would change anything?
TTIP, anyone? So far I cannot see anything in there that is NOT exclusively beneficial to the US and puts everyone else at a severe disadvantage, but do you see any kind of protest against it from inside governments?
Re: Fix (Score:1, Insightful)
TTIP doesnt put the US at an advantage, it puts companies at both sides of the atlantic at advantage against normal people.
Re: (Score:2)
War? You mean, like, with weapons and shit?
Don't be silly. Today you don't go to a "hot" war with an enemy of similar strength, with a coequal opponent you go for an economic style of war. Literally so.
The goal is not to bomb them back into the stone age. Only to fleece them. I.e. pretty much what has been going on the past decade or so.
Welcome to the new war.
Re: (Score:2)
Then it becomes impossible to use them as tax havens.
A matter of procedure... (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea that any nation you happen to have a presence in can demand something you have in any other nation seems like an obviously dangerous shortcut to most-abusive-common-denominator law; but being able to black-hole anything just by shifting the VM across the border presents its own problems.
Is there actually no such instrument, and this sort of thing somehow hasn't come up enough to be settled, or did the Fed prosecutors just demand first and try tact later because they aren't exactly lacking for arrogance(or, in fairness, lacking for reasons to be arrogant, given how often they get away with it)?
Re:A matter of procedure... (Score:5, Informative)
There is they could have sought a warrant in Ireland, since they have stronger privacy protections the fishing expeditions would not be allowed. That is why they are trying to make an end run to avoid that having to show cause etc etc etc.
Re:A matter of procedure... (Score:5, Interesting)
There is they could have sought a warrant in Ireland, since they have stronger privacy protections the fishing expeditions would not be allowed.
The US government did, and it wasn't.
That's what started this whole train rolling.
Re: (Score:3)
There are provisions that the Irish government has apparently said would be the right way to go. But the US courts are a lot more lax on standards of probably cause, apparently, and for reasons unknown, prosecutors do not want to show their cards to the Irish courts.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, they don't have enough data to build their parallel constructed justification yet.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing the correct thing to do is to subpena MS for the information because the client and business are both US based, but I'm not a lawyer.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
A person defies a valid court order? They're arrested and in jail for contempt of court.
Unless, of course, the person is a white cattle rancher [azcentral.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
America is all about race. Only cowards would deny the obvious.
The race to the bottom, maybe. Making "race" the center of everyday life? Only for minorities (and I'm not talking racial minorities). It's not race that's at issue in the US anymore; it's societal norms. There's an "African American" culture, a "Latino" culture, a "White Power" culture, and a plethora of others. For the most part, these have nothing to do with genetic background or inherited traits, and everything to do with the cultural norms as accepted by one group and not by another. These days s
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, the issue is if it truly is a valid court order.
See, if an American court decides that American laws are extra-territorial ... that is the point at which the rest of the world sends a big "fuck you" to America. (Which is long overdue anyway.)
And any sane country would say "OK, Microsoft, if you do this in violation of local laws, we're going to fine you a percentage of global revenues ... because our laws are now extra-territorial."
Micros
Re: (Score:3)
Slightly more complicated:
The issue is whether something stored in Ireland but accessible from the USA is subject to a warrant. Yeah, the data is on an Irish server. But the person issued the warrant is in the USA and has direct access (and probably a certain amount of control) of the server.
It still opens a can of beans t
Re:A different kind of justice for multinationals (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft in Ireland may be a wholly owned subsidiary, but it is a separate legal entity operating under the laws of Ireland, and incorporated under Irish law. You can't bypass the Irish courts because Microsoft US owns Microsoft Ireland.
If I own a car located in Sweden, and I'm a US citizen in the US, arrested in the US... can the court compel me to make arrangements to produce for the court something in that car's glove box? I don't actually know...could one? Its not entirely unreasonable to speculate that they could make that demand and then hold me in contempt if I refused to make that arrangement.
Microsoft in Ireland may be a wholly owned subsidiary, but it is a separate legal entity operating under the laws of Ireland, and incorporated under Irish law.
According to you, it is also the legal property of Microsoft US. They don't need to compel the Irish to do anything. They can (arguably) simply compel the US entity in their jurisdiction to summon its own property.
If corporations are legally people [...]
They are clearly not the same as human people. For starters, you can own them as property.
