Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Defies Court Order, Will Not Give Emails To US Government

schwit1 sends this excerpt from a report about Microsoft: Despite a federal court order directing Microsoft to turn overseas-held email data to federal authorities, the software giant said Friday it will continue to withhold that information as it waits for the case to wind through the appeals process. The judge has now ordered both Microsoft and federal prosecutors to advise her how to proceed by next Friday, September 5.

Let there be no doubt that Microsoft's actions in this controversial case are customer-centric. The firm isn't just standing up to the US government on moral principles. It's now defying a federal court order. "Microsoft will not be turning over the email and plans to appeal," a Microsoft statement notes. "Everyone agrees this case can and will proceed to the appeals court. This is simply about finding the appropriate procedure for that to happen."

266 of 419 comments (clear)

  1. That's nice, but... by SternisheFan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Isn't there a NSA backdoor to MS?

    1. Re:That's nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What, is this all just for show? Why would the Feds want to make news over them demanding the data from Microsoft?
      Is this just to make us believe they can't get the data without Microsoft's cooperation?

    2. Re: That's nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There's a front door, which MS are trying to close.

    3. Re:That's nice, but... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "Backdoor"? More of a freeway with HOV lanes.

    4. Re:That's nice, but... by PPH · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What, is this all just for show?

      Its either plausible deniability or the need to demonstrate an unbroken and untainted chain of evidence. The NSA may in fact already have access to this data. But acting like they don't, or even loosing a minor case might set other criminals at ease about the security of their data within the Microsoft infrastructure. And they won't switch to a more secure platform. The chain of evidence might be needed to keep a subsequent trial from being thrown out due to tainted evidence. The NSA may already have the evidence (through questionable means), but getting a clean copy removes issues of it being fruit of the poisonous tree.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:That's nice, but... by russotto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The government could almost certainly get this data by going through the proper procedures in Ireland. That they can also get it surreptitiously doesn't matter; they're trying to establish precedent that they can legally get any data held by any US company anywhere in the world without involving any other government; that precedent is the important part, not the particular data involved.

    6. Re:That's nice, but... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      The government could almost certainly get this data by going through the proper procedures in Ireland.

      Maybe not. If the Irish government caves in to American pressure, then data centers will start leaving Ireland, taking money and jobs with them, just like they are already leaving America. If Microsoft loses this case, and the extra-territorial reach of American Law is upheld, then, if you want privacy, you will need to not only store your data outside America, but not even with a company that does business there. The American government cares more about reading our mail than about keeping our jobs.

    7. Re:That's nice, but... by s.petry · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Dunno, the Russian FSB has actually wrung Windows code reviews out of Microsoft so if they didn't find any back door in that code I'd say there are none to find..

      A viable alternative is that they found and use the same back doors available to the NSA. It's speculation either way, because there are no independent reviews of Microsoft's source code and shipped binaries. The released binaries may not even match the source they provided for review.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    8. Re:That's nice, but... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      no need for HOV lanes....only the NSA can use the freeway.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    9. Re:That's nice, but... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Or they could suspend Microsoft corporate charter until they come up with the goods. And besides, if the government can go into any country and grab whoever is "on the list", then they can do the same for a hard drive, too.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    10. Re:That's nice, but... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      There's evidence, but I don't think there's any proof. And some of the evidence is pretty shaky. But do you have any reasonable reason to doubt that they have a backdoor?

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    11. Re: That's nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Learn to quote

    12. Re:That's nice, but... by Z80a · · Score: 1

      Until someone else cracks it open of course.

    13. Re:That's nice, but... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The government could almost certainly get this data by going through the proper procedures in Ireland.

      Maybe not. Data protection laws in the EU are much stronger.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:That's nice, but... by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Isn't there a NSA backdoor to MS?

      They do. The feds already have the data but cannot use it in court. Getting the companies in question to play ball is essential for legal procedures, not for the actual data acquisition.

    15. Re:That's nice, but... by mad_minstrel · · Score: 2

      N00b question: Can't you just compare the hashes of the shipped binaries and the ones you compiled from the sources you're reviewing to check that they match?

      --
      May the source be with you.
    16. Re:That's nice, but... by Kijori · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Will they? There are a lot of advantages to running this in Ireland: low tax rates without the negative publicity of operating in a tax haven, other favourable financial and tax rules that allow foreign companies to book their profits there to further reduce their tax bills, a skilled workforce, good infrastructure, and all the up-front costs that come from building and equipping the data centre in the first place have been paid already. Call me cynical, but I'm not convinced that many data centres will move if Irish law allows the authorities to get this data.

    17. Re:That's nice, but... by neumayr · · Score: 2

      That relies on using exactly the same tools for the entire build chain. Which might be hard or impossible to get, and of course also need to be trusted.

      --
      Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
    18. Re:That's nice, but... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      0000-0000-0000-0000-0000 - best key ever

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    19. Re:That's nice, but... by PPH · · Score: 5, Informative

      Could you give an example of a more secure platform?

      Sure. Any e-mail system which has users encrypt/decrypt their content locally and then use the storage and transport system solely for storage and transport Slap some directory and key management for (public keys only) on top of that and there you go.

      You (the gov't) subpoena the content from the service provider? Sure, here's an encrypted copy. We don't have anything else. Need that decryption key? Go see the sender or recipient. We don't have that.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    20. Re:That's nice, but... by bwcbwc · · Score: 1

      Actually, this is probably the main reason MS is defying the US court order. If they give over the info without getting permission from the Irish government, they are likely to be in violation of Irish or EU laws on data privacy. They have some ground to defer the compliance with the US court during the appeals process, so they are deferring the risk of violating the EU laws until absolutely necessary. Or they may elect to take contempt charges in the US over greater charges in the EU, and reap the PR benefit. It definitely isn't a purely altruistic "defend the consumer" action, even if they choose to play it that way.

      On the other hand, it does defend their customers against overreaching by the US, so more power to them.

      --
      We are the 198 proof..
    21. Re:That's nice, but... by Cyberdyne · · Score: 1

      But acting like they don't, or even loosing a minor case might set other criminals at ease about the security of their data within the Microsoft infrastructure.

      Which, of course, could be exactly what the NSA want - police and FBI priorities may differ, but I suspect the NSA would rather have access to more information, thanks to a false sense of security, even at the expense of not being able to use it in court easily. If they "win", they get to use evidence this time - and they just warned the next hundred criminals to avoid MS servers, because of this case. "Lose", and they can keep reading it all in secret, using the information behind the scenes instead.

    22. Re:That's nice, but... by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      And the version of OS sold in Russia might differ, so the back doors might be different.

    23. Re:That's nice, but... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      There are all sorts of reasons why they might not want to admit in the open that they had such a backdoor, and the left hand might not want the right hand to see what it's holding, too.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    24. Re:That's nice, but... by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      This is actually really interesting technical problem that the Tor and Debian people have spent some time working on. In practice, with most compilers today, if you compile a program twice you get different binaries. There are a variety of reasons for this, from embedded time stamps to non-deterministic shared library reference ordering to embedding the host name of the build machine.

      Here's the Debian project's wiki page on the problem that goes into much more detail:
      https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    25. Re:That's nice, but... by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      You (the gov't) subpoena the content from the service provider? Sure, here's an encrypted copy. We don't have anything else. Need that decryption key? Go see the sender or recipient. We don't have that.

      And in the case of properly utilized public/private key encryption, see both the sender and the recipient. You will need both private keys to decrypt the message. And no, the mail transport and storage host should not have either private key.

  2. customer-centric by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Microsoft's actions might seem "customer-centric," but really they're fighting for their lives.

    If MS can be forced to give up European data, stored on European servers, that's game over for them.
    Lawsuits and investigations will flourish in Europe, because their data protection laws are much stronger/stricter than ours.

    This could kill MS's European business.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:customer-centric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You mean "Kill every company on the internet's business that serves customers in Europe and America."

      Legal precedent would compel Google, and everyone else, to do the same stupid thing this judge has ordered, who is apparently unaware of international laws and seems to assume that US law is the only thing that exists or even should exist. If MS loses, everyone loses.

    2. Re:customer-centric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except it isn't European data, Its an American's data stored under a European account in European servers. Small difference.

    3. Re:customer-centric by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's all just a matter of legal principle. Can any internet company be publicly ordered to break laws in other countries, regardless of where it is based. So M$ is challenging the order to publicly establish a principle and protect it and all other internet companies in this regard. Technically speaking all other internet companies are now getting a free ride on M$'s dime, so it seems sometimes they do pay back to the industry. This is an important principle of law and something the US Federal government should be paying attention to and legislating to ensure the future of all US internet companies is not severely threatened.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    4. Re:customer-centric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      judge has ordered, who is apparently unaware of international laws and seems to assume that US law is the only thing that exists or even should exist

      A judge is demanding a United States company to play by the rules of the United States? And you have a problem with that? US law is and should be the only law the judge needs to consider. If US laws are incompatible with other nation's laws, then don't blame it on the judge, complain to your legislators.

    5. Re:customer-centric by Whatsisname · · Score: 1

      Can any internet company be publicly ordered to break laws in other countries, regardless of where it is based?

      Why shouldn't they? MS is a United States company. Why should MS, or any other corporation, be able to only abide by US law when it is convenient for them, and break it other times? If the laws of two jurisdictions are incompatible with each other, the corporation should have to make a hard choice and only operate in a single jurisdiction, and use other avenues to expand business to the other.

      This is not a case of the US trying to compel a European Company into doing something, it is compelling Microsoft, subject to US law, to turn over data it holds, albeit in a different company. If an American individual is subpoenaed for information relating to a crime, resisting turning it over because it's held in a safe deposit box abroad, is no more an acceptable excuse than "it's in my other pants".

      An individual in the United States must abide by US law even when abroad, in addition to abiding by the rules of the foreign country. It's still illegal for an American to smoke weed or solicit 14 year old prostitutes abroad, despite those being legal in some places of the world. If American persons have to play by United States rules 24x7, why should a corporation get to pick and choose?

    6. Re:customer-centric by PPH · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Its an American's data stored under a European account in European servers.

      Perhaps. But if it was an American, residing on European soil, there would be extradition procedures to follow. And those would involve having the local (EU) police generate their own warrant and make their own arrest based upon a formal request. The aprehended suspect would then be turned over to the requesting country.

      The same sort of thing should happen here. The USA should make a formal request to the Irish court to secure the evidence and turn it over to US authorities.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    7. Re:customer-centric by bloodhawk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can any internet company be publicly ordered to break laws in other countries, regardless of where it is based?

      Why shouldn't they? MS is a United States company. Why should MS, or any other corporation, be able to only abide by US law when it is convenient for them, and break it other times? If the laws of two jurisdictions are incompatible with each other, the corporation should have to make a hard choice and only operate in a single jurisdiction, and use other avenues to expand business to the other.

      This is not a case of the US trying to compel a European Company into doing something, it is compelling Microsoft, subject to US law, to turn over data it holds, albeit in a different company. If an American individual is subpoenaed for information relating to a crime, resisting turning it over because it's held in a safe deposit box abroad, is no more an acceptable excuse than "it's in my other pants".

      An individual in the United States must abide by US law even when abroad, in addition to abiding by the rules of the foreign country. It's still illegal for an American to smoke weed or solicit 14 year old prostitutes abroad, despite those being legal in some places of the world. If American persons have to play by United States rules 24x7, why should a corporation get to pick and choose?

      The US legal system starts and ENDS at the US borders. You seem to have completely misunderstood this situation, For example your safe deposit box example, if the US wanted the contents of a safe deposit box in Europe they cannot legally seize it, doing so would be a violation of europan law and the US officials doing it would be guilty of bank robbery and treated like any other common criminal. They must go through the countries legal system that holds the goods they want to seize, similarly the same applies to Data, the US can get access to it as long as it follows the appropriate laws and procedures. What the US government is trying to do is say other countries laws don't matter with data and therefore are asking a US companies to break another countries laws. You yourself said it that when in other countries you must abide by that countries rules, you cannot compel an individual or company to break the laws of another country. No one is suggesting that MS gets to ignore US laws, it is the US government saying that they get it ignore other countries laws and can compel US companies to do the same while they are in those countries.

    8. Re:customer-centric by silas_moeckel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually they data is in Europe the judge is trying to say since they have access to it from the US they need to turn it over. The data is under the control of a division incorporated in Europe.

      There is established procedure to get this it called ask the European courts.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    9. Re:customer-centric by jbolden · · Score: 2

      Microsoft has protected themselves. Their notices indicate that giving data to Azure is agreement to exporting the data. Thus Azure cannot store data for which export is illegal. Essentially they are in a terrible bind where USA law and European law conflict and now they are pushing against both with two different strategies.

      IMHO there is no chance they win their appeal in the USA federal courts. USA courts are not going to allow court ordered subpoenas to not be binding because the entity being subpoenaed thinks they have a good reason not to hand over what the court demands.

    10. Re:customer-centric by jbolden · · Score: 1

      He may be aware of other country's laws. He just doesn't care. When/until the USA signs a treaty on this companies with physical presence in the USA are going to give up data when ordered.

    11. Re:customer-centric by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You mean "Kill every company on the internet's business that serves customers in Europe and America."

      Legal precedent would compel Google, and everyone else, to do the same stupid thing this judge has ordered, who is apparently unaware of international laws and seems to assume that US law is the only thing that exists or even should exist. If MS loses, everyone loses.

      Actually, this same scenario happened with the banking industry and what the judge is proposing actually follows the international law and treaties that came out of it. In short, it doesn't matter where the assets are stored as to who has jurisdiction, but as to who has control over them. For instance if the IRA had deposits in Irish Allied Bank, but the cash was stored in the US, then the Irish Government could still freeze the account. So, if the data is stored somewhere else, but the company is headquartered in their land, why not the same thing?

    12. Re:customer-centric by jbolden · · Score: 1

      The answer is going to be yes. The USA government can order USA companies to break other country's laws. The alternative would be that the USA loses sovereignty on its own soil. I'd say that Microsoft is just making it crystal clear there is a real problem so perhaps a treaty can be negotiated.

