Slashdot Mirror
Court Denies US Government Appeal in Microsoft's Overseas Email Case (pcworld.com)
An equally divided federal appeals court refused to reconsider its landmark decision forbidding the U.S. government from forcing Microsoft and other companies to turn over customer emails stored on servers outside the United States. From a report: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in a 4-4 decision Tuesday, declined to rehear its July decision that denied the DOJ access to the email of a drug trafficking suspect stored on a Microsoft server in Ireland. Microsoft has been fighting DOJ requests for the email since 2013. The DOJ has argued that tech companies can avoid valid warrants by storing customer data outside the U.S. Judges "readily acknowledge the gravity of this concern," but the 31-year-old U.S. Stored Communications Act (SCA) doesn't allow worldwide search under a U.S. warrant, wrote Judge Susan Carney. "We recognize at the same time that in many ways the SCA has been left behind by technology," Carney wrote in Tuesday's decision. "It is overdue for a congressional revision that would continue to protect privacy but would more effectively balance concerns of international comity with law enforcement needs and service provider obligations in the global context in which this case arose."
DOJ butt hurt about ruling continues to.seek unfettered access to all data regardless of where it is or who owns it.
So, is US congress now going to change the law so a US judge can permit the US DOJ to access foreign servers? May we assume reciprocity, so that other countries can then serve warrants to providers in the USA and legally demand access to data stored on US soil?
I think not..
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
Do you know why farts smell?
For the benefit of the deaf!
On topic: Trump has as much intelligence as a fart.
which will probably happen, now that the courts specifically said so.. and you have a president hell-bent on fucking shit up, and a congress that will be too... whether those motives converge or not, we have yet to see.. but you might want to start that contingency and exit strategy planning
So, is US congress now going to change the law so a US judge can permit the US DOJ to access foreign servers? May we assume reciprocity, so that other countries can then serve warrants to providers in the USA and legally demand access to data stored on US soil?
I think not..
Another solution is to pass a law saying that all US citizen data has to be kept in servers in the US.
The benefit is that foreign countries don't get to access our citizens' data as easily (Russia, China, Canada).
The *real* solution is that E-mail and other data should be encrypted end-to-end, where the provider and location don't matter. Proton mail and Lavabit come to mind.
I remember when DropBox first came out, it required a driver to install (in WinXP) to synchronize the data to the cloud, and asked whether they had any plans to add encryption. Their response was "Oh, we'll never add encryption! That's the end-user's responsibility, and besides... it's haaaaaard!"
We need turn-key solutions. If good security is a checkbox "make my messages private", more people would use it.
USA is all that matters, the rest of the world can go fuck themselves.
You should apply to work at the White House - I hear they're hiring.
The DOJ has argued that tech companies can avoid valid warrants by storing customer data outside the U.S.
It's not a valid warrant, because the court that issued it doesn't have jurisdiction.
(Billionaire US business owner) "Hell yes! Go after those dirty drug dealers! Those bastards shouldn't be able to hide their evils in another country!"
(Billionaire's accountant) "Sir, might I remind you that your tax haven data is stored in Ireland..."
(Billionaire US business owner) "Nevermind! Those meddling DOJ bastards don't need access to anything."
This court was right, I think, to write that although there are problems either way, it's not the job of the court to rewrite the law - that's up to Congress to fix it.
One possibility is that Congress won't allow warrants on foreign *servers*, but will allow some form on subpoenas on US *companies* who possess evidence about people in the US.
One reasonable argument (maybe right, maybe wrong) is that if a US company has some evidence about a US person, related to a US case, they can, after a court hearing, be subject to a US subpoena. Where the US company chose to physically store the bits isn't all that relevant, some would say. Anyway, the court is correct, I think, in saying the Congress needs to work out the law on this - the court doesn't need to rewrite the law.
Speaking of the DOJ and government...
AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM MIKE PENCE
WASHINGTON (WHPB)—Vice-President Mike Pence has issued the following message to the American people:
Dear American People,
What with all the hoopla and hullabaloo of Inauguration Week, we didn’t really get a chance to get to know each other. And so, if you don’t mind, I thought that I’d take a minute or two to tell you a thing or two about Mike Pence.
I’m what most people would call a “fun guy.” In my spare time, I enjoy golf and heterosexuality. And I’m something of a voracious reader. My favorite book, of course, is the Bible, but I enjoy other books, too. I’m a big fan of “The Da Vinci Code,” which has a lot of stuff about the Bible in it. And Paul Ryan just gave me a copy of “Atlas Shrugged,” by Ayn Rand. I just started reading that one, so I haven’t gotten to any parts in it about the Bible yet, but it’s darn good.
Another thing I read recently, and it’s probably become my second-favorite piece of reading material right after the Bible, is the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It’s all about how to remove the President and replace him with the Vice-President. I have to admit that it was a kick to start reading the dusty old Constitution for the very first time and see yours truly right in there!
It turns out that the Twenty-fifth Amendment says that the country can remove the President if he is found to be “incapacitated.” That can mean anything from physically incapacitated, like being in an irreversible coma, to mentally incapacitated, like being seen raving like a lunatic during a visit to the C.I.A. Either way, if folks decide that it’s time to put a fork in you, see you later, alligator!
Whenever I read something great, I tell everyone I know to go out and read it, too. And so, my fellow-Americans, I encourage each and every one of you, history buffs or otherwise, to read the Twenty-fifth Amendment today—especially Section 4, which is a little complicated but really exciting, too. If you enjoy reading it as much as I did, let me know. I’m in my office in Washington and you can reach me anytime—I’m of sound mind and body.
Well, I’m super-glad we had the chance to get to know each other a little better. Until next time, here’s Mike Pence saying, God bless America. And God bless the Twenty-fifth Amendment.
-MP
The DOJ is butt-hurt. But too bad. The US can't just decide that their warrants are valid EVERYWHERE ... If there is anything fishy, they won't go that route
The problem -- which the DOJ and other parties absolutely know -- is that they are using a warrant.
You say they won't go that route if there is anything fishy, but the fact that they are attempting to use a warrant is extremely fishy.
There is an enormous difference between a warrant which they are using, and a subpoena that they would be trying to do if the one person in the case was all they wanted.
With a subpoena the company must produce information. They must produce the information no matter where it is held, and they must produce it as binding evidence. If they really want to capture the one person, a subpoena to provide all the information about the request is a simple matter. The government gets copies of all the documents they are demanding, particularly all the business records related to the subscriber. Since the DOJ is claiming they are trying to catch a subscriber and the people they're email, these subpoenas are more than enough.
With a warrant to collect a server, they get the entire physical server. And the government gets to make a copy of the server, and search it for whatever they think is relevant to the information. A warrant means they can take all the objects so they can prevent evidence from being destroyed. They can also collect for more information from the customer about the contents of the communications.
The DOJ could take measures to collect the information using tools other than a warrant that provide all the information and require Microsoft to keep it confidential. Instead of use those, they continue to demand a warrant to seize the entire server.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
This is how I want tech companies to protect my privacy. With a four-year lawsuit designed to delay handing over my data (and it ultimately won!). Compare and contrast to Lavabit, which decided to shut down in 2013 after printing out its private keys in 2-pt. font.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
If worse comes to worse, Microsoft will give its foreign branches enough independence (enough to make it a separate company) to deny any request it wants from the US branch.
That's actually hard to do. Microsoft's MLAT argument is a lot better for everyone.
Let's say we're standing in my back yard, and I pull out a gun and point it at your face. "Go into the kitchen and get me an IPA. Or else." I have jurisdiction over you, because I'm the guy with the gun. I can't keep my gun on you while you go off to get the beer, though. I have to trust that you'll either bring me a beer, or you'll never ever come back to within weapons range of me, because you know I'm going to shoot you if I ever see you again, without my beer.