Microsoft Ireland is 100% subject to applicable Irish law.
It is also subject to the orders of its owner, what with it being property and all. So as long a Microsoft US doesn't demand that it do something illegal by Irish law, it has to do whatever Microsoft US tells it to do.
I'm not arguing that you are "wrong" merely that your argument omits the crucial element of property ownership in play.
If so, this boils down to can a court compel a property owner to direct his property to do something (such as forward a document in that properties possession), even if the property happens to be in another country? (one could also substitute "property" for "slave" in that sentence... and
When looked at like that, its not really ridiculous at all.
This is not a case of a court making demands directly of an Irish citizen; which is the possible strawman you erected. This is the case of a court making demands of a US corporation. The nature of that demand is that the US corporation in turn compel its own property in Ireland to do its bidding.
It might seem equivalent in the end, but they are NOT the same thing. For example there is no way the courts in the USA can compel ME to do anything because I am not in the USA, nor am I the legal property of any entity in the USA.
Re:A different kind of justice for multinationals (Score:5, Informative)
Property ownership of a legal corporate entity doesn't mean that the parent entity can compel the owned entity to break the law. Corporations exist entirely under national laws of incorporation.
And Microsoft, the parent, cannot absolve Microsoft, the child, from the applicable laws.
So if it would be illegal for an Irish citizen to comply with this order without an order from an Irish court ... then Microsoft Ireland if it breaks the laws in Ireland would be pretty much screwed. Microsoft USA can't do an end-run around Irish law just because they can get someone outside of Ireland to do it.
I would sincerely hope Microsoft Ireland would face giant fines, and someone would be sent to jail.
Wholly owned subsidiary is the not the same as property. That wholly owned subsidiary is a legal entity in Ireland which is 100% subject to Irish laws.
Some American court doesn't have the jurisdiction to make that legal entity violate local laws. It's delusional to think otherwise.
Mere whim of the US courts doesn't mean Irish law can be ignored.
Re: (Score:2)
Property ownership of a legal corporate entity doesn't mean that the parent entity can compel the owned entity to break the law. Corporations exist entirely under national laws of incorporation.
Of course. I never suggested otherwise.
So if it would be illegal for an Irish citizen to comply with this order without an order from an Irish court ...
Are you saying it would be outright illegal for an Irish citizen to forward a document or a copy of it to a court in the United States?
That's a pretty strong claim.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Property ownership of a legal corporate entity doesn't mean that the parent entity can compel the owned entity to break the law. Corporations exist entirely under national laws of incorporation.
Of course. I never suggested otherwise.
So if it would be illegal for an Irish citizen to comply with this order without an order from an Irish court ...
Are you saying it would be outright illegal for an Irish citizen to forward a document or a copy of it to a court in the United States?
It's already been said: Irish law has stronger privacy protections, and forwarding a private e-mail of a customer would be a breach of said law. It was asked to Irish courts, and Irish courts denied US courts access to said mail without providing probable cause in Irish terms.
So yes, not only it would be outright illegal, but a court has already decided that there's not enough evidence and has forbidden said forwarding.
Anyone in Ireland that complies to said order from the US would be subject to Irish law.
A
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
technically and strictly seaking, yes, as they would be violating EU data protection laws, prohibiting transfer of any kind of personal data outside EU, for any processing purpose , and processing being defined as any kind of operation, not limted to computers, without the express permission from all involved. so the issue is verymuch in this case
I hear you, but its really not nearly quite so cut and dried. You for example wrote "permission" from all involved, but the EU data directive only requires proper
Re: (Score:2)
Property ownership of a legal corporate entity doesn't mean that the parent entity can compel the owned entity to break the law.
I don't want to quibble over wording, but strictly speaking that isn't true, depending on your definition of "compel." I can compel you to give me everything you own by pointing a gun at somebody you care about and telling you that if you don't send me your money I'll shoot them. It certainly isn't legal, but it IS compulsion. Or at least, I think most people would say that it is.
So, in a sense the US CAN compel MS to make its Irish subsidiary break Irish law, in the sense that practically speaking it ha
Different jurisdiction (Score:4, Insightful)
If I own a car located in Sweden, and I'm a US citizen in the US, arrested in the US... can the court compel me to make arrangements to produce for the court something in that car's glove box? I don't actually know...could one? Its not entirely unreasonable to speculate that they could make that demand and then hold me in contempt if I refused to make that arrangement.
