Slashdot Mirror
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."
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."
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.
The problem is that most of the large computer and internet companies are American. I can think of two solutions. 1) Governments set up their own sovereign companies to duplicate the US companies services 2) The large US companies (who appear not to like this ruling) could establish foreign owned subsidiaries in those countries.
The judge said that the warrant served on Microsoft is valid, meaning that Microsoft, which has control of the servers in Dublin, can be required to use its access to its own servers to turn over information within its control. Nothing Earth-shattering here.
They're not demanding from the countries. They're going after Microsoft, which happens to have offices in the US. Either way, those who believe should encrypt their mails. The rest can hide their secret messages in spam.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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.
EU law already makes it illegal to pass "personal data" to any location which lacks the protections available in Europe. The so-called Safe Harbor provisions apply for te US situation, but everyone who understands the EU law knows that the Safe Harbor arrangements are just smoke and mirrors - they afford precisely no protection at all - they exist to enable EU companies to export data to the US while claiming they have complied wth the law.
"Cock Up Your Beaver" does not mean what you think. This sig is intended to clog filters and annoy do-gooders
With apologies to various political hacks in the judiciary, corporations are not people ...
Actually the U.S. Supreme Court did *not* say that corporations are people. What the court actually said is that *groups of people* have the same rights as individual people, and that the nature of that group -- corporation, labor union, activist group, etc -- does not matter.
I apologize of actually reading the court decision rather than relying on the characterization of it by the talking heads on TV.
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?
There are myriad of such questions. But the answer is always the same, "whatever is in the best interests of the richer guy".
You are wrong. The richer guy is Microsoft in this case and the richer guy is being told to hand over his overseas data.
Nope. Microsoft may have a lot of money, but the guy they're up against here is the US Federal government, an entity with nearly $3 TRILLION per year in revenues (and $4 TRILLION per year in expenditure), clearly by far the "richer guy".
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
This pretty obviously needs to be a subpeona, a search warrant is from a law enforcement standpoint and that has zero use for data in a physical location outside the US. It's an attempt to end run around the system and it's far reaching and needs to be quashed immediately.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
The judge has now made sure that no American company will ever admit to having stored any data anywhere, or risk losing business.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
Denmark recently sold its digital infrastructure (digital identities, national bank payments, etc) to a US company. The Danish government said there was nothing to worry about, because the servers would still be in Denmark. Thank you, USA, for proving the Danish government wrong.
Amusingly enough, "corporation" comes from latin word meaning a "group of people"... so where's the difference?
I mean come on!
This is reported on by Reuters, and they do not supply a link to the ruling itself. Which means they probably state the ruling all wrong and also leave out important details. In fact one detail I see at once is missing. Whose emails are these?
They could be Boris Putins,.or Kim Dotcoms, in which case I would have severe problems with the judges orders.
Or they could be Dread Pirate Roberts, or even Microsofts operating emails stored in Dublin just to avoid having to turn them over in which case I would have no problems with the judges orders.
In any case please get us all the facts before putting up such a story.
Is that really too much to ask?
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
I was wondering if it also applies to agents, franchises, and licensees of a person?
A Judge asks for information to make a decision, and because of that, the Judge is corrupt?
This pretty obviously needs to be a subpeona, a search warrant is from a law enforcement standpoint and that has zero use for data in a physical location outside the US. It's an attempt to end run around the system and it's far reaching and needs to be quashed immediately.
I see lots of money being made in the WAN acceleration industry.
Why would I want to build an enforcement system when I don't know who's rules it will end up enforcing? Chinas? North Koreas? NSAs?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Then when that group of peoples actions kill a person, it should be treated as Murder? or Industrial Accident?
No, because the judge and (LEOs) are using the wrong tool.
A subpoena is an order to produce a document (or to require a person to appear). This is the tool they would normally use to get an email or any other document. The LEOs do not get any access except to have the document produced.
A search warrant is an order allowing LEOs to immediately search everything they want, and then seize whatever they think satisfies the warrant.
Normally a subpoena is used to get an email. The company searches their databases and provides it. Using a search warrant is absurd, it means the police break into the server room, and say "This computer seems like it might have email, we're seizing it."
Of course, that may be EXACTLY what the LEOs are trying to do in this case, but barring some exceptional power-grab by LEOs, it is the wrong legal tool.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
The alternative would be to go in and physically remove the server; then have all the data on the drives vulnerable to the whims of law enforcement.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
In what appears to be the first court decision addressing the issue, U.S. Magistrate Judge James Francis in New York said Internet service providers such as Microsoft Corp or Google Inc cannot refuse to turn over customer information and emails stored in other countries when issued a valid search warrant from U.S. law enforcement agencies.