    13. Re:customer-centric by jbolden · · Score: 1

      your safe deposit box example, if the US wanted the contents of a safe deposit box in Europe they cannot legally seize it,

      The analogy is right, your understanding of the law is not. If a USA company had records in a Europeans safe deposit box a USA federal court could demand they retrieve it and present it to the court. They would not have to get a warrant in Europe. That's an option of course but just an option.

    14. Re:customer-centric by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Its an American's data stored under a European account in European servers.

      Perhaps. But if it was an American, residing on European soil, there would be extradition procedures to follow. And those would involve having the local (EU) police generate their own warrant and make their own arrest based upon a formal request. The aprehended suspect would then be turned over to the requesting country.

      The same sort of thing should happen here. The USA should make a formal request to the Irish court to secure the evidence and turn it over to US authorities.

      That is true, but it's not about an American, but an American's data that is in question. You can only extridte people. If an American only needs to store their data in a foreign country to keep from complying with a warrant, then every criminal organization will do that. What the court is saying is that jurisdiction follows whoever has control over the data, which in this case is Microsoft, but could just as easily be drug cartel or terrorist group.

    15. Re:customer-centric by dave562 · · Score: 1

      Are the emails that the government wants the emails of Americans or Europeans? If they belong to the latter, and they are stored on European servers, it is calls into question on what legal basis the United States government has to view those emails.

      For what it is worth, I work for a United States based company that works in the legal technology field. We have operations in Europe. We had to stand up separate infrastructure in Europe in order to comply with European data privacy laws for our European clients. The assumption is that European data in European data centers is not subject to American legal jurisdiction.

    16. Re:customer-centric by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      It's all just a matter of legal principle. Can any internet company be publicly ordered to break laws in other countries, regardless of where it is based. So M$ is challenging the order to publicly establish a principle and protect it and all other internet companies in this regard. Technically speaking all other internet companies are now getting a free ride on M$'s dime, so it seems sometimes they do pay back to the industry. This is an important principle of law and something the US Federal government should be paying attention to and legislating to ensure the future of all US internet companies is not severely threatened.

      Should a bank be publicly orederd to break laws in other countries, regardles of where it is based? That has already been answered in the affirmative. Banks are held to the laws of the country they are chartered in. Why should internet companies be different? Microsoft has no problem trying to hold foreign companies liable for US patent infringement, even if their local patent laws are different. Companies can't have it both ways. If you are a US company, you can't cry foul when US laws work against you but turn around a use US laws only when they are in your favor.

    17. Re:customer-centric by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft's actions might seem "customer-centric," but really they're fighting for their lives.

      If MS can be forced to give up European data, stored on European servers, that's game over for them.
      Lawsuits and investigations will flourish in Europe, because their data protection laws are much stronger/stricter than ours.

      This could kill MS's European business.

      Which would kill Microsoft because that would provide enough of a critical mass to overcome the barriers to entry that Microsoft has erected in the Office market - wipe Microsoft out of Europe, and Europe would move to a truly open document format. And to communicate with Europe, the US markets would have to be able to read/write such formats - and actually do it WELL.

      And once that happens, the money Microsoft makes on Office is gone....

      Maybe we should be cheering this judge on?

      This case is about a search warrant for a suspect's email that happens to be hosted on a server that Microsoft owns in Ireland. Even if Microsoft has to comply with the law, it won't have the impact you are implying.

    18. Re:customer-centric by Atryn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A judge is demanding a United States company to play by the rules of the United States? And you have a problem with that? US law is and should be the only law the judge needs to consider. If US laws are incompatible with other nation's laws, then don't blame it on the judge, complain to your legislators.

      Another great reason for an inversion besides taxes.

      --
      Come play Moral Decay!
    19. Re:customer-centric by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      No, the others had it right. To draw on the analogy some more, the US isn't invading Europe to open the safe deposit box: it's ordering Microsoft to produce documents that it knows they possess, which is something that courts all over the world are allowed to do and do all the time. As a US company, Microsoft is subject to US law, even when abroad (e.g. laws outlawing bribes in foreign countries), including orders to produce the requested information. If I'm the bookkeeper for an organization, the courts can order me to produce the books, regardless of where I'm keeping them. Doesn't matter if they're in a safe, the Caymans, or outer space, I'm still expected to produce them...or provide a very good explanation for why I can't.

      And that's the important wrinkle here: producing the documents would force Microsoft to violate laws in the countries where the documents are actually located. For all the US courts knew, maybe Microsoft had a server farm in Redmond where the files were located, so it's possible that Microsoft could have produced the documents without violating any laws. Now that they've made it clear that isn't the case, however, it's time for the courts to decide which way things should go.

      Even so, I think it's pretty obvious that the US knew full-well what it was doing and that they're not acting in good faith nor anyone's best interests. As an American, the last thing I want to see is that data getting handed over.

    20. Re:customer-centric by niftymitch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except it isn't European data, Its an American's data stored under a European account in European servers. Small difference.

      It is not the data that is the issue.

      It is a US Judge requiring a company to reach out across international borders and
      as an agent of the judge grab the data and spirit it across international borders and
      deliver it to the judge. This something that the US judge could not require of the
      State Department, CIA or NSA any other government agency to do.

      If it was not data the rule would be more obvious. If a storage company had
      a large box of cigars perhaps from some random country close to Florida could that
      company be compelled to ship that box of cigars to the judge to determine
      if the owner of the box of cigars was engaging in the trade of and trade with
      a foreign country that the US has issues with. Only by inspection of the
      contents of the box would the judge know.

      Now it is possible that Cuban cigars are no longer the smoking gun of illegal
      trade with Cuba but the point is that this judge is forcing a company to reach out
      across international borders and do the judges bidding.

      What if the company name was Blackwater Security Consulting (since renamed Academi)
      and that company was directed by a judge to import or export anything or anyone
      at the behest of the judge (with or without payment for services BTW).

      If it was a physical container the decision in my mind is obvious
      that the judge is reaching, reaching, reaching well beyond charter and
      jurisdiction.

      It gets more interesting if the transport of the physical container crosses
      other international borders. Most nations have laws that prohibit trafficking
      in stolen goods. So a packet map showing how each and every fragment
      of this container traveled could also be a topic of a United Nations inquiry.
      Blood diamonds, ebony, ivory... trafficking in crime tainted desirables and
      this judge covets this stuff.

      --
      Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
    21. Re:customer-centric by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

      This isn't seizing. This is ordering an entity to produce evidence. Yes, the US could order a US company to produce the contents of a safe deposit box in Europe. If the company doesn't comply, the US arm would be fined until it does comply. That is if the US couldn't get cooperation from local authorities to get it seized.

      The US government isn't saying anything about other countries' laws not applying. The US government is saying its own do. Where there is a conflict, it really isn't the US government's problem, it's MS' problem.

      And this whole thing works in reverse too. US companies in the EU are required to comply with EU laws, including producing evidence that is outside of the EU.

      Just to wonder, if you really believe that out of the US is out of the US' reach, you must be really shocked to hear of the IRS now finding out about money in offshore accounts and taxing people on it, eh?

      --
      http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    22. Re:customer-centric by PPH · · Score: 1

      But if an American visits a foreign country, they and their property are subject to the laws of that county. We expect the same of foreign visitors entering our country. And if that foreign countries data protection laws differ from those of the USA, they should still be honored.

      Having some foreign government insist on the right to root around in their citizens possesions while in this country, either as a tourist or a refugee would open up a human rights as well as an intellectual property can of worms. Imagine an H-1B worker's home country insisting on receiving copies of all of their work product while employed here.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    23. Re:customer-centric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The data is owned and controlled by the US division of Microsoft. The judge issued a decree that the US division of Microsoft must produce the data. If Microsoft does it from foreign servers, or local copies, or by recording the farting of the birds, no one cares. All that matters is that the US division of Microsoft must produce the data.
      The fact that the data is currently stored overseas is irrelevant.

    24. Re:customer-centric by niftymitch · · Score: 1

      Microsoft's actions might seem "customer-centric," but really they're fighting for their lives.

      If MS can be forced to give up European data, stored on European servers, that's game over for them.
      Lawsuits and investigations will flourish in Europe, because their data protection laws are much stronger/stricter than ours.

      This could kill MS's European business.

      What largish Linux push in Europe was squashed in favor of MicroSoft products?

      Microsoft has a lot to lose if they ignore international law and act as
      the blind agent of a US court.

      China is working to replace all MS and Cisco software already as
      well as replace all Intel and other non-Chinese processors with their own
      chip designs. Their early hardware efforts have shown that there
      are few technical problems in their way to nationalize large markets.

      --
      Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
    25. Re:customer-centric by Whatsisname · · Score: 3, Interesting

      if the US wanted the contents of a safe deposit box in Europe they cannot legally seize it, doing so would be a violation of europan law

      They can't take the box by force, but the US can instead throw you, the owner of it, in the slammer until you cough up the requested evidence. Where the evidence is, is irrelevant.

    26. Re:customer-centric by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But if an American visits a foreign country, they and their property are subject to the laws of that county. We expect the same of foreign visitors entering our country. And if that foreign countries data protection laws differ from those of the USA, they should still be honored.

      Having some foreign government insist on the right to root around in their citizens possesions while in this country, either as a tourist or a refugee would open up a human rights as well as an intellectual property can of worms. Imagine an H-1B worker's home country insisting on receiving copies of all of their work product while employed here.

      But the criminal in question didn't visit Ireland and leave his data there. Microsoft didn't visit Ireland, either, but it did send the data there. Also, this is not tangible personal property. It is a bunch of electrons.

      As for the H-1B worker, that is a strawman argument and has nothing to do with this. Here is a concrete example of what is going on here. I steal a painting in the US and send it via FedEx to Amerstam where it sits in FedEx's hangar waiting to be picked up. The feds arrest me and ask FedEx to send the painting back for evidence. Should FedEx say no, because it is now in their possession in a foreign country? Before you answer, the courts have already answered it and said yes, FedEx would need to return it as long as it is still in their possession.

      Or, lets say two child pornographers both store the pictures they have taken in the US (so US law is broken) on Google's servers and one of the pornographers pictures happen to reside on a server under Google's control in Ireland and the other on a server under Google's control in the US. Is guy who had the luck of his data being routed to Ireland off scott free while the other guy goes to jail, when both of these accounts and servers are under Google's control? While the courts haven't answered this question, they have done so with banking and found that US banks must still turn over seized assets of US bank holders even if those assets are now held in foreign countries. Most other countries also have the same laws, too.

      So, the question really is whether or not a criminal should be able to use a US company to hide it's data just because the US company has a server farm somewhere other than the US?

    27. Re:customer-centric by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      It wouldn't matter - any company with a presence in the US would be at risk, no matter where they hoard their earnings.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    28. Re:customer-centric by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 2, Funny

      Europeans, when push comes to shove, are generally useless when it comes to standing up for what is right. So even though these are foreign, presumably European emails, residing on European servers, once the appeal process finishes Microsoft will start downloading the data to US servers. And then the EU nations will promptly call a summit, bicker amongst themselves till the download is complete, whine a lot, but ultimately do nothing. Just like they are doing with Ukraine. Given a choice of doing something meaningful that needs doing but might cause some discomfort and conflict, they would rather rationalize why they don't do anything. Kind of like Obama too (and I am not a Republican/conservative or libertarian... I'm independent).

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    29. Re:customer-centric by jbolden · · Score: 1

      You are wrong. If Bank A has access to the box they can be ordered to retrieve the documents.

    30. Re:customer-centric by kylemonger · · Score: 1

      A ruling like this shouldn't kill anything. Large multinational companies already structure themelves so that their head is in one place and their wallet is in another for tax purposes. I'm sure they can spin off separate foreign entities to manage data abroad and evade U.S. authority that way. There are probably plans in place for such an eventuality.

    31. Re:customer-centric by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      Imagine that someone overseas has deposited something in a box held (overseas) by the subsidary of a US bank. Should the hypothetical US bank comply with the demand of a judge to make the contents available to a US law enforcement authority?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    32. Re:customer-centric by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A judge is demanding a United States company to play by the rules of the United States?

      NO! This ruling is not limited to only American companies. It also applies to anyone doing business in America. So if America wants banking records of a German citizen, living in Germany, they could compel Deutschbank to provide them. Likewise, if the Chinese government wants records for an American citizen's account at Bank of America, then America will have no reason to protest since BofA has offices in China, and the principle of extra-territorial subpoenas has been established. If Microsoft loses this case, it will be a terrible precedent, and a victory for oppressive governments all around the world.

    33. Re:customer-centric by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Which may very well be the situation with USA cloud services. You simply can't run an international cloud service because USA and European law conflict too much. So there will likely need to be a treaty. But in terms of whether a USA court can order it, yes they can.

    34. Re:customer-centric by jbolden · · Score: 1

      There are a bunch of ACs here and I can't tell one from another. But assuming you are following this thread the situation is a bank has a document in a safe deposit box it can open. If they can't open it then there isn't a problem.

    35. Re:customer-centric by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Actually, this same scenario happened with the banking industry and what the judge is proposing actually follows the international law and treaties that came out of it. In short, it doesn't matter where the assets are stored as to who has jurisdiction, but as to who has control over them

      So there is a treaty convering funds in accounts held by international banks. Tell us why a company should be obligated by a treaty that doesn't apply to the industry in which it operates?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    36. Re:customer-centric by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Imagine that a future Iraqi government indicts George W. Bush's cabinet for war crimes. They claim that payments to military contractors involved bribery. Do you think that the Iraqi court should get access (via a local office in Iraq) to the bank records held by US banks of the cabinet members?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    37. Re:customer-centric by Solandri · · Score: 1

      While I generally agree with you that this judge's order is silly, I don't think it's as cut and dry as you make it out to be. If you base jurisdiction over the data entirely upon where the data is stored, then multi-national corporations will start criss-crossing their data storage. e.g. Data for their European operations gets stored in the U.S. Data for their U.S. operations gets stored in Europe.