Depends on what is the car's glove box.
- If it's something that Sweden doesn't give a damn about (some trivial object), well you could produce it for the court, and the court might be unhappy if you refuse to produce it and actively make obstruction (if the court offer to send a swedish cop to retrieve the object and you refuse to give the key your are kindly asked to provide them, you're the problem)
BUT
- If it's something that is illegal to export out of the country according to Swedish or EU law (weapon, endangered specie, nuclear fuel, etc.), then you CANNOT LEGALLY produce it to the court. What the court is asking you is illegal in Sweden. If you do it anyway, you're going to have big problems with a Swedish court.
According to you, it is also the legal property of Microsoft US. They don't need to compel the Irish to do anything. They can (arguably) simply compel the US entity in their jurisdiction to summon its own property.
Sorry, no. They can't. It's not legal in EU countries (and a few other europeans countries) to move private data around without consent.
Microsoft US cannot summon data in Ireland, without the explicit consent of the data owner. If they move the data anyway, they can be sued in Ireland for it.
While in a foreign country, you cannot commit a crime (under that country's law), even if it's your home country asking for you.
(Otherwise, spying would be entirely legal: because it was done on the order of the spy's home country).
It is also subject to the orders of its owner, what with it being property and all. So as long a Microsoft US doesn't demand that it do something illegal by Irish law, it has to do whatever Microsoft US tells it to do.
But moving private data around without the owner's consent *IS* illegal in most EU and other european countries.
What the US court asks *IS* illegal in Ireland.
and the US court HAS NO power in Ireland. They are giving orders out of their jurisdiction.
If so, this boils down to can a court compel a property owner to direct his property to do something (such as forward a document in that properties possession), even if the property happens to be in another country? (one could also substitute "property" for "slave" in that sentence... and
When looked at like that, its not really ridiculous at all.
Except forwarding that document is absolutely illegal in Ireland.
It works better if you substitute "slave" in that sentence: What if there is no slavery in that country ?! What if all humans are considered free?
This is not a case of a court making demands directly of an Irish citizen; which is the possible strawman you erected.
No, but the data happens to be in Ireland, not in the US. Irish and EU law apply there. Nobody gives a damn shit about US there. Exporting the data IS illegal.
Again let's change the details. Let's take some Extremist / totalitarian government. The goverment asks one of its citizen to assassinate a target (that etremist / totalitarian regime has law that make this request legally binding and mandatory). The citizen then travels to US, and shoots the target: an innocent US citizen - who happen to have angered the government with some publication.
Is the assissnation legal, even if it was ordered according to the law of the extremist government? No, because that government has no jurisdiction in the US. In the US, US-law apply, and you are not allowed to shoot random inocent people, just because some other random dude accros
Re: (Score:2)
It is also subject to the orders of its owner, what with it being property and all. So as long a Microsoft US doesn't demand that it do something illegal by Irish law, it has to do whatever Microsoft US tells it to do.
But moving private data around without the owner's consent *IS* illegal in most EU and other european countries.
What the US court asks *IS* illegal in Ireland.
and the US court HAS NO power in Ireland. They are giving orders out of their jurisdiction.
Your entire post really just boils down to this.
I explicitly said "so as long as Microsoft US doesn't demand that it do something illegal by Irish law...".
So then you agree with me: that if a US Court demands that MS US make MS Ireland forward something to the US court that would be entirely legal and proper. So long as doing so wasn't in violation of the law in Ireland.
And the ONLY point of contention is nothing at all to do with the US making extra-territorial demands or asserting that US law trumps inter
Re: (Score:2)
If so, this boils down to can a court compel a property owner to direct his property to do something (such as forward a document in that properties possession), even if the property happens to be in another country?
That depends. For example many countries have laws regarding historical artifacts, you can own them but you can't take them out of the country. Or you can legally buy cryptography chips in the US that needs an export license. Just because Microsoft Ireland can legally possess the customer data in Ireland, doesn't mean they're free to ship it around the world or provide access to it in violation of Irish law.
Re: (Score:2)
That depends. For exampe [...]
