Slashdot Mirror
Obama Administration Says the World's Servers Are Ours
An anonymous reader points out this story about the U.S. Justice Department's claim that companies served with valid warrants for data must produce that data even if the data is not stored in the U.S. Global governments, the tech sector, and scholars are closely following a legal flap in which the US Justice Department claims that Microsoft must hand over e-mail stored in Dublin, Ireland. In essence, President Barack Obama's administration claims that any company with operations in the United States must comply with valid warrants for data, even if the content is stored overseas. It's a position Microsoft and companies like Apple say is wrong, arguing that the enforcement of US law stops at the border. A magistrate judge has already sided with the government's position, ruling in April that "the basic principle that an entity lawfully obligated to produce information must do so regardless of the location of that information." Microsoft appealed to a federal judge, and the case is set to be heard on July 31.
Just claim the data was lost due to a "hard drive crash." I mean, it worked for the IRS, right?
If this holds, US companies will have trouble competing abroad. Information belonging to a US firm's foreign customer company could be seized without possible recourse, unless the customer hires a US counsel.
Will this influence the tax gimmick where the HQ is overseas so the profits don't have to have taxes paid on them?
Why is it the money can evade the government but the data can't?
Microsoft is based in the United States, so there may be some valid argument here that as an American company, Microsoft data regardless of where "in the cloud" it is stored is subject to American legal rulings.
The *real* question is what about companies that do business here but are based in other countries?
There must be precedents or applicable laws for physical analogies. If a company operating in the US happens to store physical records somewhere outside the US, and those records are pertinent to the case, would those not be covered by a US subpoena? If the company has access to them and the ability to procure them, what does the physical location of the records or their headquarters matter?
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
You cannot serve warrents to search property in other countries.
Simple as that.
Servers and data fundamentally don't obey those rules.
The internet doesn't live in the real world. Its rediculous to try and impose real world rules on it.
But fun to watch them try.
Does this mean that the US Gov is fine with those same companies turning over all their data to China if a Chinese official decides he wants it? Wonder what other companies this fun can extend to.
Effectively, though perhaps not in the strict legal definition, the purpose of a corporation is to make a profit.
As we can plainly see from Microsoft's conduct over the years, they will break whatever laws they can get away with to make that profit. This lawsuit isn't about Hotmail users' e-mail messages, this is about illegal or otherwise objectionable behavior that they are trying to shield in other countries.
If you're worried about your e-mail and data stored on Microsoft's servers, then let's not mix that up with a corporation's ability to hide illegal, unethical, or immoral behavior within a more compliant state's physical borders.
And the reaction will be that all high tech companies will just leave the USA.
The ruling pertains to anybody who does business in the US. So, they can leave the USA, as long as they don't sell anything in the USA.
If this does hold up, and Microsoft releases the data stored in another country (which is ludicrous), then how long will it take for every other country in the world to buy equipment from a non-American or solely domestic company? This may backfire...like most of our administration's policies...
The internet doesn't live in the real world.
You mean there are no servers and cables? Everything is just... there?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
It's all sorts of things. But only people outside the jurisdiction of the courts are obstructing American justice. Where it's called 'being in compliance with local data privacy laws'.
Did the subpoena prevent you from informing your foreign employer of what was happening? More practically did it prevent corporate legal from informing their foreign bosses. What if the data is protected by their data privacy laws? What if you don't 'know that for sure'. What if your local lawyer 'was certainly unaware of that' (once made aware, he will be dirty and have to move on.)
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
If the company has access to them and the ability to procure them, what does the physical location of the records or their headquarters matter?
Because they are storing someone else's data. That someone else (and their locally stored property) should receive the full protection of their local laws when dealing with a local subsidiary of an international company. This is not an embassy, it is not considered a territorial extension of the United States. The server is owned and taxed as Irish property. It should require an Irish court order to forcibly extract data off of it, same as it would taking letters out of an Irish safety deposit box (even if the bank had an American presence).
Would we be comfortable with courts in China being able to subpoena any US held data from companies with a Chinese presence? "Sorry Yahoo but as part of your incorporation in China we need you to produce any emails from the personal accounts of Boeing employees held on your US owned servers."
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
Microsoft is trying the "you can't hold me responsible for yesterday's shooting because the gun is in my other pants" defense.
The law has _always_ held that if you are before the court, everything relevant to the case is before the court.
If this were not the case then the Tobacco and Asbestos companies could have just said "all those meeting minutes and research records are stored in our warehouse in mexico so ha ha, you all lose." Any company or person, on any issue, could just mail the evidence out of state or out of country and get off scott free.
That just never happened.
Just because the evidence is "on a computer" instead of "printed on paper" doesn't make the "other pants" defense viable.
The court is not reaching across a border. Microsoft is _here_. Microsoft does business _here_. The complaint is _here_, and the court is _here_. The proper legal response to "the other pants" gambit is to tell the guy in his shorts to send someone to go get whatever it is from those pants and bring it back.
Criminals don't just "move" their assets to other countries, they "hide" them because if it can be found it's on the table.
Every court. Every country. Every topic. From the beginning of time.
This is no different.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Google is an incorporated entity in the United States of America.
The IRS most certainly *can* bring suit against them in a US court, and demand that they turn over records for their tax-haven bank accounts.
The jurisdiction applies between the plaintiff and the defendant, borders matter not.
Where jurisdiction comes in, is we can't fly a team of cops over to the Bahamas and raid the offices of the bank to produce the data, the worst we can do is levy sanctions against the defendant.
This is *completely normal*, all over the goddamn world.