      If the U.S. government investigates Microsoft demanding they turn over info about their U.S. operations, Microsoft will say sorry, that data is stored in Europe. The U.S. will then have to go through the European legal system to get their hands on their data. Same if Europe asks for data on Microsoft's European operations. Microsoft says it's stored in the U.S. And they have to petition the U.S. government before they can get their hands on the data. The company gets double-protection - in order for a government to subpoena any corporate data, they have to first clear it with their court system, then clear it with the court system of the country where the data is stored. Both countries' courts have to agree to release the data before it actually gets released.

      I don't know what the solution is. But it's not as simple as you're making it out to be. The relevance of the data to the country requesting it somehow needs to be taken into account.

    38. Re:customer-centric by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If the U.S. government investigates Microsoft demanding they turn over info about their U.S. operations, Microsoft will say sorry, that data is stored in Europe.

      That's why the SEC mandates certain filings. If you don't make them, they will come after you, and your profits, too. Such information is not even vaguely what we are talking about in this case.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    39. Re:customer-centric by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      It's not about the rights of corporations, it's about the rights of others not to have their privacy violated. There are laws in place to protect those rights. That Microsoft would get in trouble is a lesser, secondary concern.

    40. Re:customer-centric by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Then like I said there isn't a problem. You are disagreeing with the premise of the other AC's hypothetical.

    41. Re:customer-centric by Demena · · Score: 3, Informative

      Excuse me but you appear to be mistaken. it is written in the US constitution that international treaties become part of US law. Where that introduces contradictions the treaty law applies. And judges have to repeat this. It may not apply in this particular case but it remains true.

    42. Re:customer-centric by metlin · · Score: 1

      Also, this is not tangible personal property. It is a bunch of electrons.

      Are you serious? Are you that much of an idiot?

      There is a reason there is *intellectual* property law.

      Property laws exist immaterial of what form the property takes -- trademarks and patents are all nothing more than ideas in our heads put to paper, and they are protected for a reason.

      I can see this reasoning on another site, but I'd think the readers of Slashdot would have an understanding of what digital property entails.

    43. Re:customer-centric by Demena · · Score: 2

      Because the US constitution requires that international treaties become part of US law when signed.

    44. Re:customer-centric by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Except it isn't European data, Its an American's data stored under a European account in European servers. Small difference.

      It is not the data that is the issue.

      MOD PARENT UP - this is the most clarifying description of the problem at hand and the poster has a good point.

      I had the same thing in mind and, whilst I'm normally a critic and suspicious of MS, in this case I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    45. Re:customer-centric by Demena · · Score: 1

      No. The order to produce went to Microsoft US. The data is under the control of Microsoft Ireland, a fully owned subsidiary registered in a foreign country. Since Microsoft Ireland has the legal obligation to refuse the data to Microsoft US, Microsoft US neither owns not controls the data and cannot be compelled to produce it.

    46. Re:customer-centric by Demena · · Score: 1

      Microsoft Ireland is not a US company. It is incorporated in Ireland. If Microsoft US requested or ordered Microsoft Ireland to supply the data then Microsoft Ireland would be bound by EU law to refuse it. The limit of Microsoft's ability there would be an endless chain of hire and fire if MS Irelands executives and employees.

    47. Re:customer-centric by Demena · · Score: 1

      Microsoft US does not own or control the server in Ireland. A fully owned subsidiary, Microsoft Ireland does. They are required to follow EU law.

    48. Re:customer-centric by jbolden · · Score: 1

      They don't do that. In the USA setting up a system unable to comply with the laws is called racketeering and it could get MIOL seized in its entirety. Microsoft USA has control over the Azure infrastructure. As far as MIOL employees are concerned at the time of first upload it has already been handed over to Microsoft USA.

    49. Re:customer-centric by Demena · · Score: 1

      Err.... No, No US court could claim ownership or seize a foreign company without going through that companies courts. They might be able to seize Microsoft US but not Microsoft Ireland without due process.

    50. Re:customer-centric by nabsltd · · Score: 5, Informative

      But if it was an American, residing on European soil, there would be extradition procedures to follow. And those would involve having the local (EU) police generate their own warrant and make their own arrest based upon a formal request.

      If you had followed this case, you would know that this is exactly what the US tried to do.

      The US asked an Irish court to issue a warrant to force production of the data. The Irish court refused to issue the warrant. So, the US issued a subpoena to Microsoft, who rightly told the US that although the data was on a Microsoft computer, the data was owned by a customer of Microsoft, therefore a warrant would be required. The US court then issued a warrant for Microsoft to produce the data. Microsoft refused, noting that the data was in a foreign country, and warrants are only valid when issued by a court that has jurisdiction over the location of the requested object/data/person. No US court has jurisdiction over Irish soil, thus we end up at today's story.

      The actual point of Microsoft's appeal is that the US wants to have a court to be able to issue an order that has the all the advantages of both a warrant and a subpoena, while ignoring their limitatations. The problem with this is that subpoenas are allowed to be fairly vague and apply to anything that is "owned" by the target of the subpoena, regardless of where it is located. Warrants, OTOH, can force the target to hand over something they don't own but over which they have control, but can only request very specific items/data, and have to be issued by a court that has jurisdiction over where the item/data is located.

    51. Re:customer-centric by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Huh? Microsoft USA could disband MOIL tomorrow. Executives are just employees they can be fired and replaced with other executives whose job it is to liquidate. There is no due process. MOIL is a possession of a USA legal person. Same as if I owned a chair in Europe. The chair doesn't get due process.

    52. Re:customer-centric by Demena · · Score: 1

      Sure Microsoft could. But the court could not order it. As to your chair in Europe, you might own a chair in Europe but what you do with it is still subject to European law. For example, certain historical artefacts may not be imported/exported. Ownership is a limited right.

    53. Re:customer-centric by mrbester · · Score: 1

      If you think possession of child pornography is legal in Ireland then I've got a bridge for you to buy. I'll make you buy it twice for bringing in a "think of the children" flawed argument in a ridiculous attempt to bolster your position.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    54. Re:customer-centric by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 1

      Some of us do understand it. Others define it as a copyable bunch of electrons because that allows them to steal movies and TV shows and games without listening to their conscience.

      Others, like myself, understand digital is still property, but do it anyway because our own countries don't show these things on anything like an acceptable schedule. And we partly mollify our consciences by buying the DVDs later.

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    55. Re:customer-centric by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Yes a USA court could order it. They can order Microsoft USA to do anything that Microsoft USA can do on its own. If you agree Microsoft USA can do it then a USA court can order them to do it.

      The liquidation would be subject to European law but whether it happens or not is not.

    56. Re:customer-centric by grahammm · · Score: 1

      But could they order that the unopened box be shipped to the USA, where it will be forced open by US law enforcement and the contents examined?

    57. Re:customer-centric by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      > it is written in the US constitution that international treaties become part of US law. Where that introduces contradictions the treaty law applies.

      OT: we have a similar provision in Italian constitution, but I thought it was so because we lost the war.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    58. Re:customer-centric by Bert64 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The data belongs to a US company, and is on servers which US based employees have access to. Those employees are beholden to US laws, and should retrieve the data if directed to do so by a US court.
      Also the Irish company is a subsidiary of the US company. The Irish employees don't have to obey US law, but they do have to obey their bosses who in turn do have to obey US law.
      So long as the data is stored on servers operated by an organisation which has a chain of command extending upwards in the US, they are beholden to the demands of the US government. The opposite probably wouldn't apply, as the Irish employees wouldn't have seniority over the US and thus couldn't compel them to do anything.

      If they don't like it, the Irish part could be spun off as an entirely separate entity free of US control.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    59. Re:customer-centric by Bert64 · · Score: 2

      That assumes that the US division of Deutsche Bank actually has access to the banking records of German citizens. If the chain of command is set up correctly within the company, then the US division should be unable to get access to German records without the agreement of someone sufficiently senior in Germany.

      Employees located in a different country would not be subject to the laws, but they are still subject to the hierarchy of their own business - that is if their boss is located in the US and compelled by US law to do something, the less senior employee would also be so compelled not directly by US law, but by the internal rules of the company.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    60. Re:customer-centric by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      European servers owned and managed by a US company. While there may be local employees in the EU, they are ultimately answerable to more senior US based employees within their own company and therefore to US law.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    61. Re:customer-centric by grahammm · · Score: 1

      Once Office is gone, Linux on the desktop is in. Office is the reason why businesses need windows on client, and exchange servers on the back end. Game over man, game over.

      Why do you need Exchange Server on the back end to handle office? Office works fine on a standalone PC, SOHO users just have it running on a single PC or use windows shares (without a domain controller) to share documents. Office documents can be stored on any shared file system and sent/received by any email system. So exchange server is not needed to support office.

    62. Re:customer-centric by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 1

      Employees of companies are not legally required to be obedient. They can tell their US bosses 'no'. At which point it would be up to the discretion of the US bosses to decide to take action like firing the Irish employees, or to shrug and say 'oh well'. They are not legally obligated to fire them.

    63. Re: customer-centric by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      That's largely irrelevant because they do enforce the data protection laws very strongly so anyone doing business with US cloud providers will effectively be putting themselves at risk of committing a beach of that law. Microsoft isn't fighting this out of the goodness of their hearts - they know that their whole cloud business - something that they're currently betting the business on - will be dealt a huge blow if they are forced to do this. Customers in their second biggest market will avoid US cloud services like the plague. As to the whole Ukraine situation what do you suggest? Invade Russia?

    64. Re:customer-centric by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      My conscience rests easy. Breaking laws that do neither create a balance nor defend the weak is easy on my conscience.

      The reason I don't copy content isn't my conscience. It's the fact that the crap produced today ain't worth the bandwidth wasted.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    65. Re:customer-centric by gnasher719 · · Score: 2

      European servers owned and managed by a US company. While there may be local employees in the EU, they are ultimately answerable to more senior US based employees within their own company and therefore to US law.

      Data stored in Europe. Which may only be surrendered if someone gets a warrant that is valid in the European country. It doesn't matter who owns the company. If Ireland issued a warrant for the data, then Microsoft couldn't say "we are a US company", they would have to obey an Irish warrant for data in Ireland. If the USA issues a warrant for data in Ireland, then Microsoft has no right to surrender the data. Again, doesn't matter whether Microsoft is a US country or not.

    66. Re:customer-centric by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      You mean "Kill every company on the internet's business that serves customers in Europe and America."

      Legal precedent would compel Google, and everyone else, to do the same stupid thing this judge has ordered, who is apparently unaware of international laws and seems to assume that US law is the only thing that exists or even should exist. If MS loses, everyone loses.

      Not really. The European privacy laws doesn't protect the data from court orders. As long as there is a legal process it should be fine. Anyway, if MS or any other wanted to protect the data from the US all they need to have is a switch a non-US residence can flip that disables US access to the data. Once there is no US access that means they will need cooperation from someone not in the US and it needs to go though international procedures.

    67. Re:customer-centric by Rich0 · · Score: 2

      I'm not a Microsoft fan in any way, but MS is dead right on this one. A US judge does not have jurisdiction over foreign e-mails. He can claim jurisdiction all he wants, butwishing will not make the world bend to his black-robed will.

      Well, whether this survives appeal is anybody's guess. However, if the US Supreme Court upholds it then MS will end up turning over the data. This isn't about making the world bend to his "black-robed will" - this is about making Microsoft bend to it. Once the appeals are exhausted they'll be told to produce the data. If they refuse then they'll be fined a million dollars a day, and the fines will be increased if that doesn't seem to be enough. Eventually Microsoft either goes out of business, or it capitulates.

      Sure, after it happens the EU can then start fining them millions or billions of dollars if they want to. But, the only way around something like this is for a company to not own property or assets of any kind in both the US and EU. Courts can seize assets, which basically puts you in your jurisdiction no matter what your principles might otherwise dictate.

    68. Re:customer-centric by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Employees of companies are not legally required to be obedient. They can tell their US bosses 'no'. At which point it would be up to the discretion of the US bosses to decide to take action like firing the Irish employees, or to shrug and say 'oh well'. They are not legally obligated to fire them.

      Sure, but if the US Courts are fining them every day the data isn't disclosed, and they don't care if the foreign employees refuse to cooperate, then the company is probably going to pressure those employees in any way that they can. They might even close the foreign datacenter entirely if the courts insist on it. Either that or they could close all their US operations.

    69. Re:customer-centric by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      That assumes that the US division of Deutsche Bank actually has access to the banking records of German citizens. If the chain of command is set up correctly within the company, then the US division should be unable to get access to German records without the agreement of someone sufficiently senior in Germany.

      Well, the US government might ultimately fail in getting the data, but they could confiscate all the assets of Deutsche Bank in the US, which would effectively block them from doing business in the US.

    70. Re: customer-centric by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      To answer your questions about Ukraine:

      Supply Ukraine with weapons and training on them immediately . Anti armour weapons, man packable anti aircraft missiles, personal weapons, tanks (leopards would be nice), APCs, etc etc. Yes I know significant training is needed on some but it can be expedited/sped up (I have military experience from when I was younger so I'm not naive). The concept of running a tank should be the same to any tank crew for example... it is just the specifics of each model. Worrying about Russia learning about them is silly. They likely know a whole lot about our stuff already.

      Fire Germany's reactors back up so they can reduce or eliminate Russian natural gas. Heavy meaningful sanctions that will actually hurt Russians at home. You do understand qthat Russia wants Ukraine under its thumb after this don't you? What Putin wants will essentially be Russia on the Polish border. He was an agent in Germany. He dreams of owning the Baltic states, Czech, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, etc. again. And when he has them, the rest of Europe will be scratching their collective arses and saying, "Gee, how'd that happen?"

      And quite frankly I'd love to see my government force natural gas pipelines to our coasts (and fast) so we can be an alternate supplier of natural gas to Europe. Fuck Putin and anyone in Russia who supports him.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    71. Re:customer-centric by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      The US legal system starts and ENDS at the US borders.

      Maybe in principle it does, but it practice the sovereignty of any country is whatever that country can enforce it to be.

      You seem to have completely misunderstood this situation, For example your safe deposit box example, if the US wanted the contents of a safe deposit box in Europe they cannot legally seize it, doing so would be a violation of europan law and the US officials doing it would be guilty of bank robbery and treated like any other common criminal.

      That very-much depends on the details of the situation. Suppose the US wants the contents of your German safe deposit box.

