The Supreme Court Fight Over Microsoft's Foreign Servers Is Over (theverge.com) 94
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: The much-anticipated Supreme Court case U.S. v. Microsoft -- which could have decided the extent of American jurisdiction over foreign servers -- is now, for all intents and purposes, dead. On March 30th, the Department of Justice moved to drop the lawsuit as moot, and today, Microsoft filed to agree with the motion. While the Supreme Court has yet to officially drop the case, it's a foregone conclusion that they will. Both the government and Microsoft agree that the newly passed CLOUD Act renders the lawsuit meaningless. In U.S. v. Microsoft, federal law enforcement clashed with Microsoft over the validity of a Stored Communications Act warrant for data stored on a server in Dublin. The CLOUD Act creates clear new procedures for procuring legal orders for data in these kinds of cross-border situations. In last week's motion to vacate, DOJ disclosed that it had procured a new warrant under the CLOUD Act.
Repeal (Score:4, Funny)
Is this another invasive anti-privacy act, or does this one have all the correct and proper controls to protect the American people?
Re:Repeal (Score:5, Funny)
or does this one have all the correct and proper controls to protect the American people?
+5 funny.
Re: (Score:1)
republicans created and pushed for this. so, what do YOU think?
Re: (Score:1)
Also none. Maybe the democrats are a bit less open about it but that's all.
Re: (Score:1)
And democrats will be happy to use it. Obama didn't soften any Bush crime, he only continued on the same path.
Re: (Score:2)
Which party was using a FISA warrant to spy on the opposition party? Instead of giving you the answer, I'll just let you stew in hypocrisy.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't be that dense? Just because there are some pro-privacy minority folks on both sides does not mean that either party is pro-privacy. They are tokens to give the rest of the parties cover.
Statements like yours really shows mindless partisanship.
Not really (Score:5, Interesting)
The CLOUD Act [theverge.com] was snuck into a must pass omnibus budget bill and not left on its own legs to be debated. But the biggest issue is that it makes it a international diplomatic affair to deal with what can best be described as a local law enforcement issue.
Now, I don't know about you, but I would rather my government concentrate on the bigger issues when doing international diplomacy and not having to constantly ring up someone in the ambassador chain of command in order to get a sign-off on this sort of thing. Analogy time: It's one thing to ask to borrow a cup of sugar or an egg from time to time of your neighbor. You know you're going to do it for them and probably have in the past. It's another thing to ask for 10 grams of sugar every hour. The first isn't a big deal, the latter can really put a strain on your relationship with them. To the point that they might tell you to go away.
And unless the point was to otherwise accelerate the international isolation of the US, then this was a poorly written piece whose authors knew it. Which is why it got attached as an amendment to a must-pass piece of legislation.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's why the USA has fucked-up laws and cannot be called a democracy.
Re: Not really (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Please don't do the "but it's a Republic!" bullshit game.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
As so many freedom loving Americans like to constantly remind me, the United States is not a democracy; it's a republic. Which of course doesn't actually mean anything. Except maybe that democracy is great when everyone votes the way I would like them to. When they don't, it's okay to ignore those dissenting voices.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm well aware of the history and purpose of the electoral college. No problems with that little quiz.
But none of that is what I was referring to. I am referring more to the attitudes of those who utter that phrase as some kind of dogma. Many act as if there's some right-thinking, historical, universal definition of "republic" but in fact it's just true. We know the founding fathers had a particular definition of "Republic" in mind, but in popular parlance today, but I feel the word has lost nearly all me
Re:Not really (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's why the USA has fucked-up laws and cannot be called a democracy.
Every country has some fucked up laws. It's merely a question of degree.
If the US is not a democracy then no country is a democracy. (And a republic [wikipedia.org] is just a form of representative democracy [wikipedia.org] so spare us that meme) There is nothing about being a democracy that prevents bad decision or poorly designed legislative procedures.
no but being a two party country does (Score:2)
Re:Not really (Score:5, Insightful)
If the US is not a democracy then no country is a democracy.
That is a load of shit. There are plenty functioning democracies in the world that haven't devolved into a 2 party system, both beheld by corporate interests, and both forcing through unpopular legislation by riding on critical bills of supply.