Emphasis mine. I read this to mean that if you use any US owned mail provider the FBI can subpoena anything they want through a US judge. That just seems horribly wrong and would put the world wide operation of any company at the mercy of the jurisdiction where they're headquartered. By this logic the NSA can get a subpoena to demand all US companies turn over any information they got anywhere in the world. You could never trust a foreign company to follow local laws. If this stands it's a horrible precedent.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The Judge ordered the information, there's not much a LEO can do except comply; or appeal to a higher court. This could be considered a stalling tactic. As for the reference to the judge as a tool; now I see comedy.
If the data in question is protected by a foreign law from being disclosed to anyone, such as personal information protected by the EU, then if the company were to disclose this information to a third party such as the court, it would be in violation of that country's laws. Damn if you do and damned if you don't. Who do you want to piss off more? International law is highly complex and probably shouldn't be handled by judges at a local level. I would expect the state department would get involved, as it might cause all sorts of grief to the country.
These days the public has a concept of what an American company is but i'm not so certain that the law shares the same concept. Corporations are multi-national these days and frankly the nature of multi national corporations sucks bilge water. Here is why: Going into WWII the Coca Cola company felt that they would take heat for producing product in Germany. So they created the Fanta line of sodas. That way they could still make money on all those lovely Nazi soldiers while keeping the public unaware that they were actively doing business within the Reich. Meanwhile IBM was actually aiding in the data handling of people inside the concentration camps. Wouldn't a normal person assume that these companies would have been seized and shut down with their assets held for the war effort? Who made money by allowing these conditions to exist?
Every company based in America just packed up its stuff and left the country. Democracy in action!
~Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, but Wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.
I would suggest a law that forbids information to be retrieved from servers for the purposes of satisfying a warrant or supposed legal order that has not been validated by a court within jurisdiction.
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?
Now you're getting it. Deal with an American company, you deal with American law, in addition to local law. If those conflict then it simply comes down to which law the company is least willing to break.
Consider, the opposite precedent is even worse - if Microsoft is allowed to hide it's records simply because it stored them overseas then *every* company (and private individuals as well) can reasonably be expected to do the same. Using the company as your private piggy bank? Keep the financial records offshore so the IRS can't demand them. Dealing in the illegal arms trade? Make sure all your records and merchandise remain in countries that don't mind and you can operate openly in the US. All the benefits of operating as an American company, plus the ability to easily sidestep any attempt to crack down on you.
What we really need is a body of international law (treaties could work) governing the regulation of international companies. As it is now the companies are in many ways above the law, they need only dance between jurisdictions enough to muddy the waters and they can get away with almost anything.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Microsoft does not own the information; they as a third party own the server on which someone else's information resides, a server which is held and taxed as a foreign asset outside US regional jurisdiction. It's one thing to compel Microsoft as a transnational company to produce one of their corporate records regardless of where they have stored it: agreeing to subject themselves to the US judicial system is part of incorporating in the US. It's entirely another when they are being told their foreign offices are actually territory of the US government and anyone or anything which resides there must submit to the pleasures of the US judicial system.
If I had written a letter in Britain and put it in a British safety deposit box I don't think the court would have the guts to demand it, even if the bank were jointly owned in the US. But scan that letter and store on the server and suddenly it's free game. Why? Because now it's easy to sneak the data out of the country without bothering the local authorities? Good news for people torrenting.
I suppose if you live in other countries you should doublecheck that any web companies you do business with do not also have a US presence because if they do any of your data could be subject to requisition by the US government even if it's data which has never left your country.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
Actually I'm pretty sure that if you were subpoenaed to deliver your tax documents or other records that were stored in your house in Ireland, you'd still be legally required to provide them. And it sounds like electronic search warrants are typically handled more like a subpoena than a traditional search warrant - i.e. the company provides the data rather than officers going in to seize it. So no, the US law enforcement has no jurisdiction to search the Ireland offices (without local cooperation), but Microsoft certainly does, and they would be the ones doing the actual work. The question is only if they are allowed to hide their data outside of US jurisdiction while still claiming possession.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
The court is corrupt; their reasoning is often quite poor for educated, experienced and honorable judges. That is no more likely to be true than a Priest is safe around children; the title doesn't give them unquestionable character.
A group of people is entirely different than a legal corporation! I can't believe they'd do something so idiotic... while I expected the result, I found their justification embarrassingly flawed; I expected better BS.
