Slashdot Mirror
Judge: US Search Warrants Apply To Overseas Computers
jfruh (300774) writes Investigators in a criminal case want to see some emails stored on Microsoft's servers in Ireland. Microsoft has resisted, on the grounds that U.S. law enforcement doesn't have jurisdiction there, but a New York judge ruled against them, responding to prosecutors' worries that web service providers could just move information around the world to avoid investigation. The case will be appealed.
It's all well and good so long as the USA don't mind, say, a Russian court issuing a warrant for data held on servers in the USA.
Microsoft always sold their cloudservices in the EU with the argument that the data is physically located outside the US so the Patriot Act doesn't apply. Now that this has been proven false, EU-based cloudfirms will use this argument to choose a non-US based firm even more in their commercials than they do already. Good for the non-US based firms.
Or China, Iran, Pakistan, Myanmar or North Korea - you know, countries in which dissent of (heavens!) heresy/apostasy are capital offenses.
You're looking for quotes? See my journal.
yeah, i would. it would be a nice reminder about why not to do business with totalitarian states.
and, yes, i also think that this case is a nice reminder for other countries not to do business with the US for exactly the same reason.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
A Russian court issuing a warrant for data held by a Russian company on servers located in the US but controlled by the Russian company would be consistent with this ruling.
That appears to be the argument, yes. The court isn't claiming authority to send police officers to Ireland and physically seize the data, or authority to force Irish police to conduct a search. Instead they're demanding that Microsoft (a U.S.-based company) produce the requested evidence, if indeed its U.S. staff have access to it (which they probably do).
I think it's problematic from a practical perspective, but I could see how someone could reach that conclusion. Usually jurisdiction of U.S. persons does extend to their overseas assets, e.g. in an investigation of fraud a U.S. court can demand that you turn over your Swiss bank account records, even though these accounts are (of course) in Switzerland.
The main problem IMO is that it puts companies operating in multiple jurisdictions in a bit of a bind. For example, Microsoft Ireland may have responsibility under EU law to not release data except in certain cases, while Microsoft U.S. is required to release it, meaning the company will violate the law somewhere no matter what they do. I'm not sure whether it's possible to avoid that by really firewalling the access, e.g. make Microsoft Ireland an operationally separate subsidiary whose servers cannot be directly accessed by Microsoft USA staff. But that would certainly complicate operations in other ways.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
That is a completely irrelevant example. Were not talking about subpoenaing a foreign company or entity. We are talking about forcing companies operating in the US to turn over information that is in their possession (under there control).
The basic concept here is that data does not exist in the physical world. Where the electrons are is irrelevant if the entity that controls it exists in the US.
The US should be able to get search warrants...
wait for it...
In Canadian courts. MIND BLOWN.
To both cases: this is why organizations like Interpol exist. So a police force from one country can work in tandem with another to solve a case that crosses national borders. If the US want data stored in an Ireland server, they should work with the police there to get it, instead of saying that their jurisdiction extends worldwide unilaterally.
If an American citizen owns the house in Amsterdam, how is that any different than the American company owning the server in Europe?
As an American citizen, in that revision of the analogy, be could be compelled to allow US investigators to search his Amsterdam residence.
Would you support that? Cuz "hellz no" for my part