      If the US sent some agents to Germany without cooperation with the German government and they broke into the bank and were caught, then sure they would be arrested and treated as criminals (assuming they lacked diplomatic status), as in your fantasy scenario.

      However, they would never do this.

      Suppose instead you are in the US on vacation. The US grabs YOU and puts you in their own safe deposit box until you hand over the contents of your box in Germany. It is true that they might not have the means to FORCE you to comply, but they can literally hold you in prison until you die of old age without even charging you with a crime if you do not.

      That is the more appropriate analogy here. If MS wants to avoid being subject to US law they should probably avoid having so much of their property in the US, where it is trivially seized.

    72. Re: customer-centric by jbolden · · Score: 1

      It is not the end. You would like it to be the end, but it isn't.

    73. Re:customer-centric by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Since the war crimes are fresher, and the same standing government in Pakistan still exists, it would more likely be Pakistan indicting Obama's cabinet members for war crimes.

    74. Re:customer-centric by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      If you think possession of child pornography is legal in Ireland then I've got a bridge for you to buy. I'll make you buy it twice for bringing in a "think of the children" flawed argument in a ridiculous attempt to bolster your position.

      You miss the point. What people are arguing for in their support of Microsoft is that content related to US criminal activiity would be off limits if the US company stored the content on an overseas server. Whether that content is about a mob hit, ponzi scheme, terrorist attack, and yes, even child porn, it would be off limits.

      The simple point to remember in this case is that an individual is suspected of criminal activity in the US and it is believed his emails have evidence of such activity. Microsoft is refusing to turn those over, even though there is a court order to do so, on the grounds that the US lacks jurisdiction because Microsoft happened to store said emails in Ireland.

    75. Re:customer-centric by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft doesn't need to own the physical server. They have control over the content stored on it. Your local bank doesn't own your funds. It does, however, have control over those funds.

    76. Re:customer-centric by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Also, this is not tangible personal property. It is a bunch of electrons.

      Are you serious? Are you that much of an idiot?

      There is a reason there is *intellectual* property law.

      Property laws exist immaterial of what form the property takes -- trademarks and patents are all nothing more than ideas in our heads put to paper, and they are protected for a reason.

      I can see this reasoning on another site, but I'd think the readers of Slashdot would have an understanding of what digital property entails.

      The reason there is intellectual property law is precisely because the things covered under it are not tangilbe personal property.

    77. Re:customer-centric by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Some of us do understand it. Others define it as a copyable bunch of electrons because that allows them to steal movies and TV shows and games without listening to their conscience.

      Others, like myself, understand digital is still property, but do it anyway because our own countries don't show these things on anything like an acceptable schedule. And we partly mollify our consciences by buying the DVDs later.

      It has nothing to do with stealing. It does have to do with taxation. Intellectual property isn't taxable like personal tangible property and real property is.One can sell the right to use intellectual property, but one cannot sell the intellectual property itself.

    78. Re:customer-centric by towermac · · Score: 1

      Yeah, good for you putting up with all these ACs, but the subject matter is worthy.

      If I may: When Mr. Bolden says a US court can order a US company to retrieve it's European lock-box contents; that in itself violates no European laws. The company has had legal access to it's own lock-box the whole time, and was always able to retrieve those contents it's convenience.

      Now, if those contents of that box were medical records of European patients, or some other items covered under European privacy laws, then those laws may kick in, as far as to whom the contents may be delivered. But I don't believe Mr. Bolden was making that argument, and he was not wrong in stating what a US court can order a US company to do.

    79. Re:customer-centric by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Actually, this same scenario happened with the banking industry and what the judge is proposing actually follows the international law and treaties that came out of it. In short, it doesn't matter where the assets are stored as to who has jurisdiction, but as to who has control over them

      So there is a treaty convering funds in accounts held by international banks. Tell us why a company should be obligated by a treaty that doesn't apply to the industry in which it operates?

      Because in modern banking, actual paper money isn't shipped back and forth, it is wired electronically and the treaty includes the records of transactions. Effectively, like the emails the warrant is wanting to get at.

    80. Re:customer-centric by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      That is a very different thing, if it was the companies data it matters not where the data is they have to produce it. This is about Microsoft trying to comply with an order for somebody else's data that is not under their control but they do have access to.

      I run an IT business, this is much like getting an order to produce a clients data. Can I technically do it sure. If it was in the US I'm covered legally via the judge made me do it and possibly a gag order precluding me from disclosing that we did so. Now if it's foreign I'm committing a crime and do not have legal cover, some of us still want to leave the US from time to time. In neither case should my company be compelled to deliver that data, it's not ours to give. Doing so has the potential to ruin business relationships. Having it be the law in the US leads to no foreign company allowing a US one access to it's systems.

      It is not hard ask an Irish judge to issue the order to Microsoft EU (or whoever). It seems they do not think disclosing this data would be legal in the EU and the request would be denied thus this end run. The US can and does get just this sort of thing all the time the EU just has better protections and thus a higher bar to meet to avoid fishing expeditions like this one.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    81. Re:customer-centric by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      The directors of Microsoft Operations Ireland Ltd are obliged to follow Irish law, not US law. The US parent company could vote them out of office at the next AGM of the Irish company, but if they were sacked for refusing to comply with Irish law, they would have a claim against the company for wrongful dismissal.

    82. Re:customer-centric by jbolden · · Score: 1

      I'm losing who owns what in the question. There are several slightly different versions floating through this thread.

      But if the USA company is able to comply they must comply. So if they are able to get the box shipped the court can force them to ship it. So yes for the same reason a European wanting privacy from US courts shouldn't use Azure, if they want their safety deposit box to operate outside USA law they shouldn't use a safety deposit box owned directly or indirectly by a USA company.

    83. Re:customer-centric by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      No, it is owned and managed by an Irish company which happens to have only one share holder which is an American company.

    84. Re:customer-centric by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Holding the USA people in contempt is how they enforce their orders.

    85. Re:customer-centric by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Thank you.

      Now actually I was making the argument that a USA court can order a USA company to force its the subsidiary to deliver the contents of a safety deposit box. That of course puts the company in an impossible situation where they are subject to conflicting law. So staying with the analogy they way Microsoft handled it is by letting the patient know when they walk in the door of subsidiary X that if they have X perform tests on them they have already agreed to export the results of those test to the United States already and thus don't have European privacy law protection.

    86. Re:customer-centric by Demena · · Score: 1

      Again you are confusing Microsoft USA with Microsoft Ireland. They are not the same.

    87. Re:customer-centric by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      I am not confusing the two. Microsoft Ireland says they can't give the data because it belongs to Microsoft USA. Microsoft USA says they can't give the data because it belongs to Microsoft Ireland. They both can't be right.

    88. Re:customer-centric by Demena · · Score: 1

      Microsoft Ireland would be constrained by european law from exporting the data. Is that not the case?

    89. Re:customer-centric by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft Ireland would be constrained by european law from exporting the data. Is that not the case?

      No. If that were the case, they would have said so. Instead they said, that it is Microsoft USAs data and the request needs to go through them. If it were European law that came into play, the US would already have the data as it is needed for a criminal investigation.

      Effectivally, one Microsoft entity is arguing it is US property and the other is arguing it is Irish property. Neither wants to give the data up because it will have negative connotations to their subscribers. So, they are playing games.

    90. Re:customer-centric by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      An individual in the United States must abide by US law even when abroad, in addition to abiding by the rules of the foreign country.

      Citation? Obviously anything that is a crime according to the US laws is a crime, wherever it happens. However, things that are crimes according to US laws but happen outside the USA will not be prosecuted in the USA. It's relevant to extradition - if you do something say in Germany against German law, you will only be extradited from the USA if it is also illegal according to US law.

    91. Re:customer-centric by Yoda222 · · Score: 2

      The Irish employees don't have to obey US law, but they do have to obey their bosses who in turn do have to obey US law.t compel them to do anything.

      Not if what the US bosses ask them something which is forbidden by Irish law.

    92. Re:customer-centric by PPH · · Score: 1

      The US asked an Irish court to issue a warrant to force production of the data. The Irish court refused to issue the warrant.

      And the question here is: Why?

      It's possible that the 'crime' commited may not have been a crime in Ireland (I'm thinking failure to pay unitary taxes). Or that one or more parties to this communications resides in the EU and is subject to EU privacy regulations (which might answer why Microsoft stored this in Ireland in the first place).

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    93. Re: customer-centric by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Good plan. Now how do we do Putin shutting of the gas and declaring war immediately afterwards?

    94. Re: customer-centric by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      Enjoy the new cold war and worries of invasion. You deserve it. At least the nuclear scientists will have work rebuilding the nuclear stockpiles. Glad you'll have Russian tactical nukes pointed at you again, and NATO exercises chewing up your farmland. The movie industry will have their old enemy back and authors can start writing more post apocalypse books. I guess I have a more pessimistic outlook if we don't do anything now.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    95. Re:customer-centric by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      ... And nobody gave a flying monkeys uncle. If a corporation decides to conduct business and expend capital buying assets, or bringing assets into any country that crap is then subject to the laws of that country. It isn't up to individual countries to make sure that their laws all coincide nicely for the pleasure of some corporation. I don't have any pity for companies that start here in the USA and then go to other countires and expect special treatment from either country.

    96. Re:customer-centric by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      In the time it takes for all those moving parts to click into place, Microsoft could just use the IRS tactic: just delete the damn emails and then claim that they can no longer find them.

    97. Re:customer-centric by c · · Score: 1

      Actually they data is in Europe the judge is trying to say since they have access to it from the US they need to turn it over. The data is under the control of a division incorporated in Europe.

      If the parent company, located in the US, can just access the data any time they want and (presumably) do whatever the heck they want with it, then it's a bit of a stretch to say that the data is "under the control" of anyone else under anyone else's laws.

      Basically, if a multinational corporation doesn't structure itself such that it actually respects borders and separate jurisdictions in its day-to-day operations, I see no reason why stuff like this shouldn't happen.

      It'd be a whole other story if there were internal firewalls. You know, something like "well, according to Corporate Directive 1444.18.c, the only way we can transfer this account data to the US is either at the request of the user or under an EU court order; yeah, too bad, take it up with Legal".

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    98. Re:customer-centric by silfen · · Score: 1

      So if America wants banking records of a German citizen, living in Germany, they could compel Deutschbank to provide them.

      Correct. At the same time, Deutsche Bank might be violating German laws if it complies with the US order. It is the responsibility of Deutsche bank to ensure that it it can comply with all laws in the countries it chooses to do business in. And it is your responsibility as a customer to pick and choose companies to do business with that operate in the way you like.

      If Microsoft loses this case, it will be a terrible precedent, and a victory for oppressive governments all around the world.

      Oh, of course! Because the ability of transnational corporations to evade the laws of the countries they operate in and play one country against another would be such a grand victory for liberty! Get real.

      The US government has too much power to subpoena E-mails (although European governments are even worse); that power should be limited. Allowing huge global corporations like Microsoft to escape such legal orders while private citizens would have to comply (and you would) is about the worst possible outcome.

    99. Re:customer-centric by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      The emails belong to their customers. What do you think their customers will do when all the their emails disappear? What would you do if your email provider decided to delete all your emails? In some instances it may be moot, that is for customers who make sure to download all email to at least one physical hard drive in their possession. I know I always make sure my emails don't live 100% 'in the cloud' on imap servers. But I am pretty sure most people don't follow my approach. Also, what about backups?

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    100. Re:customer-centric by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming that any customer who wants to keep his emails private has already moved them to a local archive away from the MS servers. The disclosure order would apply to any copies Microsoft has of the emails.

    101. Re: customer-centric by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      I don't want either option but your simplistic solution has a number of flaws of which I've pointed out two. It's easy for you sit on the other side of the Atlantic and make idiotic comments with a world superpower just down the road and no serious danger of invasion, it's a lot harder for the people of the EU, some of whom share a border with Russia, to make knee-jerk bad decisions.

    102. Re:customer-centric by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      There is a reason there is *intellectual* property law.

      No. There is not. There is copyright law, there is patent law, there is trademark law. None of these relate to "property". Calling them "intellectual property" is inaccurate, an attempt to obfuscate.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    103. Re:customer-centric by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      ...if the Chinese government wants records for an American citizen's account at Bank of America, then America will have no reason to protest since BofA has offices in China, and the principle of extra-territorial subpoenas has been established. If Microsoft loses this case, it will be a terrible precedent, and a victory for oppressive governments all around the world.

      So don't do business with banks that have offices in other countries. Move your business to your local credit union. Demonstrating that big banks can be legally required to divulge your data to governments in any country where they operate sounds like a way to break banks' power a bit, and thus a win for humanity.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    104. Re:customer-centric by Reziac · · Score: 1

      We should be glad that it's Microsoft, so it's someone with deep enough pockets to fight this as long as the courts allow. As you say, it would be a terrible precedent, and too easily extensible to anything a government wished to see (or seize) worldwide.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    105. Re: customer-centric by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      I guess you forgot history, have a nice future. Rationalize why you can ignore what's happening to your neighbours all you want. I wish I knew your country so I could drink a toast and laugh when you are paying Russian taxes soon. I remember when everyone in Europe pussy footed around the Serbs while they ran Bosnian death camps and murdered thousands (Srebenicia? thanks Holland... but that was kind of recursive... Dutch had to rely on European fire support.... Europeans are famous for all talk no action.... Dutch are European... full circle... The people of Srebenicia never had a chance... ). Europeans only wanted to talk and negotiate while people died. Even Chretien that piece of shit let us watch our soldiers tied to a stake on a hill by the Serbs. To Europe's BORROR Clinton came in and bombed the shit out of Serb areas. "Oh please don't do that, we have to live next to these Serbs (backed by Russia who were therefor complicit) and they will be angry with us... we just want to talk." And how about that? The Serbs backed off. You can't talk to bullies. Third world, first world, Putin is still a bully. Talk is cheap for him. Have fun with your new overseer. Are you from Holland or did you just learn to ignore your neighbours being killed by them? Or are you a Russian shill? By the way, the first step in rationalizing inaction is to tell yourself and others the real solution is too simplistic so you can can't do anything.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    106. Re:customer-centric by radwarrior · · Score: 1

      A judge is demanding a United States company to play by the rules of the United States? And you have a problem with that? US law is and should be the only law the judge needs to consider. If US laws are incompatible with other nation's laws, then don't blame it on the judge, complain to your legislators.

