Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Continues To Resist US Warrant For Irish Data
Bruce66423 writes: Microsoft is back in court over the claim by the U.S. authorities that because it is a U.S.-based company, it can be ordered to ignore the rules of the countries it's operating in. "If the U.S. government is permitted to serve warrants on tech companies in the United States and obtain people's emails in any country, it will open the floodgate for other countries to serve warrants on tech companies for the private communications of American citizens that are stored in the United States in a data center owned by a foreign company," said Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith. Apple and other tech companies are fighting back as well. Actually, the U.S. firms may be missing a trick here; because the U.S. government charges a far higher rate of corporation tax than others do, U.S. companies are at a disadvantage. So it seems to make sense for the tech firms in the firing line to use this harassment as an excuse to move their domicile overseas... nothing to do with the tax advantages, honest! We're making a principled stand to resist government encroachment.
... just how many of these "hacker" groups actually work for the governments of the world and are getting what they want through the the hackers...
I agree with Microsoft here. On this issue, they are fighting the good fight.
True but I expect that there is a strong financial incentive behind it. If the US government compels them to turn over the data in contravention of local laws it will not absolve their responsibility and culpability under those laws. Hence they will also most certainly get sued for damages by the people whose data they have illegally turned over as well as end up facing criminal fines for violating privacy laws.
From the article, the Feds maintain that ""With the benefits of corporate citizenship in the United States come corresponding responsibilities..." Now to me "corporate citizenship" sounded like an odd concept. But I guess in this day and age when Corporations are treated like other citizens (can vote with their wallet) then maybe it's not so alien a concept. It's interesting that the Feds focused on the corporation's citizenship, rather than say the citizenship of the C-level executives or other employees that have access to the data (whom they could presumably go after as well). It begs the question, what *are* benefits of being a "corporate citizen" of the US? It's not for the low taxes, as others have pointed out. If this is the stance that the US is going to adopt ("This is a US corporation so our laws take precedence over other countries' laws") then it makes sense for companies to shop around for the best county to become a citizen of.
They should start selling beer in the US to 16 year olds and say "We are a Belgian company, so we abide to the Belgian laws, now fuck off."
They should start doing that in dry counties.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Even a corporation were to move their domicile overseas, the US government could still argue that the corporation should be subject to US laws because they operate in the US (as well). However, if complying with law in the US means violating data protection laws of another country, we have a problem. The legal avenue that the US govt should really be pursuing is entering some sort of "data extradition" treaty with Ireland. Stop harassing the corporations, dammit!
There are good arguments on both sides of this issue. One thing that should be understood is that the idea that US citizens have to obey the laws of the US does NOT require them to break the laws in other countries. The argument that this puts companies in an impossible position is deeply flawed, because it's actually the same as this argument :
I want to murder someone. ...
It's illegal the murder someone with poison.
It's illegal to murder someone with a knife.
It's illegal to murder someone with an ax.
Oh poor me, they've made it so there is no legal way to do what I want to do!
The obvious answer is of course "don't murder at all".
Similarly, if there is no legal way to do cloud storage of financial records in both the US and Germany at the same time, then legally you can't provide such a service. It's not an impossible position, it simply means that can't conveniently do exactly what they want to do.
What WOULD be legal would be to have an exclusive contract with a spinoff company called MsCloudEU , which operates in the EU and follows EU laws.
Capitalism is neither good or bad. It is inanimate "thing". People are good or bad. Most people act good most of the time. Some people don't. Some people act "legal" but are bad, some people act "illegal" but are otherwise good.
The problem is, we have legal system being built on "emotion" rather than on facts. Gay Marriage is a great example. Can anyone tell me where in the constitution the Federal Government has a right to force people to accept contracts between two unrelated people? This has noting to do with homosexuality at all, it has to do with the government defining who can and cannot enter into a contract. And unless I can marry my Mom or Daughter or Brother, or two wives or .... then by definition, the government STILL is defining marriage. And if the government can define marriage, then it has every right to define it any way it wants. Period.
However, since EMOTION is ruling here, and Homosexuals are all emotional about re-defining marriage, our legal system has started to collapse under such silly emotional arguments.
BTW, "hate" is an emotion, so if you label me a hater, then you're making my case for me.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Look no further than companies doing "double irish" tax evasion.
It is not "tax evasion" if it is legal. It is absurd to make something legal, and then complain when corporations do it. If you don't like our tax laws, then complain to your congressman, not about Microsoft.
See, Microsoft has incorporated separate legal entities in those countries. They pretty much have to.
And, guess what? They still have to follow the same damned laws.
But that wholly owned subsidiary incorporated in Ireland for the sweet tax laws? It's subject to the damned laws of Ireland.
What the US is claiming is that Microsoft Ireland is under the legal jurisdiction of the US government. Which is complete fucking bullshit.
So, either MS is not in a position where they can offer this service and be compliant with the law ... or the US is attempting to claim to have extra-territorial laws.
But there is no sane argument in which the Irish data protection laws do not apply here.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Microsoft operates a major data center in Ireland, like all the cloud providers do, and l'd bet they have a large tech support presence there as well, as many major tech companies do. It's not like they just have a PO Box: quite a bit of their EU business really is done from Ireland. It's the mix of low labor cost and tax incentives that works for many companies.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Yes, for a wholly owned subsidiary, a part,of Microsoft which is fully controlled by Microsoft headquarters in the US, the US government has a potential claim. A separate spin-off company which has an exclusive contract with Microsoft, but isn't directly owned and controlled by Microsoft, would be in a much stronger position.
Microsoft CAN order the employees of a Microsoft subsidiary to turn over the data. They have no authority to order a separate, contracted company to do so.
A separately owned company with an exclusive contract would be significantly less convenient for Microsoft. Sometimes following different laws by operating in many countries is inconvenient.
If the data is stored in a data centre in Ireland, why cant they use Irish law (and work with Irish law enforcement if necessary) to get this information?