In Privacy Victory, Microsoft Wins Appeal Over Foreign Data Warrant (zdnet.com) 70
In what is being perceived as a major victory for privacy, Microsoft has won the reversal of a court order that required it to turn over to the United States government the contents of a customer's email account stored on an Irish server. ZDNet reports: The case centered on a uniquely-different warrant that was issued by U.S. prosectors in that it was for data stored in an email account stored by Microsoft overseas. Prosecutors said that because the data was hosted by a U.S.-based company, Microsoft must comply. But the judges concluded that Congress did not intend the law used in the case -- the Stored Communications Act -- to apply outside the US. The judges said was a "rational policy outcome" and should be "celebrated as a milestone in protecting privacy." The appeals court also reversed a charge of contempt, which allowed the company to trigger an appeal. The software giant has been battling U.S. prosecutors for two years over data held in its Dublin, Ireland datacenter, which it says cannot be accessed or retrieved by a US search warrant.
As little as I like Microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)
This is good news. We need to rein in the government.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Is Microsoft supposed to represent the public?
Re: (Score:3)
It is supposed to exist in the public interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if its other activities are not in the public interest, is it in the public interest for Microsoft to have won this case?
Re: (Score:3)
Given current conditions, I'd say it is in the public interest. The DOJ needs to learn that it isn't omnipotent and does not have carte blanche.
Re: (Score:2)
This is reasonable good news. But it is not great news. A company won over government. However we, the people are left out of it.
And it is sad if we are happy when companies win over government. Because that means NOBODY is on our side.
Are the sheep happy that the wolf is killed by the lion? Sure, but in the end it means nothing to the sheep.
Do understand that neither of these parties represent the public (anymore).
Go learn human history and witness the biggest problems of humanity are driven by the power of government. Even most corporate problems are due to companies seeking favorable treatment over competitors.
And probably you cheer at government "curing" the worst corporate problem -- monopoly -- by creating an even more powerful legal monopoly: government.
Re:As little as I like Microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)
A company won over government.
No, it's more like a government won against another government. You can bet the Irish government and the EU weren't happy about this initial ruling. By complying with the initial ruling, Microsoft would have been forced to break the local data protection laws.
Microsoft had been placed in an untenable position. And you're right, the reversal is reasonable good news, but it's not great news. That initial ruling was totally insane to begin with. It should have been reversed within 24 hours, not within three years.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I actually disagree that this is good news. Here is a case where the rule of law was utilized, a warrant was issued by a court on the public record for data. Microsoft is a US entity and should have to follow lawful orders from a US court. When courts can't subpoena that leaves law enforcement with little recourse other than warrant free uncountable hacking that violates our Fourth Amendment or letting having to let criminals walk free no matter how much legitimate probable cause to suspect th
Re:As little as I like Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Then again, many consider you wrong. Why can a government claim rights over assets under another government's sovereignty? What you're proposing is that gov A can tell a company based under gov B's control to supply it with information that is in direct violation of gov B's laws, merely because it has a presence somewhere under gov A's sovereignty. So, let's assume that there's a letter in Disney France's possession. So the US gov can force Disney HQ to produce said letter if France's laws forbid releasing such data without a *French* warrant?
It's obvious to me that gov A would have to go to gov B to get a valid warrant from gov B to get whatever they wanted, and yes, that makes for a painful process. Such is the rule of law. You don't just get what you want from anywhere you want because you passed some law in a banana republic.
Re: (Score:3)
Disagree. Microsoft is a US entity it should have to follow US rules wherever it goes as long as it remains a US entity. Additionally it should have to follow the rules for whatever locality it happens to be in. Yes that may make it impossible to perform certain activities where the laws are totally incompatible.
Maybe Microsoft simply cannot operate a server in the EU under the current rules because of this conflict; that is probably the case and I don't care. If MS can't do it neither can anyone else a
Re: (Score:2)
Now you are trying to go in circles, my original post was disagreeing with the courts opinion.
Re: (Score:3)
Disagree. Microsoft is a US entity it should have to follow US rules wherever it goes as long as it remains a US entity.