      Wow. The total and complete ignorance of a once free and liberated people, is complete. Tyrants, have your way. Your new surfs won't fight you; in fact, they'll vociferously defend you. I can hear "Anonymous Coward"'s words in ten years...

      "The Iyatola (PBUH) gives you your government-approved nutrition cube, twice a day no less, and you still are ungrateful and demand, "Pizza"? Don't blame the Iyatola (PBUH), complain to your local labor camp division lord."

    107. Re:customer-centric by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      Just give them the means to defend themselves.

      For MS... I know longer believe many people think about where their data is. Hence Gmail, iCloud, etc. Not for me.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    108. Re:customer-centric by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I think this is the crucial point. Can Microsoft's US employees access the data the court demanded, without going through Microsoft's Irish employees?

      If so, they have no business refusing a legitimate US court order. If this violates EU or Irish law, then Microsoft is at fault for setting that situation up. Any information directly accessible from country X cannot be considered protected from the government of X.

      If not, then they need to order their Irish employees to cooperate, and see what happens. If Microsoft US can't get the information, then it can't. The judge may be unreasonable, but that's always a danger.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    109. Re:customer-centric by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Sure. A US court cannot force an Irish citizen in Ireland to do anything. That's not the issue here.

      The issue is that Microsoft US apparently has full access to that data. A US court can order somebody in the US to do something in the US.

      I believe the important part here is not where the servers are, but where they are controlled from. If the data is directly available to Microsoft US, then it is subject to US jurisdiction. If this violates Irish or EU law, then Microsoft should not have set things up that way. If Microsoft Ireland has full control over the data, well, a US court can't make them do anything.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    110. Re:customer-centric by nabsltd · · Score: 1

      The US asked an Irish court to issue a warrant to force production of the data. The Irish court refused to issue the warrant.

      And the question here is: Why?

      I don't know the laws of Ireland enough to know if the reason the judge refused to issue a warrant is part of the public record. I don't even know if the judge has to articulate a specific reason.

      And, although it might be interesting to know, it really doesn't matter. All that matter is that a court with jurisdiction to issue a warrant said "no", and the US tried an end-run around that authority.

    111. Re:customer-centric by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I was simply stating that this was how things would be done, not that it is good public policy.

      The thing is, just about every country pulls these kinds of stunts. If some German citizen living in Germany hosted a server in the USA and used it to sell Nazi paraphernalia, US law would protect the data, but I imagine that the German government would still stick the owner in jail until they divulged it.

      I'm not saying it is right - it is just that most governments aren't too happy about not asserting their will on people/companies they can get at.

  3. Customer-centric? by DarkFencer · · Score: 2

    I don't see them as customer-centric as much as self-serving. There is definitely a trend of non-US companies moving or thinking of moving their data off US servers. Moving them off US company/subsidiary servers in other countries is a huge threat to Nadella's cloud-focused Microsoft.

    It is a rational self-interested decision that may be good for consumers.

    1. Re:Customer-centric? by celeb8 · · Score: 1

      Self serving and customer-centric are one and the same in this case. I see nothing wrong with that, and I have nothing but respect for Microsoft doing this. They will likely be facing down some pretty serious daily fines while they wait for this to play out, at least judging from how cases like this have gone in the past. Good on them, whatever their motives.

    2. Re:Customer-centric? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Self serving and customer-centric are one and the same in this case. I see nothing wrong with that, and I have nothing but respect for Microsoft doing this. They will likely be facing down some pretty serious daily fines while they wait for this to play out, at least judging from how cases like this have gone in the past. Good on them, whatever their motives.

      Microsoft is fighting a warrant about turning over a customer's emails in a criminal case. Are you really arguing because the electrons are sitting on an SSD in Ireland, the criminal should go free, even though Microsoft has full control over those electrons? The individual didn't instruct Microsoft to store the data there, Microsoft did it of its own volition.

    3. Re:Customer-centric? by jopsen · · Score: 1

      Moving them off US company/subsidiary servers in other countries is a huge threat to Nadella's cloud-focused Microsoft.

      True, I also wonder if MS won't be liable for contract and privacy violations in the EU, if they do provide the data...

    4. Re:Customer-centric? by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

      This recent quote from President Obama (re: illegal torture) comes to mind: "And my hope is that this report reminds us once again that the character of our country has to be measured in part not by what we do when things are easy but what we do when things are hard."

  4. More accuratly "self preservation" by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

    It is a rational self-interested decision that may be good for consumers.

    Of course it's "self interest", and more accuratly "self preservation". Micrsoft is a business that ultimatly has to answer to their stockholders. If it comes to pass that US "law enforcement" can reach out and get personal data from non-US servers, it will completely destroy Microsoft's European business, due the the much stricter data privacy laws in Europe. It would be "game over" for Microsoft in Europe.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:More accuratly "self preservation" by queazocotal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      By a not too unreasonable extension of the theory that allows the judge to compel microsoft to deliver things they control on a computer in another country - I see no reason exactly the same would not apply to compelling them to deliver a personalised update to one particular computer and deliver access to that computer - wherever in the world it was, and whoever owned it.

    2. Re:More accuratly "self preservation" by arbiter1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well its not just MS, ANY company. Google, Apple, etc would be effected by this as well.

    3. Re:More accuratly "self preservation" by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Well its not just MS, ANY company. Google, Apple, etc would be effected by this as well.

      Of course. Which is why all the multi-nationals that you mention will weigh in with "Friend of the Court" briefs.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    4. Re:More accuratly "self preservation" by zennyboy · · Score: 1, Troll

      *affected

    5. Re:More accuratly "self preservation" by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Well its not just MS, ANY company. Google, Apple, etc would be effected by this as well.

      The technical solution would be to design their storage in such a way that it is _impossible_ for the company to read a customer's data.

    6. Re:More accuratly "self preservation" by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      It is a rational self-interested decision that may be good for consumers.

      Of course it's "self interest", and more accuratly "self preservation". Micrsoft is a business that ultimatly has to answer to their stockholders. If it comes to pass that US "law enforcement" can reach out and get personal data from non-US servers, it will completely destroy Microsoft's European business, due the the much stricter data privacy laws in Europe. It would be "game over" for Microsoft in Europe.

      No, it won't. Europeans will still have the same protections they do under their laws. However, US citizens committing a crime in the US won't be able to store their data on foreign servers of American companies and have it safe from authorities. In otherwords, if a US crime is committed, it doesn't matter where the US company hosts its server farm, it is still under the control of that company and subject to the authorities.

      If Microsoft wins this challenge, then there will be no server farms in the US because any that were overseas would be exempt from US authorities. Just think of something as mundane as tax avoidance. The IRS comes in and asks to see your companies data, but you don't have to give it to them because it is in a different country? Or let's say some government agency stores its data in Canada. Now it is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act?

      The reality here is that if Microsoft wins, there will no longer be a tech industry in the US because what is left will move overseas to avoid US laws.

    7. Re:More accuratly "self preservation" by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      No, it won't. Europeans will still have the same protections they do under their laws. However, US citizens committing a crime in the US won't be able to store their data on foreign servers of American companies and have it safe from authorities. In otherwords, if a US crime is committed, it doesn't matter where the US company hosts its server farm, it is still under the control of that company and subject to the authorities.

      You are incorrect. the case would impact Europian Microsoft customers as well. Indeed, the account in question is almost certainly held by a non-American.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    8. Re:More accuratly "self preservation" by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      No, it won't. Europeans will still have the same protections they do under their laws. However, US citizens committing a crime in the US won't be able to store their data on foreign servers of American companies and have it safe from authorities. In otherwords, if a US crime is committed, it doesn't matter where the US company hosts its server farm, it is still under the control of that company and subject to the authorities.

      You are incorrect. the case would impact Europian Microsoft customers as well. Indeed, the account in question is almost certainly held by a non-American.

      Only if those European Microsoft customers broke a US law and used Microsoft to house the data about such criminal activity on their servers. The US still needed a warrant in this case to obtain the data in question. It would take a US court to tell Microsoft to turn over data on a foreign citizen and there would have to be cause to do that. So, it is likely that the only European Microsoft customers that would be effected are those that happen to break US laws.

    9. Re:More accuratly "self preservation" by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Only if those European Microsoft customers broke a US law and used Microsoft to house the data about such criminal activity on their servers.

      Seriously? You don't read much on the FOnly if those European Microsoft customers broke a US law and used Microsoft to house the data about such criminal activity on their servers., apperently.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    10. Re:More accuratly "self preservation" by jhantin · · Score: 1

      The technical solution would be to design their storage in such a way that it is _impossible_ for the company to read a customer's data.

      "Impossible to read a customer's data" is not a strong enough condition. For example, if a provider uses a convergent encryption scheme, they clearly cannot read their customers' data, yet it becomes possible to deduplicate encrypted data — and consequently to identify everyone who has copies of a given plaintext, or perhaps to guess at a password embedded in a configuration file.

      --
      ...when you're writing a game...tweak the difficulty of "Easy" to something [your mother] can cope with. -- onion2k
    11. Re:More accuratly "self preservation" by moronoxyd · · Score: 1

      Not just any company, only companies operating in multiple countries that are just trying to benefit from each countries privileges but not fulfilling those responsibilities.

      No. By not handing over the data Microsoft is actually complying with European data protection laws.
      Following the ruling of the US court would be Microsoft not fulfilling responsibilities in other countries.

  5. I can't believe I'm saying this, but... by waferbuster · · Score: 1
    I think Microsoft is doing the right thing here. Did the feds forget to include the double-secret gag order with their request/demand? Proclaiming this demand far and wide is going to put it squarely in the public eye.

    Not that I personally have anything to worry about, as I always assume people are reading my emails. And being bored to tears by them.

    --
    I'm an individual! Just like everyone else!
    1. Re:I can't believe I'm saying this, but... by CurryCamel · · Score: 1

      Perl surely. And 4 lines of that is anything but "simple".

  6. And on a side note... by MindPrison · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...anyone who seriously store sensitive information on a cloud service like free-email, should be spanked with a trout over and over again.

    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
  7. re I don't care by jelizondo · · Score: 5, Informative

    Frankly, I don't care if MS is standing up out of self-interest or for some other cause, the tyrants in D.C. need to be stopped. Period.

    You can't apply U.S. laws to the world at large, regardless of your 'legal' standing.

    Many U.S. organizations have presence and pay taxes in many different jurisdictions, making them subject to that particular territory's law. Will the U.S. allow some other country to violate U.S. laws because the subsidiary is present, in say, Aman and thus, by extension, the entire organization is subject to Aman's Law?

    The answer is no, because jurisdiction is territorial. You can't apply Ireland's law to MS in the U.S. simply because they have a corporate office there, thus the reverse is true too: you can' t apply U.S. law to a subsidiary in Ireland.

    Who owns it is irrelevant; corporations are legal entities of their own, regardless of ownership. Ships owned by, say Americans (most cruise ships for example), are registered in Panama, thus bypassing U.S. Labor laws because who owns them is irrelevant.

    Trust me, you don't want to go there: it will open lawsuits against U.S. firms, under U.S. laws, against the owners of such ships and other corporations that use underage labor, exceed working hours / conditions, etc. in other countries.

    It would basically make International Law obsolete as we know it.

    It appears that the U.S. Government is bent in destroying the American economy while 'preserving' American security.

    --
    Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. - Cardinal Wolsey
    1. Re:re I don't care by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      You can't apply U.S. laws to the world at large, regardless of your 'legal' standing.

      You can apply it to US citizens, no matter where they are in the world. There is plenty of legal precedent for this (you have to pay taxes on money made outside the US, for one example).

      You can also apply it to corporations.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:re I don't care by dilvish_the_damned · · Score: 1

      The motives of MS are fairly clear, they want it to be ordered with no options before they give up. But in the same vein of "it does not matter who said it, as long as it rings true", I see this as a good and true test of the long arm of federal data interrogation.
      Does it really matter why? Their are not that many companies that can do this in a meaningful way. The fact that its Microsoft should not change the result that its being done. I have no particular love for them, but I do applaud them for making this public and tang the stand - even though it probably took thousands of man hours running hundreds of scenarios to come to this conclusion. An entity should be judged by their actions. They seem to be doing this.
      At the same time, I would take this as evidence that MS is starting to see themselves as an underdog in the tech industry. They might not be wrong.

      --
      I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
    3. Re:re I don't care by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      The answer is no, because jurisdiction is territorial. You can't apply Ireland's law to MS in the U.S. simply because they have a corporate office there, thus the reverse is true too: you can' t apply U.S. law to a subsidiary in Ireland.

      And yet Microsoft has no problem trying to apply US patent and copyright laws against foreign companies. The reality here is that if I was the criminal in question and stored the data on my personal computer in Ireland, the US would ask the Irish to sieze the physical computer and turn it over and they would. However, Microsoft isn't the criminal, they are just the email provider who happens to be storing emails related to the criminal activity and happens to store it in Ireland. So, the authroities have issued a warrant to Microsoft for that data.

      Now, if the US was trying to sieze Microsoft's servers in Ireland, that would be different. They are only asking for the emails of a person suspected of a US crime. When this started, it wasn't even known they were stored in Ireland. Microsoft brought that up because they thought that was the only way to keep from turning over a customer's emails.

      I would suspect that if Microsoft prevails, it won't be for long as we will see new laws about data laundering just like happened with money laundering through foreign banks.

    4. Re:re I don't care by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Quick caveat that needs to be made here: the US courts are free to request any data at all from Microsoft, and the onus is (as it should be) on Microsoft to deny the request if it would mean breaching a law. After all, what's the alternative? Have the government first make a request of Microsoft for the locations of where the data is being stored, then tell Microsoft, "hey, we checked, and the laws over there are totally cool with this request, so hand it over"? The system is working how it should: a request is made, and the entity producing the document pushes back when necessary.

