American Judge Claims Jurisdiction Over Data Stored In Other Countries

New submitter sim2com writes: "An American judge has just added another reason why foreign (non-American) companies should avoid using American Internet service companies. The judge ruled that search warrants for customer email and other content must be turned over, even when that data is stored on servers in other countries. The ruling came out of a case in which U.S. law enforcement was demanding data from Microsoft's servers in Dublin, Ireland. Microsoft fought back, saying, 'A U.S. prosecutor cannot obtain a U.S. warrant to search someone's home located in another country, just as another country's prosecutor cannot obtain a court order in her home country to conduct a search in the United States. We think the same rules should apply in the online world, but the government disagrees.'

If this ruling stands, foreign governments will not be happy about having their legal jurisdiction trespassed by American courts that force American companies to turn over customers' data stored in their countries. The question is: who does have legal jurisdiction on data stored in a given country? The courts of that country, or the courts of the nationality of the company who manages the data storage? This is a matter that has to be decided by International treaties. While we're at it, let's try to establish an International cyber law enforcement system. In the meantime."

Comments

American company

[Todd Knarr]

I think the fact that it's an American company being ordered to produce the data factors in here. The judge does have jurisdiction over the company, which makes it a different situation from ordering a company in another country to turn over data stored there. If you want to get out of a country's legal jurisdiction, you need to be out of their jurisdiction.

Re:American company

[Frobnicator]

I think the fact that it's an American company being ordered to produce the data factors in here.

Close, but wrong.

Being ordered to produce data is called a subpoena. That is the normal tool for producing emails and documents. A subpoena orders the company to find the documents meeting the criteria and produce them for the court.

A search warrant allows LEOs to enter the building, search for everything themselves, and seize anything that might appear to satisfy the warrant. So they would enter the server room and immediately seize any computer that looks like it might have the email on it.

The unnamed government agency got a warrant to seize a bunch of computers, and are acting under the guise that they are asking for specific information.

It is completely the wrong tool. It would be nice to think it was a simple mistake, picking the wrong tool to get information. ... unless it is an agency looking to do far more than find some specific emails. Unfortunately it is probably the latter, given that everything is under seal and they are demanding to allow US federal agents into a non-US facility to seize servers.

Re:No jurisdiction

[devman]

Microsoft, however, is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Federal Court system, and when a Magistrate Judge orders them to produce something, they are compelled to produce it. It doesn't really matter where the something is. Basically the court is saying the search warrant can be executed like a subpoena.

From the linked article:
A search warrant for email information, he said, is a "hybrid" order: obtained like a search warrant but executed like a subpoena for documents. Longstanding U.S. law holds that the recipient of a subpoena must provide the information sought, no matter where it is held, he said.

Re:No jurisdiction

[Brett Buck]

The search warrant analogy is completely spurious. An American court cannot compel a search of a foreign property. But they can certainly compel an American company (or individual) to produce information owned by the company that happens to reside in a file folder in another country, or be liable for contempt of court.

      Sensationalism, thy name is slashdot.

      Brett