So you go to the kitchen. And there's my part-Irish wife. She pulls out her gun and points it at your face. "Oh hell no, you are not taking that IPA out to him. He bought that shitty wit beer and the bottle has been here in the fridge for months. He'll drink that next, before he has another IPA." Now, you know if you show up in the backyard with a wit beer, I am going to be blow your brains out. I want IPA. So you're stuck between a rock and a hard place, because everywhere you go, someone pulls a gun on you and tells you to do something that'll piss off some other gun-happy asshole.
Microsoft's argument about MLAT is their way of saying, "Hey, let's get this guy and his wife into the same room, and have them decide together. Leave me out of this!" Congress can decide to have whatever laws it wants (analogous to me being able to decide whoever I want to shoot in my back yard, for whatever stupid reasons) but it can't remove all the problems which come up as a result of my wife pulling a gun on you and telling you to go against my wishes. That's a fucked up situation and it's just going to result in you walking out the front door. MLATs are a way for you to stay, and ultimately, it's what's going to get me to drink that wit that I don't really want.
Realistically, doing so would create a catch-22 lose-lose situation for American corporations.
Don't give information to US authorities from foreign servers: they're violation of US law and you get penalised
DO give away information to US authorities from foreign servers: (often) they're in violation of the privacy/access/etc laws in said foreign country, and they get penalised
I'm not American, and certainly not a fan of some of the international shenanigans perpetrated by US corporations, but allowing a law like this would be a *huge* disadvantage for US companies and possibly even a death sentence for some. As it is, many companies (including many I've worked at) have rules against doing business with US entities that store data outside of the service country, due to laws protecting customer information and privacy. So entities like Amazon, Google, etc are basically on the no-go list for vendors when it comes to any RFP that involves customer info.
The government was arrogant and idiotic for even thinking to try pushing this through the courts. They might as well run a razor across their own throat.
It is interesting to think about transfer of the email.
If the email was originally sent into or out of the US then it was on a server in the US. Also, it has crossed international boundaries at least twice.
There is no way for the DOJ to know the path that the data took. It could have existed for some time on US servers, for which the search warrant is entirely valid. What if Microsoft adopts a policy of rotating all email through overseas servers to avoid all DOJ data requests, or to serve only the ones they want to serve.
Does Microsoft have the right to engineer schemes like that within the intention of the law?
I am not a lawyer, I don't know.
Just another case of multinationals are outside any countries control.
It's a fecking free for all
Go well
Fuck Trump. I'll never consider him my president. As far as I'm concerned, Hillary is the de-facto president.
With the very recent event of the US pulling out of the TPP, I feel it's unlikely that others in the International Community, will take kindly to foreign powers accessing servers in their territories. Should US lawmakers update the law and change it to allow for US laws to operate in this manner, I imagine that companies like Microsoft, will outsource the administration of those non-US servers, so they have a non-US division operating them, thus leaving them outside of the reach of US laws.
Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
wouldn't very similar laws that allow you getting data from a suspect drug dealer in the US if you have initial proof exit on most other countries?
why do they even need that shortcut in the first place? just show the initial proof to the law enforcement at the other country and let them deal with that. ...unless the initial proof was acquired in a way that is only /legal/ in the US?
Hillary is just another arsehole; just given an enema so as not to smell so badly.
Quite simply there seems to be some kind of magical thinking that you can balance something unreasonable against basic rights. For instance anyone who thinks that it would be "Balanced" for a US court to order people in another country to do something is insane. The whole US revolution was about things like taxation without representation. So what makes the US seem to think that people in other countries should give two shits what their courts say when we have exactly zero input into the laws, the lawmakers, or any other body that would hold these bozos to account?
This is the sort of thinking that as the US economy runs down will cause the rest of the world to not even lift a single finger as they finally slip into unrelenting pain and misery.