      What the government shouldn't be free to do, however, is to compel Microsoft to produce the data once Microsoft has made it clear that doing so will result in a breach of European privacy laws. So far, we're still at the "request" phase, and Microsoft is now pushing back. If the appeals court comes down on the side of the government though, that'd be tragedy of immense proportions.

    5. Re:re I don't care by Yakasha · · Score: 1

      You can't apply U.S. laws to the world at large, regardless of your 'legal' standing.

      If a US Citizen goes elsewhere in the world to commit a crime, they can and do get prosecuted here for that crime. So your statement, as-is, is wrong. US Laws apply to the US, and all of its people (and businesses), regardless of where they are at the moment.

      Many U.S. organizations have presence and pay taxes in many different jurisdictions, making them subject to that particular territory's law.

      Other laws may apply as well, but that does not negate US law. But since you brought up taxes, that is another thing that gets paid here, regardless of where you happen to be or where you earned it. Some nations have treaties with the US that allow you to deduct your local tax burden from your US taxes, but not all, and not necessarily 100% even when a treaty exists.

      Will the U.S. allow some other country to violate U.S. laws because the subsidiary is present, in say, Aman and thus, by extension, the entire organization is subject to Aman's Law?

      The answer is no, because jurisdiction is territorial.

      The answer is actually "LOL what you gonna do about it?!". That is why anybody hacking US computers is an act of war, but the US hacking Iran's without the Constitutionally required Congressional declaration of war, is just business as usual. It is why Obama launched a couple drone missiles into Yemen, killing two US citizens, including a 16 year old citizen and a few other non-US Yemenese, without approval from Yemen's government; and a bunch of SEALs landed in Pakistan without approval and shot and killed bin Laden; while the only apology Yemen or Pakistan got was a big brown middle finger. You're talking like violating the sovereign borders and laws of a foreign nation is something unprecedented.

      Ships owned by, say Americans (most cruise ships for example), are registered in Panama, thus bypassing U.S. Labor laws because who owns them is irrelevant.

      They bypass some US laws because they primarily operate in open waters and we agreed to let them bypass some laws just to get them to come here because Americans like to ride in boats. They don't get to bypass all laws... just some, which are documented.

      Trust me, you don't want to go there: it will open lawsuits against U.S. firms, under U.S. laws, against the owners of such ships and other corporations that use underage labor, exceed working hours / conditions, etc. in other countries.

      It has already become a cost of doing business, like any other, and will be reflected in the price you pay. If the cost becomes too great, they will lobby Congress to change it; or leave the US completely and we will lobby congress to change the laws.

      It would basically make International Law obsolete as we know it.

      Israel finished closing all those illegal settlements in the West Bank yet? International law is one of the longer running jokes on this planet.

    6. Re:re I don't care by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      Will the U.S. allow some other country to violate U.S. laws because the subsidiary is present, in say, Aman and thus, by extension, the entire organization is subject to Aman's Law?

      Unless this is an obscure Lord of the Rings reference, I think you might have meant Oman?

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    7. Re:re I don't care by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      So why do U.S. citizens have to pay tax on overseas income while U.S. corporations don't?

      Corporate tax law is different than individual tax law, and it is fully within the power of congress to make it so corporations don't need to pay taxes on money earned outside the US. Congress can also close such loopholes.

      However, corporations do need to pay taxes on money earned outside the US, just like citizens. Most multi-national corporations have ways of deferring that income through foreign subsidiaries and similar. That way they don't pay taxes until the money comes back into the US. Note that when the money does come back into the US, corporations do pay taxes on it.

      Humans can do this too, start a foreign corporation to hold some of their money so they don't have to pay taxes on it, but that option is mainly used by rich people (which is perhaps why congress hasn't closed that loophole yet).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  8. Globalization by jmd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm suspecting the zeal MS is showing in challenging the US gov't has more to do with laying the groundword of "nation-states" being neutered. This is about power in the future. If they win against the US gov't this is just one more nail in the coffin of the battle to make governments useless. This goes hand in hand with the Trans Pacific and other trade agreements. These things are designed to strip power from government.

    This is just one more step in the march of capitalism that will likely destroy civilization in the long run.

    1. Re:Globalization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would imagine it is laying groundwork for tax inversion.

    2. Re:Globalization by rsborg · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I would imagine it is laying groundwork for tax inversion.

      I already replied in this argument, but this is probably the most insightful comment I've seen on this story. Setting up a very good reason why they should relocate their HQ for tax purposes (i.e., privacy of their files) seems a good PR move to offset any public outcry.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    3. Re:Globalization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No it isn't. That's because the question is one of national sovereignty. It isn't US versus non-US, it is every country versus every other country. So they go and relocate their corporate personhood to one precisely one non-US country, it won't make a bit of difference with respect to the laws of all the other countries that they have offices in.

    4. Re:Globalization by Demena · · Score: 1

      Is this why governments all over the world are selling off the infrastructure?

    5. Re:Globalization by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but I think you're wrong.

      The problem here appears to be that the Irish subsidiary of MS is a wholly owned subsidiary, so MS (the US corporation) has control over it. If MS were an Irish corporation, and the US corporation were a wholly owned subsidiary of it, then the US corporation would not have control over the Irish corporation.

      A secondary problem is that currently the US corporation is being ordered to force the Irish corporation (which it controls) to violate Irish law. Presumably if the ownership were inverted the Irish court would not do some equivalent ruling (being a bit less megalomaniacal). But even if it did something stricktly analogous, the US doesn't protect the data on consumers so there would be no law violated. (Which, of course, means that it's not strictly analogous....analogies are slippery.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    6. Re:Globalization by jader3rd · · Score: 1

      I'm suspecting the zeal MS is showing in challenging the US gov't has more to do with laying the groundword of "nation-states" being neutered. This is about power in the future. If they win against the US gov't this is just one more nail in the coffin of the battle to make governments useless. This goes hand in hand with the Trans Pacific and other trade agreements. These things are designed to strip power from government.

      This is just one more step in the march of capitalism that will likely destroy civilization in the long run.

      Do you think it'll happen by 2077?

  9. This is huge ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 4, Interesting

    People and businesses and governments everywhere will be watching this one.

    If America can force Microsoft to reach out to Ireland for data, then Germany (etc.) can force Microsoft to tunnel into America, right?

    And, as mentioned, people, businesses and governments are already skeptical of the cloud, anyway.

    People, businesses and governments may force "data nationalism" to become the norm.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:This is huge ... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      If America can force Microsoft to reach out to Ireland for data, then Germany (etc.) can force Microsoft to tunnel into America, right?

      Germany can try. Or they can seize all Microsoft assets in Germany, and kick Microsoft out. Argentina recently did exactly that to a company from Spain.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:This is huge ... by jbolden · · Score: 1

      If America can force Microsoft to reach out to Ireland for data, then Germany (etc.) can force Microsoft to tunnel into America, right?

      Probably not. Microsoft is a USA company. OTOH they could do it for SAP Hana customers.

    3. Re:This is huge ... by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      People and businesses and governments everywhere will be watching this one.

      If America can force Microsoft to reach out to Ireland for data, then Germany (etc.) can force Microsoft to tunnel into America, right?

      And, as mentioned, people, businesses and governments are already skeptical of the cloud, anyway.

      People, businesses and governments may force "data nationalism" to become the norm.

      They already can and have been doing so for years. If Microsoft wins, there will quickly be treatise signed with most countries allowing law enforcement to access data of their citizens suspected of criminal activity, just like happened with banking.

    4. Re:This is huge ... by jeti · · Score: 1

      What about daughter companies like the Microsoft Deutschland GmbH? Are they US companies? Can they be compelled to hand over data stored on their European servers?

    5. Re:This is huge ... by jbolden · · Score: 1

      The daughter companies can be forced indirectly. The parent company is obligated to assist in collecting the information. Since the parent company has effective control... What happens in this case with MIOL is that Microsoft USA does the handing over so the MIOL people aren't involved in anyway.

    6. Re:This is huge ... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      They aren't involved in anything except breaking the Europeran data protection laws, you mean. If it's an automated process then whoever set it up that way broke the law, and any manager who allowed the set up to continue also broke the law. And so did the corporation.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    7. Re:This is huge ... by jbolden · · Score: 1

      We both agree the USA court can ask the Irish court to assist.

      In your analogy have Seamus live in a house Bob owns in Dublin. Also Bob pays for the maid who cleans up and thus has legal access to the book.

    8. Re:This is huge ... by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Which since Microsoft announces this would be the clients not Microsoft. Under your agreement with Azure Europe you aren't allowed to use it to store information which it would illegal to export to the United States.

    9. Re: This is huge ... by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Your sentences don't even make sense.

    10. Re: This is huge ... by jbolden · · Score: 1

      There is no hidden clauses anywhere. They have a whole website on security where they discuss this. Nothing remotely hidden about it. The license agreement specifically indicates where you can find this information.

        Moreover the customers using Azure i.e. the developers are expected to understand this, they aren't end customers. There is no anti-export clause of Azure it is a pro-export clause. When it is uploaded to Azure you have already told Microsoft that it is legal to transport the information to the USA.

      The people using Azure are exporting their data to the USA. You may not like that, but that is the status of the data. Same as if they sent it to a USA hosting provider directly.

  10. Agreeing with Gov? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one agreeing with the government on this? Companies shouldn't be able to hide from their government by transferring something to another country.

    Transfer all financial transactions, HR transactions, monopoly collusions, and well everything through a cloud service based in some push-over country and suddenly you're excused from every local law because the data isn't stored here? That shouldn't be allowed to happen. It'd be like a weekend tourist site where for $99.99 you can fuck, torture, and kill a person then go back home to your family. Not all the tourists might make it back, but hey, mistakes happen. Sure a few places like that exist in the word, but they aren't legal and shouldn't be.

    1. Re:Agreeing with Gov? by jmd · · Score: 1

      I agree. While the US gov't has a lot to account for, the truth multinationals take advantage of this scenario in any number of arenas. Tax invesrion and as you sugest, they might run emails that directly violate US laws onto foreign servers to exempt them from courts.

      The truth is..we are laying the ground work for globalization. If governments cannot hold a multinational corporation accountable for any number of situations, who can?

    2. Re:Agreeing with Gov? by jbolden · · Score: 1

      No you aren't. The government is absolutely right. The threat to the functioning of the rule of law posed by the European position far outweigh the advantages of Microsoft getting a few extra sales for Azure.

    3. Re:Agreeing with Gov? by rescendent · · Score: 1

      No this is a completely different situation. Microsoft is not being asked for their own company's data; they are being asked for someone else's data, which is hosted by a foreign company on foreign soil (though MS USA is the owner of MS Ireland). Also as they are asking for emails, they are not asking for the container, but for them to search and disseminate the contents of said container.

      This would be more like a US court asking as US owner of a building in a foreign country which was rented by a foreign bank, to go in and open one of the bank's safe deposit boxes and search through it, find some items and ship them back to the US without the bank or the owner of the deposit box's permission.

  11. Stop the US-centric crap already by msobkow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The US needs to wake up to the fact that they are not "world law." Their law ends at the boundaries of the US.

    It doesn't matter if the email account in question is owned by an American. It doesn't matter if the servers are indirectly owned by an American company.

    They are in a foreign jurisdiction and the US government needs to go through the judicial and legal processes of that jurisdiction if they want access to the data.

    Quite frankly, fuck the "war on terror", the "war on drugs", and every other tired old excuse the US government and it's subservient courts use to try to justify shoving the US legal system down the world's throat.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:Stop the US-centric crap already by msobkow · · Score: 2

      The US could take a page from the Russians on the whole issue of legal jurisdiction. The Russians have mandated that all corporate and personal data hosted by "the cloud" must be on servers on Russian soil so there is no question of legal jurisdiction when they're trying to investigate and prosecute a case involving a Russian entity.

      The US and every other nation should be doing the same thing: mandating that the data owned by their citizens and corporations be hosted in country so that it can't be "hidden" by legal loopholes of the jurisdiction where the data resides.

      But, hey, the US cloud operators don't want to invest in that many offshore nodes/clusters, and they're the ones paying off Congress and the Senate, so I doubt we'll see such sane legislation passed in my lifetime. Far easier to try to shove your legal system down international throats, eh?

      Pffft. I fart towards the south...

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    2. Re:Stop the US-centric crap already by dave562 · · Score: 1

      This is already being done. I mentioned it in a previous post on this topic. I work for a company that does legal technology in both America and Europe. We had to stand up separate infrastructure in Europe to host data for our Europeans clients. They do not want their data coming anywhere near American servers.

    3. Re:Stop the US-centric crap already by jbolden · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't. Microsoft is a US entity. They aren't European. If you want European law then keep your data on European servers. Europe has a rich collection of local cloud providers. But you use Azure you are exporting your data to the USA.

      The USA doesn't shove their laws down other countries throats. You don't want USA law don't buy USA products.

    4. Re:Stop the US-centric crap already by quenda · · Score: 2

      No it doesn't. Microsoft is a US entity. They aren't European.

      MS is a multi-national. They could move their HQ to Ireland next week, for tax purposes, and not much would change.

      The USA doesn't shove their laws down other countries throats. You don't want USA law don't buy USA products.

      As slashdot readers should know, the USA frequently shoves its copyright laws for a start. The problem is not so much in buying USA products, as
      "If you want to be able to sell anything in the US market, here are a bunch of laws we need you to adopt before getting our 'free' trade agreement. "

    5. Re:Stop the US-centric crap already by msobkow · · Score: 2

      Nonsense. Microsoft is a multi-national conglomerate with seperate corporations/business entities scattered around the world. Those seperate entites are not US businesses, though they are owned by a US business, they are subject to the laws of the jurisdictions they operate in, not US law.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    6. Re:Stop the US-centric crap already by DworkinLV · · Score: 1

      You do realize that this is ALREADY the case. The data is sitting on European Servers in Ireland, not US Servers in the US. If Microsoft gives up the data, they will be in breach of European law and subject to sanction in Europe.

      --
      Browsing without an adblocker is like fucking without a condom - Mal-2
    7. Re:Stop the US-centric crap already by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The Russians have mandated that all corporate and personal data hosted by "the cloud" must be on servers on Russian soil so there is no question of legal jurisdiction when they're trying to investigate and prosecute a case involving a Russian entity.