Exactly. So you are saying that the US court CAN demand that MS-USA make MS-Ireland turn it over; and **provided** its legal for the MS-Ireland to do so, it would in fact have to do so.
So the question is then not whether MS has the authority to demand that MS-US make MS-Ireland do it. It clearly does as long as its legal for MS-Ireland to comply with its parent corp.
The only question is whether or not it is legal for Ms-Ireland to send the data. See my other replies for more de
Re: (Score:2)
The US can bite my shiny metal ass with a court order. I'm neither there nor in a country that would send me over.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem you have is the word "valid".
It's invalid to issue a court order that extends outside your court's jurisdiction, especially if to do so actually encroaches on - and contradicts the law of - another jurisdiction.
In the EU, it's illegal to reveal or transfer personally-identifying data without the explicit permission of the persons mentioned in that data. Neither Microsoft America, nor Microsoft EU, have that permission. To do so, they would have to ask the people who the data is about (who are
Different country... (Score:2)
A person defies a valid court order? They're arrested and in jail for contempt of court.
Unless that "court order" comes from a completely different country, and ask the person to do something which is absolutely illegal in the current country of that person.
Then the person can laugh and throw the court order in the trash can. (But depending on the "completely different country" 's law, the person's car which was left back there could be seized and destroyed as a retribution).
That's exactly the situation here: A court in the *USA* issues an order to search data in *Ireland*.
No US court has any
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the US courts ruled that US law does apply in Ireland because Microsoft has a presence in both countries.
Re:What is the problem here? (Score:5, Insightful)
And you think that somehow the ruling of a US court absolves Microsoft from Irish law?
Because that's a complete crock of shit, and the only way Microsoft in Ireland exists as a corporation is under Irish law.
So, I'm sorry, but a US court cannot compel a foreign citizen or corporation in that country to break local laws just because there is a relationship with a US company.
The problem is that a US court believes it has the authority to make Microsoft Ireland violate the laws of Ireland, when Microsoft Ireland isn't under the legal jurisdiction of that US court. And that's simply not true.
Microsoft is saying "If you want this, go to an Irish court, but don't demand that we break the law for you".
Re: (Score:2)
The US court is not ordering Microsoft Ireland to do anything.
The US court is ordering Microsoft US to supply data which Microsoft US has already stipulated that it has access to.
The fact that Microsoft US gave it to Microsoft Ireland is not the US court's problem.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"ms ireland is thereby legally barred from releasing the data to the us mother company."
That is not the US court's problem. That is MS US and MS Ireland's problem for setting up up their multinational corporation to try to evade national laws. They deliberately entered an arrangement where they could not comply with the laws of their respective jurisdictions.
Re: (Score:2)
And you think that somehow the ruling of a US court absolves Microsoft from Irish law?
Yes but these aren't 2 distinct entities. Does MS Ireland own MS US, or are they wholly separate entities, or does MS US own / control MS Ireland? It would seem the latter. I'm sure there's all kinds of shenanigans done for tax purposes, etc, but its part of MS, nonetheless, and the parent is US based, and under US legal jurisdiction. That said, I hope they loose on this. A really bad precedent would be set and probably be detrimental to long term US business doing anything outside the US.
Re: (Score:2)
And you think that somehow the ruling of a US court absolves Microsoft from Irish law?
Not at all, but these statements are not contradictory:
1. US law requires MS to divulge data A, and MS will be punished if they don't divulge it.
2. Irish law requires MS to not divulge data A, and MS will be punished if they do divulge it.
Re:What is the problem here? (Score:4, Informative)
The problem is that the US courts ruled that US law does apply in Ireland because Microsoft has a presence in both countries.
But there are decades of precedence for this: see the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 and the 1988 ruling applying to foreign firms.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
The order isn't against any person or entity in Ireland. It is against a US company, and US employees, who can access the data from their desks in the US. Under US law, it is certainly a valid order. Under Irish law, it is not. There is a conflict that the US prosecutor (and judge) do not want to (or can't, under current law) address. No matter what Microsoft does, they will break the law somewhere.
This [theregister.co.uk] is a surprisingly (for the source) thoughtful account of things so far, and explains the reasoning behind
Re: (Score:3)
The order isn't against any person or entity in Ireland. It is against a US company, and US employees, who can access the data from their desks in the US. Under US law, it is certainly a valid order.
