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.

9 of 749 comments (clear)

  1. Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just claim the data was lost due to a "hard drive crash." I mean, it worked for the IRS, right?

  2. Goodbye foreign markets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Will this affect overseas profits tax evasion? by swb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  4. Re:Maybe, maybe not. by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Curious by aevan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re: Maybe, maybe not. by craigminah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

  7. Re: Maybe, maybe not. by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!”
  8. You have this backwards. by IBitOBear · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:You have this backwards. by forand · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree with everything you have stated. However, the situation is not one of Microsoft being required to produce their own documents, they are being required to produce other's documents. So the analogy would be that Microsoft has a rental storage facility in Ireland and the US wants them to riffle through a unit and send some documents they find. That is far less reasonable and clear cut as your summary.