      There is no question of legal jurisdiction here, either. The USA cannot demand the data from the foreign nation, at least not with any weight of law. However, it can demand it from an officer of a corporation based on American soil, and it can hold that officer to be in contempt of court and imprison and/or fine them so long as they do not present it. The fifth amendment may or may not apply if the goal is to find malfeasance on the part of the corporation, and not the individual in question. Obviously IANAL, but you don't seem to be an expert in international law either.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Stop the US-centric crap already by msobkow · · Score: 1

      Unless the officer in question is also an officer of the foreign division/corporation, I disagree completely.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    9. Re:Stop the US-centric crap already by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Unless the officer in question is also an officer of the foreign division/corporation, I disagree completely.

      All that seems relevant is whether the officer in question is in a position to produce the data.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Stop the US-centric crap already by jbolden · · Score: 1

      I get where the data is. MOIL is owned by a Bermuda company that is owned by a Nevada corporation that is owned by a Washington State corporation called Microsoft. Microsoft of Washington State as the owner of MOIL has obligations to keep MOIL compliant with USA law.

      As far as sanctions. Microsoft has already said unambiguously that agreeing to store data on Azure is exporting it. Azure should not be used for data which it is illegal to export to the USA. The clients not Microsoft would be sanctioned.

    11. Re:Stop the US-centric crap already by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Under USA law the corporate parent is responsible for the properties they own including foreign subsidiaries. USA law doesn't allow companies to go around committing crimes because their foreign subsidiary did it.

    12. Re: Stop the US-centric crap already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Under European law, the US law does not apply in Ireland and all companies operating there must comply to Irish/European laws. Not US laws.

    13. Re: Stop the US-centric crap already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      MS Ireland is obligated to comply to European laws. Nothing else. Handing over the data to an US judge IS illegal according to European law. They will break the law. They will be prosecuted and sentenced. Your cute US law is irrelevant.

    14. Re:Stop the US-centric crap already by msobkow · · Score: 1

      Precisely the point. Unless they are an officer of the foreign corporation, they are not in a position of authority to produce the data. They have to go through channels.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    15. Re:Stop the US-centric crap already by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Unless the officer in question is also an officer of the foreign division/corporation, I disagree completely.

      All that seems relevant is whether the officer in question is in a position to produce the data.

      Well, in practice all that really is relevant is whether the US government thinks they might be able to produce the data, and whether they can get their hands on him.

      Everything else makes for great moral debate, but if you're standing on US soil and the US government really thinks that you have something that they want, then you're going to be in for a world of hurt if you don't produce the goods or convince them that you don't have them.

    16. Re:Stop the US-centric crap already by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Precisely the point. Unless they are an officer of the foreign corporation, they are not in a position of authority to produce the data. They have to go through channels.

      Right, and those channels are the officer's problem, not a US court's.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:Stop the US-centric crap already by quenda · · Score: 2

      They would lose all the USA government contracts.

      You think they do not get gov't contracts in other countries now? And there would still be a US subsidiary for that purpose if needed.

      That doesn't apply to much to Europe as Europe has reasonably copyright laws.

      You'd think "life plus 50 years" would be reasonable enough, but the US has been strong-arming countries to extent copyright 20 years. (until the next extension)

    18. Re:Stop the US-centric crap already by jbolden · · Score: 1

      And there would still be a US subsidiary for that purpose if needed.

      A US company is considered to be under FOCI (foreign control or influence) when a foreign interest has the power, direct or indirect, whether or not exercised, to direct or decide matters affecting the management or operations of the company in a manner which may result in unauthorized access to classified information or may affect adversely the performance of classified contracts. Such a company in ineligible for any facility security clearance (FCL). A US subsidiary won't cut it.

      You'd think "life plus 50 years" would be reasonable enough, but the US has been strong-arming countries to extent copyright 20 years. (until the next extension)

      Point taken. But they aren't applying massive pressure to Europe like they do in other countries i.e. no imports. They are being obnoxious and trying to change the law.

      Let me ask you... European governments are strong arming various USA states on the death penalty by both enforcing patents and not selling drugs. What are your feelings on this?

    19. Re:Stop the US-centric crap already by quenda · · Score: 1

      Let me ask you... European governments are strong arming various USA states on the death penalty by both enforcing patents and not selling drugs. What are your feelings on this?

      Hardly the same - they just don't want the US states using their *medicines* to kill. Its not like they are threatening tariffs on Texas exports.
      You could probably shoot the prisoners with EU-made bullets, as those are designed to kill, not heal.

    20. Re: Stop the US-centric crap already by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Under European law, the US law does not apply in Ireland and all companies operating there must comply to Irish/European laws. Not US laws.

      European law does not specify that US law does not apply to US entities operating in Ireland, and I challenge you find a reference for that. The closest you'll find is the vague concept of national sovereignty, which limits the US from carrying out governmental operations on foreign citizens or in foreign territories.

      Really, Microsoft, a US company with foreign subsidiaries, is responsible for following US law and Irish/European laws simultaneously. If they conflict, then it's up to Microsoft (the entity who entered into a situation where they're violating some country's laws) to deal with the consequences. This whole situation is a result of Microsoft voluntarily maintaining US incorporation, wholly owning foreign subsidiaries, and wading into muddy international law.

      Are you arguing that under European law, European companies (through wholly owned foreign subsidiaries) could engage in any activity at all outside of Europe and have no accountability for their actions in Europe? That a European company could engage in human trafficking, summary executions, child prostitution, etc and Europeans would not pursue legal remedies if the actions were legal in the foreign countries?

      [In fact, under EU law, European citizens can be criminally charged for actions committed outside of Europe which are legal in the visited country (see child sex tourism laws). So you're saying that the US applying its laws to overseas US entities is overreach, while being alright with the EU doing the same.]

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    21. Re: Stop the US-centric crap already by jbolden · · Score: 1

      The data is not 'in the community". That's how Microsoft is getting around this. When it is uploaded to Azure it is already exported.

    22. Re:Stop the US-centric crap already by jbolden · · Score: 1

      They data is not on European servers. It is on American servers in Europe. That is unambiguously specified in the Azure agreement. Moreover those servers are not operated in Ireland. Some of the operators are Irish. But their are American operators.

      MOIL does not run Azure.

    23. Re: Stop the US-centric crap already by chihowa · · Score: 1

      The law you quoted states that the laws of Member States apply to data handling within those Member States, which I don't think anyone was arguing against. Of course EU/Irish law applies to Microsoft's Irish subsidiary, who is operating in Ireland on Irish data. In fact, sections (56) to (66) describe the exceptions to the prohibition on transfer to third countries, including transfers for settling contracts or legal claims.

      Secondly, as a US corporation, Microsoft and all of its wholly own subsidiaries are also subject to US law. This is the same in the EU, as shown in the directive you quoted above. The directive you quoted does not say that "that US law does not apply to US entities operating in Ireland".

      Checkmate.

      You're a little overeager there, sport.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  12. They are not defying an order by debrain · · Score: 5, Informative

    Notwithstanding some really rare cases (e.g. interlocutory), which this does not appear to be, an order is unenforceable while under appeal.

    Doing what an order asks is grounds for dismissal of an appeal, notwithstanding cases where acts are made explicitly with the agreement of the parties and sometimes affirmation of the court to be without prejudice to the right of appeal. However in cases of disclosure of information, the disclosure is generally a form of prejudice (since it cannot be undone) that undermines appellate entitlement.

    So it is wrong to say they are are defying an order. They are doing what everyone does on appeal.

    If they were to defy an order they could be held in contempt of court. That would be an interesting story.

    1. Re:They are not defying an order by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Notwithstanding some really rare cases (e.g. interlocutory), which this does not appear to be, an order is unenforceable while under appeal.

      Doing what an order asks is grounds for dismissal of an appeal, notwithstanding cases where acts are made explicitly with the agreement of the parties and sometimes affirmation of the court to be without prejudice to the right of appeal. However in cases of disclosure of information, the disclosure is generally a form of prejudice (since it cannot be undone) that undermines appellate entitlement.

      So it is wrong to say they are are defying an order. They are doing what everyone does on appeal.

      If they were to defy an order they could be held in contempt of court. That would be an interesting story.

      Actually, the judge lifted the freeze on the court order, so Microsoft is in fact defying it. Microsoft states they plan to appeal, but until they do appeal, they are still defying it.

    2. Re:They are not defying an order by debrain · · Score: 1

      Actually, the judge lifted the freeze on the court order, so Microsoft is in fact defying it. Microsoft states they plan to appeal, but until they do appeal, they are still defying it.

      A bit late to reply, sorry, but just a note: In almost all jurisdictions a Judge has no power to vary the stay on enforcement of an order between the time of issuance of that order and the expiry of the time to appeal. This is a fundamental principle of justice.

      The power to govern the appeal process rests exclusively with an appellate Court itself (notwithstanding some extremely unusual jurisdictional crossovers, or collateral attack, neither of which being the case here).

      The Judge may have lifted *some* freeze on a court order, but they almost certainly did not vary the stay of enforcement pending a possible appeal.

  13. Thoughts by DaMattster · · Score: 2

    This isn't altruistic of Microsoft but I'm happy they are putting up a fight just the same.

  14. Since when did Microsoft become a EU company by rsborg · · Score: 2, Informative

    The US legal system starts and ENDS at the US borders.

    Microsoft is headquartered and incorporated in the US and thus subject to US law. QED.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    1. Re:Since when did Microsoft become a EU company by dave562 · · Score: 1

      The legal question is not so much where the corporation is based, but who owns the data that they have been entrusted with.

    2. Re:Since when did Microsoft become a EU company by bloodhawk · · Score: 2

      The question is not about whether they are subject to US law, they are, it is whether US can tell a US based company to ignore another countries laws. The argument here is that what the US court is demanding isn't legal and the US doesn't have the legal authority to do.

    3. Re:Since when did Microsoft become a EU company by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      QED.

      Quod erat demonstrandum means "which had to be demonstrated". You failed to state what you were demonstrating, and then failed to actually demonstrate anything (other than your use of the composition/division fallacy).

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    4. Re:Since when did Microsoft become a EU company by TubeSteak · · Score: 2

      Microsoft is headquartered and incorporated in the US and thus subject to US law.

      The data in dispute is not subject to US law.
      Microsoft Ireland Operations Limited leases and operates the data center in question.
      A US judge has no jurisdiction.
      QED

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    5. Re:Since when did Microsoft become a EU company by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Microsoft is headquartered and incorporated in the US and thus subject to US law.

      Yep. That's completely true. So if there were some data held on a server in the EU, and a judge decided it was relevant to a lawsuit and demanded that it be presented, they could reasonably hold some representative of the corporation to be in contempt of court until such time as they produced the data in question. However, it would not actually establish any entitlement to that data, nor make it not a violation of various laws if they were to seize it be force.

      QED.

      QED, what you have said is irrelevant.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Since when did Microsoft become a EU company by Lesrahpem · · Score: 1

      Microsoft is headquartered and incorporated in the US and thus subject to US law. QED.

      Consider this scenario: I am a US citizen who owns a house in Ireland. I commit a crime (in the US), say selling drugs. Can a US judge issue a warrant to search my house in Ireland? Let's say I am convicted. Part of the ruling is to have all of my property connected to the crime seized (by the US DOJ). Can they seize my house in Ireland?

    7. Re:Since when did Microsoft become a EU company by Lesrahpem · · Score: 1

      Or consider this: I am in Ireland and I steal a phone from someone at the pub. I fly back home to the US. The Irish authorities are able to determine who I am. Can an Irish judge issue a warrant to search my house in the US?

    8. Re:Since when did Microsoft become a EU company by mrbester · · Score: 1

      Microsoft Ireland (which owns the servers the data is stored on) is headquartered and incorporated in Ireland and thus subject to Ireland's laws. QE fucking D back at you.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    9. Re:Since when did Microsoft become a EU company by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      When did they become an EU company... perhaps when they set up servers and other operations in EU territory?

    10. Re:Since when did Microsoft become a EU company by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      The legal question is not so much where the corporation is based, but who owns the data that they have been entrusted with.

      The PRACTICAL question isn't where the corporation is based, or who owns the data they have been entrusted with, but rather with how much money Microsoft has tied up in US assets. The courts can confiscate as much of those as they want until MS complies. Foreign governments can do the same.

      When you travel through or own property in some jurisdiction, you're effectively within their control to the extent that you're unwilling to part with it.

    11. Re:Since when did Microsoft become a EU company by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      The question is not about whether they are subject to US law, they are, it is whether US can tell a US based company to ignore another countries laws. The argument here is that what the US court is demanding isn't legal and the US doesn't have the legal authority to do.

      In practice, the law is whatever the government says it is. It is quite possible that MS will prevail on appeal. If it doesn't, then they'll really be between a rock and a hard place, and companies will basically have to look at incompatible national laws and choose which countries they'll base their operations in. MS would not be suffering this problem if they didn't own so much property in both the US and EU, and desire to sell their products in both markets.

    12. Re:Since when did Microsoft become a EU company by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Consider this scenario: I am a US citizen who owns a house in Ireland. I commit a crime (in the US), say selling drugs. Can a US judge issue a warrant to search my house in Ireland? Let's say I am convicted. Part of the ruling is to have all of my property connected to the crime seized (by the US DOJ). Can they seize my house in Ireland?

      Answer A: Yes, the judge can issue a warrant. On the other hand, the Irish guardia will tell any US police officer turning up at the house in Ireland with that warrant to piss off, possibly arresting them for trespassing or burglary.

      Answer B: In my opinion, yes. It will be difficult if the person has debtors in Ireland. Mortgage, unpaid bills etc. will likely come first.

    13. Re:Since when did Microsoft become a EU company by Lesrahpem · · Score: 1

      Answer A: Yes, the judge can issue a warrant. On the other hand, the Irish guardia will tell any US police officer turning up at the house in Ireland with that warrant to piss off, possibly arresting them for trespassing or burglary. Answer B: In my opinion, yes. It will be difficult if the person has debtors in Ireland. Mortgage, unpaid bills etc. will likely come first.