The history of the word "corporation" is NOT the same as a legal corporation. It's just a word given to it, it could have been any word. It is not simply "a group of people" and never has been
Besides, the legal entities between unions, activists, religions, and corporations are fundamentally different in their purposes and needs - they should not be equated and to lump them together just because they (almost always) involve multiple people is gross over simplification. In addition, activists and religions have much less need for a legal entity for their survival - they can actually thrive simply as "a group of people."
I find the reasoning as flawed as religious / traditional marriage vs legal marriage being the same thing; when they are only similar by name and history (in that the law sprung from the commonality between popular religions.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
That's a much better argument than the the one I was commenting on (made by MS lawyer), but hardly a trump card.
The FBI (or any other agency/court) can certainly argue for a subpoena for data given to a third party. Whether they ever actually get it or not is another story.
Party A hands Party B an envelope, and says "store this for me". Party B happens to store it in a foreign country. Said foreign country happens to have a law that requires people holding information for others to protect it.
Later, Party A is taken to court and the envelope is argued to be evidence in the case. Party B can certainly be served in a US court and required to produce the envelope. It doesn't matter whether the foreign laws happen to preclude you from having it, Party B can still be held in contempt.
It doesn't even have to be a foreign country - it's fairly common to hold US reporters in possession of information germane to a case in contempts, and that is argued to be a violation of the US Constitution. The US constitution certainly (or at least should) trumps the laws of a foreign country in a US court.
US courts are absolutely NOT required to consider foreign law in order to act. If it is an action in a US court, they are compelled to follow US law, period. If MS ends up caught between a rock and a hard place, tough shit.
While the information itself may not be in the jurisdiction of the court, MS certainly is. The only place that foreign law might come into is if it is a treaty provision (in which case it is indeed US law) or when/if someone tries to forcibly acquire it, i.e. attempt to execute a search warrant to take it without MS assistance. That probably won't fly, and is a flagrant violation without action in the foreign court. If a foreign court refuses to allow the information to be released, then they may never get the envelope, but it can certainly be requested and Party B can certainly be punished for not responding.
There is nothing new here.
Where the servers reside is simply not relevant because the corporation resides within the jurisdiction of the court, corporations are people and because a company is one legal entity the court has jurisdiction over all of the company, regardless of where it's assets are physically located. It's called personal jurisdiction and the ruling is correct, it will be upheld if appealed. If you don't want to be subject to american jurisdiction then don't incorporate in america, it's really that simple.
As far as I know, multinational companies are really a collection of separate companies, all incorporated in the countries they are physically located in and pay taxes in that country. It's the reason why much of Apple's income is held by foreign versions of Apple. Yes, they all report to the mothership, but that mothership doesn't have sovereignty or jurisdiction over it. I'd love for some Irish barrister to send a letter telling this Judge to go feck-off along with a subpoena the Judge's phone records because he's "being investigated" for child trafficking. Then hijinks ensue.
The FBI (or any other agency/court) can certainly argue for a subpoena for data given to a third party. Whether they ever actually get it or not is another story.
That is correct. They can use a subpoena for it.
A subpoena tells the organization to collect the documents and turn it over in a reasonable time frame.
But they are not using a subpoena. They are using a search warrant.
A search warrant allows LEOs to search the buildings and seize anything that looks like it might have the stuff in the warrant. As in, "These servers look like they might have email, remove them all from the building." A search warrant and a subpoena are radically different legal instruments. A search warrant is usually used when there is an immediate need to collect the data in fear that the person might destroy it and the LEOs have an immediate need to remove it.
It is an unspecified government agency, and because it is a search warrant they WILL just seize entire servers and search them at their leisure. That is the difference between a subpoena and a search warrant, and LEOs absolutely love search warrants.
The problem is they are using the entirely wrong legal tool.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
The Judge ordered the information, there's not much a LEO can do except comply; or appeal to a higher court. This could be considered a stalling tactic. As for the reference to the judge as a tool; now I see comedy.
Yes, a judge can order the information for himself, but that isn't what happened. Almost always it is the LEOs demanding the warrants, and that is what happened here.
The LEOs go to the judge and say "we need a search warrant", or "we need a subpoena". The judge reviews the request and signs off.
In this case the officers requested a search warrant, which allows the seizure of equipment. They want to capture entire servers, make images of them, and then store the servers for the court.