Actually, it likely is not.
A warrant is only applicable to people/places within the jurisdiction of the court that issued the warrant. Microsoft Ireland (which stores the data but does not technically own or control it) and various Irish citizens (who own/control the data) are not under jurisdiction of any US court.
As a subpoena, it's not possible for any Microsoft US employee to comply, because a subpoena only forces you to turn over data/items/evidence that you own/possess...it cannot ask you to turn ove
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft US has already stipulated that it can access the data in question.
Probably cruel but... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem here becomes precedent. If it's allowed once, it set a precedent for others. Say, for example, China wanted to seize emails... or Iran wanted to seize emails. That's not a great outcome, and yet they would have the legal precedent to make a case all the way up the chain of courts.
Re:Probably cruel but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, if the US get their way in this case, who in their sane mind would host it with a US company?
That's the main reason why the others side with MS in this one. If the US get their way, no company on this planet would touch a data center that is remotely in league with a US based company with a 10 foot pole.
Re:Probably cruel but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is precisely what companies should have been doing as soon as America passed the PATRIOT Act, which pretty much spelled out their claim to be able to do this.
US based cloud services have been tainted for years now, only now people are starting to realize the truth of it.
Some of us have been saying this exact scenario would happen for years.
When the US government decided American companies were an extended part of the surveillance apparatus, American companies became so embroiled in this as to be laughable. There is no way you ca trust an American company if you're outside of America.
How do you think those stocks are going to fare when everyone cancels contracts with Microsoft et al and flips you the bird?
This is why it's laughable when America says they're the champions of Liberty and Justice -- because they're actively fighting anybody else in the world getting that, which means the rest of the world knows you're lying, and is starting to not give a crap about what America wants.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the really sad/pathetic thing about all this. Everyone knows how the PATRIOT Act, NSA eavesdropping, warrants approved by secret courts, etc have damaged the trustworthiness of U.S. com
Re: (Score:2)
Back then there was no Snowden, and the companies thought (correctly) that nobody gave half a shit about privacy.
This changed. Big time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The US Government is one of the most hypocritical entities on this planet. They love to craft all sorts of rules and regulations then expect everyone -ELSE- to adhere them. When they get caught running afoul of their own laws, they simply start throwing out any number of trump cards they carry at all times:
National Security
State Secrets
Executive Privilege
Terrorists !
Children !
etc.
Or they just rename / reclassify / redirect it.
Oh THAT ? W
Re: (Score:2)
I hope the more rational part of you realizes that this wouldn't be good for anyone.
Doesn't seem simple (Score:3)
Honestly, I'm having a little bit of a hard time deciding what I think about this. On the one hand, I'm very much in favor of privacy, and it seems to me that the rules for searching a server in Ireland should be approximately the same as the rules for searching a storage locker in Ireland.
On the other hand, I feel that it's important to consider that, with the whole "cloud computing" thing, it doesn't necessarily matter where your data is stored. For example, I might throw a document in my Dropbox folder and it get synced to "the cloud", and I have no idea where that file is physically located. It could be in Ireland, for all I know. So even though I may not live in Ireland or access it from Ireland, I may not have intended to store it in Ireland, and I may not even know it's in Ireland, it happens to be stored in Ireland at this moment. It could be shuffled off to another physical location tomorrow.
So I guess that makes me wonder, in such a hypothetical circumstance, if declaring it absolutely within the jurisdiction of Ireland might be opening a bit of a can of worms. If I throw a file up in my Dropbox and it ends up cached in Russia, without my knowledge or permission, is it now subject to Russian copyright laws? Is it now subject to Russian decency laws? If the information is considered illegal in Russia, am I now guilty of smuggling?
I don't know. I'm not a lawyer, so maybe I'm wrong to think that there might be some weird repercussions.
Re:Doesn't seem simple (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you nailed it on the head. I'm of the opinion that wherever the data resides is not relevant. If an individual resides in Ireland, the data should be under Ireland's jurisdiction and vice versa. I would consider company files to be under the jurisdiction of the country it's operated it ( I realize this can get difficult if companies run in multiple countries).
The fact is that more than 95% of the population isn't affected by this issue. It's only an issue when you end up in court and your data is required to be given.