      I agree with A, it makes sense. B, not so much. I don't see how the US could seize real estate on foreign soil through a court action. They could try, but I don't see Ireland (in this example) agreeing to let them have the land.

  15. Profit centric, not customer centric by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

    > Let there be no doubt that Microsoft's actions in this controversial case are customer-centric.

    Nonsense. It is protecting their millions, even billions of dollars of international business, especially for their hosted email services, to make a public display of fighting this court order. It also helps protect their US business: publicly refusing a US order helps provide a history of customer privacy awareness when they try to resist a Chinese or Russian or EU court order for US held data.

    And this is not an NSA "Patriot Act" order, which don't require judges and can be far, far broader than a typical search warrant or subpoena.

  16. Maybe... by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

    Maybe the US should suspend all Microsoft contracts it has while Microsoft refuses to comply with the court order.

    1. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Large corporations write the law, therefore can break them without consequence. That's why they pay off (oops, I mean lobby) politicians.

  17. Yahoo and MS quickly turn over to Chinese gov. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    I wonder if they will now turn it over to ISIS and AQ if they demand it?

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  18. code reviews are perfect and impossible ? by raymorris · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > Russian FSB has actually wrung Windows code reviews out of Microsoft so if they didn't find any back door in that code I'd say there are none to find...

    So it's entirely possible to do a code review of an entire operating system and be sure that there are no vulnerabilities?
    Of course, you can't be sure that something as simple as an ssl library is safe, but an entire OS is no problem. Despite the fact that there's no way to know if the code you're reviewing matches the installed binaries.

    > there is always the option of doing a personal code review of what is it now, 200 million plus? lines of Linux source code and then compiling your own Slackware
    Yep, that'd be even easier than the Windows code review, especially since thousands of other people have already done some initial review for you. You can then compile it yourself and know that the source code matches the binary, unlike Windows.

    (The trojaned compiler attack is fairly trivial to defeat, so don't bother going there .)

    1. Re:code reviews are perfect and impossible ? by Zumbs · · Score: 1

      Despite the fact that there's no way to know if the code you're reviewing matches the installed binaries.

      Even if the binaries were created with the unmodified binaries reviewed, you would need to review the compiler binaries as well.

      --
      The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
    2. Re:code reviews are perfect and impossible ? by Zumbs · · Score: 1

      "unmodified binaries reviewed" should have been "unmodified source files reviewed". Sorry about that.

      --
      The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
    3. Re:code reviews are perfect and impossible ? by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      Soon, you're writing your own OS by manually inserting each byte.

    4. Re:code reviews are perfect and impossible ? by raymorris · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Pick two or three compilers from different sources. It's okay if they are all trojaned.
      Compile each compiler with the other two compilers. Unless they are all trojaned in precisely the same way, including exactly the right cross-trojans for each other, you can see which one(s) can be trusted.

      https://www.schneier.com/blog/...

      Other defenses are also available. If you don't have the source to the compiler, you write a loop that automatically builds up the program line by line from "return 1". If adding one line of ansi C code adds several kilobytes of binary, there's a problem. Inspect the newly added portion using your choice of tool.

  19. Want compliance? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Revoke their damn charter. Then watch how fast they cough it up.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  20. US laws ---- vs the world and blowback by doginthewoods · · Score: 4, Informative

    The US is in a weak position, because in order to create a uniform standard of international law to address this sort of thing, the US will have to work as an equal with other countries who are already suspicious of US motives. The US knows this, which is why they are trying to bulldoze their way through this. The issue here is international law, and the laws of other countries involved. The HUGE problem is this: If MS is forced to turn over the data that is in another country (and possibly causing MS to violate the laws of that country) , then another country, using exactly the same ruling, could force a US company to obey its laws. Here's and example: Russia finds a worm , virus, whatever in some software that it's government is using, and that their data was stolen. Russian law allows confiscation of all computer hardware and the people involved held in jail until trial in Russia. The Russian government decides that the infection was present in software that was on the computer at the time of purchase, and as a result that company must have Russia's data, so now Russia can send its enforcers over here and confiscate..... Ooops. What MS is doing is trying to prevent a very shortsighted US ruling of opening a Pandora's box that can be used against the US.

    --
    Republican leadership = Idiocracy
    1. Re:US laws ---- vs the world and blowback by q4Fry · · Score: 1

      This is my expectation of what would happen if a non-U.S. government [subpoena]ed records stored in the U.S. belonging to some company:

      If company says "yes:" Government obviously gets the records.
      If, however, company says "no, these are out of your jurisdiction," the government can try to do one of the following:
      - Convince the U.S. government to compel the company to turn over the records
      - Fine the business
      - Revoke business's permit to operate in the country
      - Seize the local portion of the business

      What other recourse does the that government have?
      - It can't send agents to the U.S. to physically seize the records. That would be all kinds of hell for it. U.S. pols would go apeshit.

      Correspondingly, Microsoft is hoping here that it falls into the "too big to fail" category and that it can bluster itself out of the present situation. If M$ can convince Uncle Sam that he has more to lose by the dissolution of M$ than by the exposure of the records, Microsoft "wins."

    2. Re:US laws ---- vs the world and blowback by q4Fry · · Score: 1

      And then, a few days later, we have the Yahoo story break, where we find out that you're fined a quarter mil every day you stand your ground...

  21. However... by Demena · · Score: 2

    Microsoft US does not control the data. A separate company (Microsoft Ireland) does. Now it may be a fully owned subsidiary but it is still a separate legal entity. The question here is not what people think it is. Does the judge have the right to demand that Microsoft US instruct Microsoft Ireland to break Irish law. The answer to is no because the data is not in the possession or control of Microsoft US. If Microsoft US were to make the request of Microsoft Ireland the correct (and required) response from Microsoft Ireland would be "Sorry, we cannot do that even though you own us.". So since Microsoft US does not control the data the request from the judge would be invalid. Microsoft US cannot comply with the directive since they do not have direct access in their own right.

    1. Re:However... by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Good clarification. Thanks. It doesn't change what should happen from the situation I described, but it does add another wrinkle for if things don't go that way and the US decides to try and compel Microsoft into action, since it'd be an even worse situation than I had originally realized, given the precedent they'd be setting.

    2. Re:However... by Demena · · Score: 1

      The real issue at stake here is the very notion of cloud storage versus location storage. Not just laws and controls but existence. If I pump something into the cloud then it should be a cloud and where the data actually resides should be obscure at best. I would have thought that best practice for a cloud supplier would be to have everything RAIDed around the planet. Multiple redundancy, only fragments on any particular server.

    3. Re:However... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Why shouldn't a US judge demand that Microsoft US issue an order to Microsoft Ireland that would violate Irish law? In that case, Microsoft Ireland can refuse, citing the appropriate laws, and Microsoft US can show that to the US judge. A US judge should not have to know all relevant law everywhere in the world.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    4. Re:However... by Demena · · Score: 1

      Why? You ask me this? Shouldn't you be asking them? A US judge cannot order Microsoft Ireland to do anything unless it trades in his jurisdiction. Which I don't believe it does. Why should not a judge be required to understand everyone else's law? Every other country is required to understand the US's. All I ask for is reciprocity there. Oh, when are you going to turn over those CIA agents that broke international, Italian and US law by renditions? With a US government willing to kidnap and kill those that it chooses to the US cannot be considered a country that respects the laws of others.

    5. Re:However... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      No. The situation is that a US court orders Microsoft US to do something. Why would the judge be responsible for knowing that following that order might involve illegal activities in other countries? It would presumably be up to Microsoft US to keep track of that, and to so inform the judge. The judge should then take that into account.

      Of course, judges can be highly unreasonable. It's a necessary fault of the system.

      BTW, if you send people over here to collect those CIA agents and "render" them back to Italy, I'll be happy to cheer them on. I'm not happy about that.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  22. Re:More accuratly by Demena · · Score: 1

    The data in question is held by Microsoft Ireland and fully owned subsidiary but separate legal entity. The judge cannot require Microsoft Ireland to produce the data as it is not a party to the case and as a foreign company must hold to the law of the territory where it is registered. So Microsoft US neither hods nor controls the data so the request to produce it is moot.

  23. You misunderstand by aepervius · · Score: 1

    They are not seizing the data directly , jsut like they would not go crack the safe themself in europe, they are compelling the company under perjury to provide the data themselves in an US court, just like they could compel an american on US soil to provide the content of a safe in europe. This is slightly different because US judge have sway over an US company over US soil. No european juridiction is involved.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  24. They still need to orchestrate a show and tell ! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2

    Doesn't Parallel Construction cover this already?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

    True

    But they (meaning NSA + Microsoft + US Department of Justice) still need to orchestrate a very public show and tell, something that the whole world can see, something that tells the whole world that Microsoft has BIG AND STRONG BACKBONE, so much so that they dare to stand against the US Department of Justice, the NSA, and so on ...
     
    From TFA---

    "Let there be no doubt that Microsoft's actions in this controversial case are customer-centric. The firm isn't just standing up to the US government on moral principles. It's now defying a federal court order "

    Ain't you so glad now that Microsoft has finally becomes a company with "MORAL PRINCIPLES"???

    TFA is nothing but a propaganda piece, and /. has become a willing partner in the act of spreading Pro-Microsoft propagandum

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  25. boil it down and it sounds like this by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    "giant evil corporation wont give email to giant evil government"

    I doubt anybody gives a shit besides a few Microsoft fanboys and a few government sycophants

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  26. Not the first time by bluegutang · · Score: 1

    I wonder where Microsoft learned that they can ignore what the law says about handing over emails.

  27. Maybe MS Should Ask... by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

    ...Who is John Galt?

    Along with many other US companies and businesses as the US becomes an ever-more hostile and expensive place to base your business in.

    Maybe MS will join the "inversion"-stampede of businesses fleeing the US for friendlier locales.

    Once again the US government loads up the trusty foot-gun with its' hubris.

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  28. Lol by Demena · · Score: 1

    An Ad hominem. Your admission of defeat is accepted. And I wasn't even competing.

  29. The responses are amusing by msobkow · · Score: 1

    It's funny how many of the responses try to justify the US jack-booting all over the laws of foreign nations.

    Zeig Heil, Mein Fuhrer!

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  30. I suspect there is reasonable cause by jopsen · · Score: 1

    The government could almost certainly get this data by going through the proper procedures in Ireland.

    Maybe not. If the Irish government caves in to American pressure

    How does this have anything to do with the Irish government, it doesn't control the Irish courts. Anyways, more likely than not the US government is trying to establish a precedence; and when doing so they're probably smart enough to use a case where they have "probable cause" for a search warrant.
    Nobody have debated those merits, so if presented in an Irish court they might grant a search warrant...

  31. Borg by gslin · · Score: 1

    We are the Borg. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Resistance is futile.

  32. they are just beating up the government by pupsocket · · Score: 1

    This same line -- shifting the discussion to the long legal process -- was identical in the prelude to savaging Federal Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson and overturning years of defeat in their trial for anticompetitive practices.

    Microsoft won't accede to the power of the law. That's all. It has nothing to do with Microsoft's policy toward customers, though they'll say anything.

  33. Re:They still need to orchestrate a show and tell by anyGould · · Score: 2

    Ain't you so glad now that Microsoft has finally becomes a company with "MORAL PRINCIPLES"???

    Technically true, though - if you define "protecting next-quarter profits" and "not wanting every country they do business in demanding the same favors" as moral principles.

    From Microsoft's chair, they have no choice but to fight this - how many non-US countries and corporations are going to subscribe to Office365 and other MS-cloud services if it's publicly known that MS will give your information to a foreign government?

  34. The Future looks Bad by nesdave1 · · Score: 1

    If Microsoft goes down, and it will if the order is successful, they are doomed. The best they could do is shut the door and come back as another entity. No one will trust them as a confidential source, many companies will collapse with Microsoft's credibility destroyed. That's not entirely true, it would be a great place to spread rumors. The scene would look like Mad Magazine's Spy vs. Spy. Maybe that's what the feds want.

  35. Worked before by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    They already used the same strategy on individuals. They demanded other counties banks hand over information on any americans, and if they refused, would not be hit with huge tariffs to do business in the US. Countries and Banks caved. Much of the information being access either won't be americans either. The US did this to try and find individual tax evaders.

    This is pretty much the same thing as that but with Corporations. The telling tale will be if they will back it up, as the US government is run by corporations who may not like this tact. Individuals are easier.

  36. Re:They still need to orchestrate a show and tell by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    From Microsoft's chair, they have no choice but to fight this - how many non-US countries and corporations are going to subscribe to Office365 and other MS-cloud services if it's publicly known that MS will give your information to a foreign government?

    I agree with your logic. But NO SANE organisation is going to use a system that requires them to store confidential data in any location other than on their own servers.

    Which doesn't preclude there being many insane, or foolish, or bamboozled, organisations out there.

    I recall that Google did a line of "Google-in-a-box" servers a while ago that would plug into your (intra-)network and would go off to index it (configurable), but keep the index physically in your data centre. I wouldn't be surprised if Micro$loth had done something similar with Orifice365 - a local server which your (intra-)net users log into, but might get patches etc from a MS server on a configurable schedule.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  37. Re:They still need to orchestrate a show and tell by FuegoFuerte · · Score: 1

    You're aware that all the services of Office365 started out as box products, and are still available that way, right? Microsoft doesn't provide the server, but they readily provide the software. It's just expensive and a PITA to maintain, which is why people outsource to Microsoft where several hundred people work full-time to keep those services running as reliably as possible.

    There's no reasonable way you could provide all the services of Office365 on a single local server for any company of reasonably large size, and even if you had a few servers you'd completely lose the local and geo redundancy features. The ability to have an entire datacenter go offline and only suffer a brief blip in services is something that very few companies have the money or the knowledge to implement themselves.

  38. Re: They still need to orchestrate a show and tell by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
    I stopped using M$ stuff myself at all after the train wreck that was Vista. I don't know if that was before or after the Office 365 stuff arrived, since typical network capability for my work locations then was a 256kbps link shared between 30 people on-shift and 70 off-shift or asleep. I doubt that would have been adequate for live use of an Office-like thing.

    These days I use whatever email thing the client provides, my in-house software, and PDF most documents that other people need. After that, it's my choice of tools.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"