Yes, Microsoft is a US entity, but most likely Microsoft-Ireland is an Irish corporate entity for tax and liability reasons. Not to mention its employees, are going to be mostly Irish and/or Europeans.
And the nationality of the entity doesn't really matter here. If for instance, I was working in China, or in Saudi Arabia, for a US entity, I would still follow the local laws, before I would follow an illegal spying order from the United States.
My life and my genitals are just too precious to me.
Re: (Score:2)
That is the point you are obligated to follow BOTH sets of laws when abroad. If you can't because the law is fundamentally incompatible than you can't go/conduct business abroad!
Re: (Score:3)
Disagree. Microsoft is a US entity it should have to follow US rules wherever it goes as long as it remains a US entity.
Are you saying that if a Chinese company suddenly purchased your US-based employer tomorrow, that you would be willing to commit acts of espionage in the United States if your new Chinese employer required you to do so?
Re: (Score:2)
No I would quit, and than file suit against my former employer for asking me to do something illegal and forcing my resignation.
Sucks for the employer but its a hazard of doing business internationally unless you are extremely careful to minimize your international exposure and fully understand the foreign laws you have to comply with.
Re: (Score:1)
You'd likely tell your employer you could not legally comply. Your resignation is offered if they wish.
And that's the point here, MS cannot force it's Irish subsidiary to give it data.
Re: (Score:2)
No I would quit, and than file suit against my former employer for asking me to do something illegal and forcing my resignation.
Hopefully, you would quit and go to the FBI right away.
After all, if you or many of your colleagues just quit without alerting the authorities immediately, there is nothing preventing the remaining clueless intern or janitor from allowing the foreign owner from coming onsite and making an offshore copy of the data.
Re: (Score:2)
"As a US citizen you are not free to violate federal law even while abroad!"
You may not like the idea of sex tourists going to Thailand to party or Americans smoking pot in Amsterdam, not I for one do not appreciate printing more money to make the FBI the actual Word Police.
Re: (Score:1)
Microsoft is a US entity, Microsoft Ireland, is an Irish entity (hint - they're incorporated in Ireland). Now, Microsoft US may own the Irish entity, but that doesn't mean Microsoft Ireland is a US entity, nor subject to any US laws. Microsoft Ireland may allow Microsoft US access to data they hold, but I'll bet it is under the auspices of Irish law, as the EU privacy cases just recently decided make clear.
IANAL of any type.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes - the rule of law was in play. And in this case, it was determined the original order was unlawful. The rule of law cuts both ways. Sometimes what the government tries to do is not lawful - just because its the government making a demand doesn't make the demand automatically lawful, and that is a good thing. However, it takes a lot of determination (and a lot of $$ for paying lawyers) to stand up to unlawful demands. In this case perhaps Microsoft's objectives were in line with those of the general
Re:As little as I like Microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally I actually disagree that this is good news. Here is a case where the rule of law was utilized, a warrant was issued by a court on the public record for data. Microsoft is a US entity and should have to follow lawful orders from a US court.
You're missing the point. Microsoft may be a US entity, but the Microsoft employees in Dublin are subject to Irish and European laws and they can be thrown in prison for violating the local data protection laws (or worse, they can be thrown in prison for the rest of their lives for doing espionnage for a foreign power).
This is not to say of all the business lost by Microsoft and other US companies outside of the US, because if such a warrant were to be implemented, no local government not already under the control of the US would allow its own citizens to use cloud services, email services, and a search engine under the ultimate control of the US government. When it comes down to it, if Europe really wanted to replace Microsoft and Google, it could.
And if the US really wanted that data, they should have asked the Irish government. That's what the actual rule of law dictates. There are treaties for such things. Trying to circumvent the sovereignty and the jurisdiction of a close ally and trade partner isn't cool. And unless the US is willing to backup Microsoft with US military troops on Irish soil, it was putting the local employees of Microsoft in a very precarious position.
Re: (Score:2)
So don't have the Irish employees do it. Microsoft has these neat protocols called RDP and SMB that would have easily allowed a US employee to do it.
The USA should have GLOBAL jurisdiction over its own citizens and corporate entities. If a law or court order is intended to apply to such an entity outside a US territory said order should apply!
