Slashdot Mirror


Foreign Data Unsafe From US Patriot Act, Says American Law Firm

natecochrane writes "A prestigious law firm warns non-U.S. businesses their data is unsafe from costly and invasive raids by American law enforcement even if they host their data in their own countries. The wide interpretation of the USA Patriot Act ensures U.S. cops can legally demand data from almost anyone, anywhere for any reason and countries and their citizens are largely powerless to resist. The advice has resonance with the arrest this week of Kim 'Dotcom' on alleged copyright violations in the U.S."

17 of 328 comments (clear)

  1. legally demand by clemdoc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, that demand doesn't need to be answered.

    1. Re:legally demand by Suki+I · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, that demand doesn't need to be answered.

      ^^This^^

      Other governments do not have to bow down to every 'request' and demand of the United States.

    2. Re:legally demand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unfortunately for people in the UK our Conservative/Liberal government are a gang of spineless puppets who do whatever their US masters tell them. As were the previous Labour government.
      I have to wonder if a desire to suck US cock is a requirement to get into politics in this country?..

    3. Re:legally demand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's funny that U.S. conservatives complain about International law being applied in the U.S. and that those people are against a N.W.O. when it seems like the U.S. is leading the charge on forcing its laws on other countries as it sees fit. All the people with "U.S. out of the U.N. now" signs have no clue.

    4. Re:legally demand by malkavian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, our current group are bound by a one sided legal treaty signed in by Labour. The current group are looking for a way to end the agreement legally (as it's not great for business; I suspect citizens are an also ran, but useful flag to wave).
      That's the thing with international law and diplomacy, you can't easily turn around and say "We don't like it anymore, so screw you". Well, not without screwing up your international reputation and ability to strike future agreements. It needs to be done carefully.

    5. Re:legally demand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All the people with "U.S. out of the U.N. now" signs have no clue.

      Of course they don't. They will never hear about this. Why? Because the pundits they watch and listen to will never mention this.

      And in the meantime, all they hear is how America is exceptional, we're on top and will always be there, and anyone who criticizes America hates it, yadda yadda yadda.

      They also hear distortions and lies about what is being done like The UN Gun Ban Treaty that Obama is going to use to take our guns away!

      No one seems to bother to check the facts. They watch or listen to some overpaid mouthpeice whose job is to scare the shit out of them so that these spewers of nonsense can get rating to justify their seven figure or more salary.

      It's hard though. There is sooo much information being thrown at us, how can a normal person check up on everything? You have to work 8+ hours a day, take care of your chores, exervise (I hope!), eat, connect with friends and family, etc ... and check up on those liars?

      The easiest thing to do is turn off the TV and most radio.

      The Economist and NPR seem to be the last reliable newssources left on the planet.

    6. Re:legally demand by Suki+I · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They are free to ignore the demands, true.

      The article, however, spoke of the conflict of IT companies that had interests in the U.S., who may be forced to obey U.S. law. Specifically, the story is about the privacy commissioner of my province (Alberta) recommending that our government only use companies with no U.S. connections to guarantee the privacy of the data.

      That means no American companies, no outsourcing to the U.S., and no data storage in the United States. The U.S. are international lepers in the privacy world and should be avoided at all costs.

      If the person in question is not a US citizen and not in the US, then it is ultimately up to her or his country of citizenship and country where they are located if any state cooperation is given at all.

      Sovereignty does have a few perks.

    7. Re:legally demand by Nadaka · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Conservatism is about stopping the advancement of progressiveness and liberty, or in extreme cases, to roll it back.

      The police state is the ultimate conservative institution. And the Patriot Act is one of the police states most powerful weapons.

    8. Re:legally demand by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Conservatism is about stopping the advancement of progressiveness and liberty, or in extreme cases, to roll it back.

      You had me up to "liberty". Conservatism seems to like the idea of "liberty". They're not so big on "liberal" or "libertine", which are similar sounding, but mean different things.

      The police state is the ultimate conservative institution. And the Patriot Act is one of the police states most powerful weapons.

      Wasn't most of the crap in the Patriot Act dealing with data written by John Kerry, a liberal democrat (who was, admittedly, also an ex-prosecutor who was trying to make other prosecutors' jobs easier)?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    9. Re:legally demand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They are free to ignore the demands, true.