The correct legal instrument is a subpoena, which allows the company to search for the documents and provide them to a court. The reason to use a search warrant to seize the machines is if there is an immediate need to remove them. If there was a fear that the machines would all be wiped and the contents destroyed. This is unlikely to be the case with Microsoft. The other reason to use a search warrant by the unspecified government agency is that they want to mirror the machines and search it for other content beyond the specific emails. Unfortunately that looks like it is their goal, not obtaining the specific emails and documents but to make mirrors of the servers for their own purposes.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
How is this different than French judges insisting that the internet use French, German judges trying to ban Nazi logos in global games hosted elsewhere, etc?
I mean seriously, there's like a story a week about some dumbass judge thinking he can tell the internet what it can and cannot do?
It's about the "stupid", not the "America". Although those are often enough synonymous, I admit.
-Styopa
For EU companies it is now impossible to store user related or other sensitive data on servers or cloud nodes provided by US American companies. Data privacy regulations in the EU would prohibit the use of such infrastructure. Even though there is a "safe harbor" treaty.
Yes, but generally the FBI cannot go into an office in Ireland and physically take something, the local security forces would be correct in stopping them.
And I'd be shocked if MS's main server hubs are not guarded by real security forces.
Except that the Microsoft servers in Ireland are owned by a different legal entity, Microsoft Ireland (or something), and not the US Microsoft.
It works for taxes... so it must work for other government thingies, right?
As an American it seems pretty obvious that if I deal with an Irish company, that company could be forced to release information about me or held for me in response to orders from Irish courts.
I'm surprised people are surprised by this, and it raises the question; with a user id that low, have you made it your whole life without turning to page 2 for the rest of stories about legal disputes? Do you really not read the whole newspaper? How could you not know, and yet somehow be a "nerd" in this age of globalization?
It's the Evil Empire of today, baby, and it's going bankrupt just like the last Evil Empire did, and then we'll be rid of the fuckers. It's going to take time though.
A search warrant and a subpoena are radically different legal instruments.
This seems to be in the form, "they are different, therefore they are very different. They're so radically different they're not even exactly the same!"
If you have to stretch that far, it shows you're not confident in the level of difference. If it turns out that they're actually very similar, especially if the hypothetical subpoena is from a LEO, then the judge might reasonably weigh that difference against MS refusing to produce relevant information, and find that in the balance justice is better served by ordering the production of the evidence without a bunch of extra procedure. Especially if MS's defense is that they have a right to the information, but with a different legal device. Their defense, at face value, is claiming they won't be harmed in any way because they can just subpoena them for it anyways. The obvious implication between the lines is that they will try not to comply with the subpoena.
Tell me again, which US Prosecutor is it with a $3T budget?
Normally don't respond to ACs but America also thinks it can prosecute anyone, anywhere for committing a crime against American citizens.
Spain thinks the same for crimes committed against Spanish citizens.
A subsidiary company has a separate board of directors. It is the task of those directors to run the company in the interests of the shareholder, in accordance with local law. In this case, given that the company is subject to European Data Protection legislation, it would be for the local directors to refuse to obey the court order - and invite MS USA to sack them at an AGM. By the time the AGM comes along, there's a good chance that either the Irish courts will have got involved, or the US government will realise that the enforcement of this will ensure that NOONE uses American companies for any purpose, and that the non-American alternative to Google and MS will gain market share....
Not at all.
One says "You are not to be trusted, we are taking everything into our possession and searching it ourselves." The other says "You are able to provide the materials, do so."
Read the article and the released ruling. The unspecified agency requested and received legal demand to force their way into an Irish facility and seize their computers.
In some ways I would like to see the (currently unspecified) government agency attempt to execute the warrant. They will have US forces use force to invade a facility in Ireland, staffed by the Irish, presumably with Irish security guards and Irish police being called. The actions would immediately turn this from a US-specific argument into an international conflict. Could be fun to watch it play out.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
The Americans like to complain about Russia's "invasion" of Crimea, and claim that it's a power grab.
But with this decision, the judge is trying for a GLOBAL power grab the likes of which the world has never seen.
Quite frankly, the US judge and administration can go fuck themselves. YOU ARE NOT THE WORLD.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Crimes against humanity can always be prosecuted. By the ICC if necessary.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
The number of countries that had to change their own laws to permit their banks to previously-illegally hand over data to the IRS under that law is staggering. All because the US government included an enforcement clause allowing them to seize ("tax") essentially 30% of any foreign bank's US holdings if they withheld any data from the IRS.
And to think, this was all in aid of making sure US citizens with no remaining link to the US barring a passport continue to pay US taxes to a government that doesn't represent them any more. Oh, and don't bother trying to renounce your citizenship. They can just ignore you.