This cuts both ways of course, a US entity wishing to do business/travel/etc ought to be prepared to comply with the laws of that place, if that can't do so perhaps
Re: (Score:2)
The USA should have GLOBAL jurisdiction over its own citizens and corporate entities. ...
You have got to be fucking kidding me--or else you've not thought this out at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Might want to reconsider your statement DarkOx, the real issue is that the US Government attempted to use a warrant where it should have used a subpoena. A warrant and a subpoena are two different legal documents with very different powers and limitations.
Warrant - Government is allowed to seize evidence without prior notice or opportunity to challenge, but the government is required to specify where the search is to occur and describe exactly what it is searching for. Additionally, the search location has
Re: (Score:2)
"This sets up a situation where all you have to do is setup a foreign subsidiary and stash some severs overseas and the government can't touch you?"
A foreign subsidiary should be under the laws of its host country, and no other.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I actually disagree that this is good news. Here is a case where the rule of law was utilized, a warrant was issued by a court on the public record for data. Microsoft is a US entity and should have to follow lawful orders from a US court. When courts can't subpoena that leaves law enforcement with little recourse other than warrant free uncountable hacking that violates our Fourth Amendment or letting having to let criminals walk free no matter how much legitimate probable cause to suspect their may be.
This sets up a situation where all you have to do is setup a foreign subsidiary and stash some severs overseas and the government can't touch you? Yes I realize its a little more nuanced than that, but I still think its a serious problem. This is likely to cause more the behavior we really should oppose as citizens not less.
Did you read TFA? This case was about _customers_ data not Microsoft's; _European customers_ data over which the US government and court system has _no_ jurisdiction. As other have pointed out, there are clearly defined methods for acquiring such data as part of a serious international crime investigation. In this case, the US tried to get the data via the back door and, quite rightly, failed.
What's more, European businesses who use cloud services have been watching this case very closely. If Microsoft had
Re: (Score:2)
Even if reigning were appropriate, wouldn't it be reigning over?
Long road to victory (Score:3)
Time to ensure ownership is via local subsidiary (Score:4, Insightful)
This highlights the need to ensure that the server and so its data is held by a company incorporated under the law of the nation concerned. If that is so, local law trumps US law because the local board of directors will be in criminal court if they release the data to an unauthorised user, even if that is the US government.
Re: (Score:2)
yup right until they sign a data sharing policy with US.... but that will never happen
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I had BlackBerry Enterprise Server and Microsoft Exchange Server running on a server in my bedroom for a few years. Nobody hacked into it.
That you ever found out about.
Not sure how I feel about this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
There actually _ are _ crimes I'd like prosecuted, like tax evasion. I pay mine after all.
It's statements like these that got us where we are today.
Re:Not sure how I feel about this (Score:4, Insightful)
2. Corporations must make a profit or they cease to exist (and thus also your job ceases to exist). Taxes cut into the profits.
3. If you want a dog to come to you when you call you don't beat him when he shows up. You offer him a reason to come. It's the same with corporations: you can't tax the hell out of them and expect them to stick around. You'll get more tax revenue from having more corporations with bigger profits than you will by driving all the corporations away and taxing the life out of the few that are foolish or small enough to remain.
4. It's not tax evasion if they're abiding by the law.
Re: (Score:2)
2. I'd like to live in a world where my entire quality of life doesn't depend on my job and how valuable I am to the ruling class.
3.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, the taxes I pay have a much larger effect on my overall quality of life since my income is much, much smaller and I have much, much less leeway in my budget. Not that I mind paying for the public good, I'm a socialist.
You do mind how much money someone else pays relative to how much you pay but you say you don't mind paying? So really, you're just jealous that someone, somewhere, has more money than you do.
2. I'd like to live in a world where my entire quality of life doesn't depend on my job and how valuable I am to the ruling class.
So, socialist, you'd rather live in precisely such a world where a ruling class with a different label gets to decide things? Also, it's funny how you are angry that you must work for a living yet you demand that everyone else work to help support you especially corporations that don't happen to directly employ you. Bu
NSA (Score:2)