      The article, however, spoke of the conflict of IT companies that had interests in the U.S., who may be forced to obey U.S. law. Specifically, the story is about the privacy commissioner of my province (Alberta) recommending that our government only use companies with no U.S. connections to guarantee the privacy of the data.

      That means no American companies, no outsourcing to the U.S., and no data storage in the United States. The U.S. are international lepers in the privacy world and should be avoided at all costs.

      If the person in question is not a US citizen and not in the US, then it is ultimately up to her or his country of citizenship and country where they are located if any state cooperation is given at all.

      Sovereignty does have a few perks.

      It should also be noted that Megaupload (to take a recent) had US-based servers and bank accounts. These (IMHO) are fair game for the US government. They also generally were accessed by a .com domain, which is managed by a US-based company (would have been prudent to have .co, .eu, .co.uk, etc., addresses as well).

      However, extraditing him shouldn't be done, as he broke no law in the country he was in AFAIK. If they do extradite him, they'll also (logically speaking) have to extradite journalists who report on China if Beijing asks--even if the reporter/s in question wrote their stories in New Zealand. It's a dangerous precedent to allow this to happen, as simple "access to bits" is not an really appropriate in the networked age.

      The only time that an extradition could be allowed would be in the case of crackers who went into remote systems of another country, as they were specifically "trespassing" the systems (though not physically). Though they could also be prosecuted locally since most countries have cyber-laws that deal with this as well.

    10. Re:legally demand by Alioth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If conservatives are so pro-liberty, why are they so against things like gay rights and gay marriage? Surely a fundamental part of liberty is being allowed to choose who you want to love and marry?

  2. Re:Alarmist by MoonBuggy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because the US hasn't nuked anyone in over half a century, and doesn't appear to show any inclination to. They have, however, seized data from New Zealand in the last week or so, and are currently trying to extradite a British citizen for actions that occurred solely within the UK and were already deemed not to constitute a crime under British law.

  3. Business Opportunity by sunderland56 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It looks like there is a great business opportunity here - set up cloud services and guarantee in writing that (a) no data will be hosted in the USA, it's protectorates, or in extremely US-friendly countries (England, Canada), and (b) you won't turn over data to any US authority under any circumstance.

    1. Re:Business Opportunity by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Two words Julian Assange ...No US server, no connections to US companies, all hosted in US unfriendly countries ...

      He tried this, and look what happened ...

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
  4. Re:Rape Whistle by Archtech · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is a case where simply saying "No" would actually work. Try it, "No, you may not have the data."

    See, very simple. No need for weapons or belligerence.

    Very nice, until you suddenly find that your company's operations in the USA have been closed down, or all your money in US-controlled banks has been frozen. That no one who has ever met you, or any of your family, or anyone with the same initials as you, is allowed to enter the USA or any of its widespread dominions. That no US-based corporation (or corporation that ever hopes to do any business in the USA, or with US-based corporations) will give you the time of day. That all your communications may be tapped, and diligently searched for the slightest excuse to harass or prosecute you for further alleged wrongdoing. That no one will hire you. That other governments hoping for favour from Washington (i.e. all governments except perhaps Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea) will presently follow suit. And on, and on, and on.

    Oh, and you may unexpectedly find yourself being extradited to Sweden on multiple charges of aggravated rape.

    --
    I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  5. This Service Not Available In Your Country by IonOtter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dear American User:

    We are very sorry, but your government is behaving like a spoiled child that thinks it can get it's way by screaming and kicking it's feet. While normally we would not be terribly concerned by this childish display, we are annoyed that you, the parents, are not doing anything to bring them under control.

    As a result, you will not be permitted to utilize our service until you rein in your spoiled brat government and teach them proper manners, and how to act like a world citizen.

    Thank you.

    "Name of Service"

    --
    [End Of Line]
  6. Re:Legality? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    so does Russia, Britain, France, Israel and North Korea. they don't go around insisting that their laws apply to foreign firms with foreign data in foreign sovereignties.

    the US is just lost the plot on internationalisation - they might have realised there are places outside the US borders, now they need to understand that those places *aren't* America.

    I swear most of America's politicians and lawyers are about as mature as a 6 year old - not yet understanding that the world consists of people other than themselves.