I'm surprised any business risks having US presence with such a hostile government.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
This is so out of the ordinary that I am forced to come out with a conspiracy theory. I mean... we are talking of a certain country's court granting a "search warrant" for data stored in another country... this is pretty hard to swallow under any normal circumstances. My conspiracy theory follows... 1) The Irish police knows their courts cannot (for some reason) grant a subpoena to obtain the data they want. If a subpoena is impossible, then a search warrant would definitely be out of the question. 2) To circumvent the legal barrier to their investigation, they ask their American counterpart to request an American court for a search warrant (which they figured an American court will grant). Granting a search warrant is one thing, performing the actual search in another country is another issue. 3) Since directly executing the search warrant is legally impossible (even if legally granted), the American LEO can asks the Irish LEO to perform the search on its behalf based on existing treaties for law enforcement agencies to help each other in crime investigation. 4) The end result is the Irish police can get what they want even if their own courts cannot legally grant them the power to get the data they want. I can be dead wrong, of course, but for some reason, this case looks and smells fishy. If my theory is correct, is this being done with the full knowledge and blessing of the Irish courts? (This is possible because an Irish court may want to assist the Irish police, but the court's hands are legally tied by precidence). I wonder how the Irish people will feel?
Amusingly enough, "corporation" comes from latin word meaning a "group of people"... so where's the difference?
Latin is not to be taken literally in modern english. For example to decimate does not mean we will kill 10%. :-)
It is data about a person, in many cases it is literally the documents, calls, emails, tweets, IMs of people to people. That clearly belongs to the persons themselves, not to some company that wrote an app used to interact with that data or the companies providing the pipes for it to travel across. So that it is an American company really has nothing to do with it if we see it from the logical point of view of who the data belongs to. If it belongs to a European then it is government by European law. People are also confused about cloud storage and data center storage of information. Storage is not ownership.
Businesses are in fact taking the second option: If they don't do business with US persons, they can mostly ignore FATCA. Try opening a stock market account as a US person in a foreign country - most financial institutions will probably refuse you.
Yet another example of attempted USA extraterritorialism.
I wonder how the US would take it if a judge in another country made use of that claim for their benefit? It might be claimed that because company X chose to operate in their jurisdiction they accepted their jurisdictional boundaries. Various governments have already claimed jurisdiction in other countries for years, which is why they may claim tax on money earned by people working abroad, even though they may have done none of that work in that country...
but the way email search warrants are enforced is more like a supeona. They COMPEL the EMPLOYEES IDENTIFIED to turn over emails. While this is handled by system administrators, the LAW is focused on the employee and which chair they sit in. So even if you are using email hosted in Iraq, you ACCESSED those emails from your desk in New York and the government expects you to ACCESS those emails again and provide them to the court. The fact that they are in another country is irrelevant.
Consider if you owed somebody money on a car. Sure you could drive the car to Canada where that company cannot go. But the Legal contract you signed was in the USA so they can just lock you in jail for contempt until you tell somebody to Canada and get the car to fulfill the contract. This is a similar ruling. There's nothing "new" legally here other than you can't hide behind a foreign email server.
no they don't. It means they have to have SEPARATE NETWORKS if they want separate protection. In this case an admin from Redmond clearly has ACCESS to those servers in Dublin. So those emails are "controlled" by the US company. The article is unclear on where the CUSTOMER in this case is coming from. I'm thinking that the CUSTOMER is PAYING Microsoft USA to host their email and those just happened to be in Ireland. Microsoft USA is taking the money, so they need to provide the data to the court.
If you want data in other countries to be protected you cannot ACCESS IT from the USA.
I have many big problems
You could have stopped here; I think on the whole it's more coherent, and certainly more factual.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
I don't disagree, i was just making the point that reprehensable and unethical does not neccesarily translate to illegal. If you think that kind of behavior needs to stop, the tax code needs changed. We don't need to punish the companies, just remove the incentives for doing it. That can be with removing tax breaks or lowering taxes or a combination of those as well as other things.
And yes, lowering taxes is a viable option when it means collecting taxes hidden in offshore investments or which is alreaady being paid to foreign governments.
So if they can legally access the data stored on the Irish servers, they must produce that information.
This is really simple:
One cannot refuse a court ordered demand for documents just because those documents are stored in safe deposit box in Switzerland. If the person in possesion of the deposit box key is before a US court, they must produce the documents stored in that Swiss bank, as ordered, come hell or high water.
(IANAL) but this is just common sense. Is M$ Legal really this stupid?
Microsoft is a US company. Microsoft can't relieve itself of US jurisdiction by telling the judge "oh, sorry, we, here in the US, moved that data offshore."