You're right the title of democracy doesn't prevent something being bad, but the way the USA is passing bills and the way the election process works are two things that are really stretching the definition.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a load of shit. There are plenty functioning democracies in the world that haven't devolved into a 2 party system, both beheld by corporate interests, and both forcing through unpopular legislation by riding on critical bills of supply.
"Devolved"? The US has been a two party system almost since its inception. It's a natural outcome [washingtonpost.com] of first past the post [wikipedia.org] voting systems and it's resulted in a stable government for 150 years and the wealthiest country in the world. It's not clear that having more than two parties results in better outcomes either. Our two party system has it's flaws to be sure but parliamentary systems with numerous parties are flawed as well. Pick the poison that works for you but understand that every system has its
Re: (Score:2)
It's a natural outcome [washingtonpost.com] of first past the post [wikipedia.org] voting systems and it's resulted in a stable government for 150 years and the wealthiest country in the world.
Who said anything about stable? No one is arguing that the USA isn't stable. Just that it's a piss poor example of democracy in action. As for your natural outcome, you are right of course. That said, or rather as you said, the USA managed to get there in record time.
Pick the poison that works for you but understand that every system has its flaws.
I didn't say other systems were perfect. You're the one getting defensive, not me.
You talk about those legislative tactics as if they are something new.
Nope. I talk about them as if they are completely and utterly retarded and against the spirit of a functioning democracy. There's a reason why some countries ban
Re: (Score:2)
So who elected Germany as head of the EU ?
Re: (Score:2)
So who elected Germany as head of the EU ?
Huh?
Re: (Score:2)
The head of the EU ... depends what you mean with that.
The president is elected by the parliament, obviously. Right now it is Jean-Claude Junker from Luxembourg. You would cause some stirr up if you would call them German.
Head of the EU is more likely the Precedency of the European Council, which is not elected but rotates every three months to another EU member state right now it is Bulgaria, the second half of the year it will be Austria. Again it will cause some upstir if you insist to ccall them German
Re: (Score:1)
So Germany decides that Germany pays most and that EU policies tend to favour other countries? I can see why the other member states are glad to have Germany as their 'head'.
Re: (Score:2)
I took that quote right from the summary and now it's gone. You can't even trust Slashdot anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
It's another thing to ask for 10 grams of sugar every hour.
Methinks this is intentional, and there would be a step two to make this process "more streamlined" by just getting a power of attorney for your neigbours. Or something.
Guess (Score:2)
Is this another invasive anti-privacy act, or does this one have all the correct and proper controls to protect the American people?
If you have to ask the question you probably can guess [wikipedia.org] the answer.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't feel like making a statement from ignorance, so I asked a question when the answer is easy to guess.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it gives some guarantees to US citizens. As non-US citizen however it would be foolish to store anything sensitive or confidential on US cloud services (even before this law).
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it gives some guarantees to US citizens. As non-US citizen however it would be foolish to store anything sensitive or confidential on US cloud services (even before this law).
Why? Legitimate question - Do you have much more to fear from your own government misappropriating the information or the US government?
As a US citizen, I don't really care if Russia or China are spying on my communications: unless I'm important enough to be a target for counterintelligence, they aren't really interested in me. My own government spying on me, however, I find far more disconcerting.
It seems like if you are going to put your data up on a cloud service, the safest place it could be physically
Re: (Score:2)
The Overseas word should be a hint its global.
The US gov now has the legal privacy to do its data discovery globally.
Re:Repeal (Score:4, Interesting)
Erh... my country's privacy laws might want to have a word with your faith that your laws apply anywhere but your country.
Re: (Score:2)
In the end the USA got all the accounts it was interested in.
Data is the same. A nation will be asked to help with stored data.
They can quote their privacy laws as the data is collected by law enforcement.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if there are any Iranian cloud services...
Re: (Score:2)
All your US cloud data belongs to the US gov to collect it all globally legally.
Says who? Certainly not the CLOUD Act. Actually the CLOUD Act says quite the opposite.
I'm sure there's plenty of controls in place (Score:2)
create all the USA laws you like (Score:1, Insightful)
it still doesn't give you jurisdiction in Ireland dickheads, i doubt Ireland want a foreign government poking around their citizens data, you want the data ? then apply for a warrant to an Irish Judge.