The problem with data is that it can leave a country without the country's ability to intercept. This is very different than goods and money. If you cross the border with drugs and don't get caught, good for you but at least the country had the chance to prevent it. With data, there is no point at which the authorities have a shot at preventing it from leaving regardless of it's importance.
The fact here is that the individual(s) are refusing to provide access to the data voluntarily which requires the authorities to obtain it by force. This tells me there's something incriminating in the data which is why they didn't just hand it over.
Re: (Score:2)
It's exactly for the prevention and resolution of these sort of conflicts civilised nations negotiate and sign bi-lateral or international treaties like via the UN.
Regrettably the (conservative) right wing of USofA politics has years ago decided to laugh at such treaties and now we have an issue.
The 'Conflict of Law' legal specialists will be the only beneficiaries!
Re: (Score:2)
The fact here is that the individual(s) are refusing to provide access to the data voluntarily which requires the authorities to obtain it by force. This tells me there's something incriminating in the data which is why they didn't just hand it over.
So either you comply "voluntarily" or your lack of compliance is used as a reason do to if forcefully, either way the cops get to do whatever they want. Maybe they should start at home and repeal the 4th amendment first?
Re: (Score:2)
What is the alternative option? Release a known criminal that you can't nail because the court system allows you to get off on a technicality? The line is fine and that's where the argument starts.
Re: (Score:2)
And guilt can't be proven without evidence. Once a suspect, the books should be open. If there's nothing to hide you will run free.
Re: (Score:2)
"Maybe they should start at home and repeal the 4th amendment first?"
Forget that, repeal the 2nd amendment first and deal with the civil war that comes in response. If the repeal wins the rest of the amendments will fall like dominoes.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact here is that the individual(s) are refusing to provide access to the data voluntarily which requires the authorities to obtain it by force. This tells me there's something incriminating in the data which is why they didn't just hand it over.
This sounds suspiciously like, "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear." I'm not on board with that idea.
Just so I've said it, my comment wasn't intended to be in favor of law enforcement being able to search anything without a warrant, or without proper procedure. I'm just pointing out that the issue, as it's stated in the summary, is a legal argument about whether data lies in a particular jurisdiction. I meant to point out that, with the ephemeral quality of data and the ease with
Re: (Score:2)
The fact is that over the next 100 years border will practically disappear. Borders between countries have been significantly diluted in the last 100 years and eventually won't exist. Globalization started long ago and our increased means of transportation and communication is making this more real everyday. In the process the exchange of information between trusted government has increased.
As for law enforcement. They ABSOLUTELLY need to follow procedures and local jurisdiction laws AS LONG as they have me
Re: (Score:2)
The fact is that over the next 100 years border will practically disappear.
Even if national borders were to become meaningless, I'm not sure that jurisdiction stops being relevant. Which law enforcement agency will pursue the crime, and which court will it be tried in?
Re: (Score:2)
I hear you but the removal of borders also means another level of government which would allow a more streamline means of requesting something that would have been extremely difficult (such as today's scenario).
Re: (Score:2)
Using your logic, courts should not have a right to use the weapon used in a murder to put away a criminal because it's the criminal's weapon.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the reason why you should not put things in the cloud in the first place, and if you do so you should at least check where the servers are located and decide for yourself whether that's a good place for your documents to be and whether they are legal there.
Jesus Christ, is that so hard to understand?
And yes, prosecutors of country A can already ask prosecutors of country B for a warrant in country B, that's done all the time and that's not what this case is about.
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus Christ, is that so hard to understand?
Because you're being belligerent, and frankly, kind of dumb. That's "the reason why you shouldn't put things in the cloud". If it were the reason, then it could be easily fixed by having cloud providers give assurances that your data will be stored in a specific jurisdiction, and then you would have absolutely no reason not to put things "in the cloud".
But really my post is meant to indicate that there are some things about digital storage and transmission that needs to be considered, and the law might n
Re: (Score:2)
The implications are far further reaching than whether you can wash your dirty tax laundry somewhere offshore. This is about a country wanting to reach into the jurisdiction of another country and dictating them how to behave. That is unacceptable, especially from a country that is considered friendly. How do you think the US would react if Ireland told them to hand over documents from the branch of an Irish company 'cause they think that they try to harbor documents belonging to the IRA there.