Re: (Score:2)
The rule should be "only if the server is located in your own country".
Re:create all the USA laws you like (Score:5, Informative)
EU civilians have legal enshrined privacy rights, yes that might be shocking to US citizens and corporations, deal with it.
The by far best solution for corporations and citizens in the EU is to keep their data in Europe, it avoids any misunderstandings about jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Be aware of the brand your nation selects.
Re: (Score:2)
It gives US law enforcement the right to demand that US owned service providers hand over data. No matter where they might store it.
One solution might be to get yourself an e-mail account directly with an ISP in Dublin. Or Frankfurt. Just make sure that they aren't a subsidiary* of a US corporation.
Or you could just do like Hillary and run your own e-mail server in your basement.
*This might become a moot point if EU privacy regulations end up banning US corporations from owning cloud providers located in
Re: (Score:2)
"Jurisdiction" is such a formal word. The point is that MS was going to be between a rock and a hard place (they were have to violate one country's laws to comply with another's), and unfortunately for us (but fortunately for them), we didn't get to find out what would happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Fight for civil rights? You got more zingers light that, you could maybe make your own standup routine.
MS knows damn well that if they cave in, they can as well kiss their international customers good-bye. Nobody in their right mind would store their data with them if they rolled over instantly the moment the US wants to engage in some friendly industrial espionage.
Absolutely Fabulous (Score:5, Informative)
So, we have two losers and one winner here:
- American privacy rights are trampled, yet again
- American cloud providers lose access to EU markets since we cannot provide the privacy protections they require
+ American law enforcement and surveillance agencies get their Christmas wish at last
My vote this November is going to whoever promises to repeal this, regardless of the D/R/I after their name.
Re: (Score:3)
My vote this November is going to whoever promises to repeal this, regardless of the D/R/I after their name.
Really? Nothing else is of consequence to you?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Considering that they don't really differ on anything else, you can as well make that the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It may be that we in Europe are used to parties that don't just disagree on minute details that have no impact on how they run the show.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Nothing else is of consequence to you?
You say this as if it actually matters whether the 1%er screwing you in 2 years will be wearing a red or a blue necktie. If history has shown anything it's clear that even if something was of consequence, it's not going to change by a vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Nothing else is of consequence to you?
Do other things matter? Yes. Matter more? No.
We can accept some things as gridlocked at the federal level. Those issues can be eliminated as effectively irrelevant regardless of their importance, at least in the short term.
Large numbers of people taking a stand on an issue is what leads to change. If established D/R politicians are afraid of losing votes, they will bend.
The best case scenario is that both sides decide to repeal the CLOUD Act, and then everyone can comfortably vote their normal preferences a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do they, or do we need to wait and see how it works out in practice - most probably with the Microsoft case with the Dublin data centre? I've not seen any detailed breakdowns of the act yet, but it seems that in order to get access to data US agencies still have to ask for it via the government of the nation where the data centre is located to approve the request. There's two ways that can go;
Re: (Score:2)
Does repealing FOSTA and the TCJA put me out of the running, or will you still donate to my campaign? I'll have a look into the CLOUD act; I'm not liking what I'm hearing, but no firm position until I actually take the time to digest the damned thing. If it's anything like FISA 702 it needs to go.
Granted I still have to convince Congress this is all stupid, so it might not get done regardless of what I do. Still, I'm unhappy with quite a number of things lately, and have every intent to drive back thi
Worthless unless you show up at your primary (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Now let's see what excuses they'll come up with (Score:4, Informative)
It's the right thing (Score:1)
Tired of the lie about foreign entities (Score:2)
I am tired of the continuing lie that the US DoJ got a warrant against a foreign entity. The warrant named Microsoft USA, which is an entity wholly within the jurisdiction of the United States. Microsoft USA was ordered to turn over data that Microsoft USA said was within its control. Either Microsoft USA was lying about having the data within it's control or it was deliberately flouting the order to turn over the data.
It just so happened that the reason that Microsoft USA could not turn over the data is th
May be... (Score:2)
Microsoft is right that their initial issue is not moot due to the CLOUD Act, but the CLOUD Act has yet to be tested. The ultimate outcome will probably be the same though as if CLOUD Act had not passed and this had continued out to a resolution. It's just going to take