Just in case
Re: (Score:2)
They are not operating above the law. But the law in question here is _Irish_ law, not US law. The US prosecutor is doing things that in earlier times would have caused a major international incident, possibly a war.
Sigh. (Score:2)
Again, if they comply with the order, whoever does so in Europe (or is in Microsoft Europe and even *allows* it to happen by lax security, or whatever excuse) is in breach of the EU Data Protection laws.
The courts are thick if they don't understand this. Either Microsoft US gets brought before a US court for non-compliance of Microsoft Europe gets brought before a European court for compliance.
This is why we have jurisdiction. This is why you apply to have your court order validated in the jurisdiction yo
Re: (Score:2)
Multinational corporations create separate entities in order dodge any one nation's unfavorable laws and regulations. Microsoft US is subject to the US court jurisdiction and Microsoft Ireland is subject to Irish court jurisdiction. If Microsoft US and Microsoft Ireland have entered an agreement where one of them or the other would be violating the law or they must breach their agreement it is no one's problem but their own that they are hoist by their own petard.
Since there can be no legal civil contract t
Have to admit (Score:2)
This allows Microsoft (and any multi-national) additional power to exempt themselves from various US law by shopping around for favorable laws protecting their digital assets. I'm sure there is at least 1 small, poor, developing, (corrupt?) nation out there that would love to accept a few hundred million dollars to build a datacenter and pass a couple "fuck you America!" laws.
Though I also have to admit the court is not the place to prevent that. There are other ways to deal with this problem. Such as pa
Industry support (Score:3)
This case is about personal privacy and national sovereignty somewhat, but it's primarily about the setting precedent for the privilege of multinational corporations.
I know this is going to be an unpopular viewpoint, but the industry is behind Microsoft here because it lessens their accountability to any governments anywhere. The Snow Crash future, where big corporations make their own rules and don't answer to anyone, depends on them not having any accountability to anyone else. Just like shuffling their money around the globe gets them out of having to pay taxes anywhere, shuffling their data around will prevent them from even being investigated for any crimes they may commit. Expect future incriminating emails and documents to be stored safely in subpoena-proof countries.
You're drunk, America. Go home and sleep it off. (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish times were simpler and my country wasn't such a fucking arrogant, pushy, bastard.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying Obama is infallible and that there's no valid way to criticize a black president? That's a bit short sighted. And I didn't see that in the OP post at all. I'm disgusted with my country, and I was before our current president was elected.
Re: (Score:1)
I didn't see anything racist in what he said, just because he thinks his country is on the wrong path, and that country currently happens to have a black president doesn't make him racist.
Do you honestly feel that while we have a black president the government should be beyond reproach because anything said against its actions is racist?
Do you think that his statement even meant, "Things were so much better 6 years ago when we had W"? 'Cause I am pretty sure it didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you wasted your time with that reply. That sort will always play a race card. It's what they learned from their parent(s).
Re: (Score:2)
Things are fucked up.
Obama is no better than Bush or Clinton, or any of the last 20 presidents. America once stood for integrity. America is now synonymous with corruption, greed, and outright dishonesty, and thought of more as a possible invader than anything else.
I am dead set on opposing criminal activity in contravention of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Those document were put into place by learned men and when followed, proved quite good at restraining the more vile excesses. Unfortunatel
hmmm (Score:2)
Kind of have to wonder Microsoft et al have other motives (than protecting users) for not wanting the US to be able to get at data stored overseas.
If the US gubberment can get user data stored overseas, it could then perhaps expect to get corporate tax related data stored overseas.
How dare the government take Microsoft to task? (Score:2)
Everbody knows that invading digital privacy across international boundaries is the job of corporations, not governments!
What's good for the goose... (Score:2)
If the US can't enforce it's laws against content stored off shore, even if owned by an on-shore company, then what about the reverse? How can the DMCA be enforced against those in foreign countries? If Microsoft says that Irish law prevails because that is where the data is stored, then wouldn't the same be true for DMCA violations?
You can't have it both ways. Pirate Bay had it's data on foreign soil, but American companies had no problem with using American laws there. Of course, many countries have tre
I never thought I'd say this... (Score:2)
what the? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
DOJ asked and got told "No".
Of course telling a department like that No isn't something they're willing to accept, and this everyone became embroiled in this useless piece of chicanery.