Slashdot Mirror


Google, Unlike Microsoft, Must Turn Over Foreign Emails, Rules Judge (fortune.com)

Every year Google receives more than 25,000 requests from U.S. authorities for "disclosures of user data in criminal matters," according to a U.S. judge's recent ruling. But this one is different. An anonymous reader quotes Reuters: A U.S. judge has ordered Google to comply with search warrants seeking customer emails stored outside the U.S., diverging from a federal appeals court that reached the opposite conclusion in a similar case involving Microsoft. U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Rueter in Philadelphia ruled on Friday that transferring emails from a foreign server so FBI agents could review them locally as part of a domestic fraud probe did not qualify as a seizure...because there was "no meaningful interference" with the account holder's "possessory interest" in the data sought.

"Though the retrieval of the electronic data by Google from its multiple data centers abroad has the potential for an invasion of privacy, the actual infringement of privacy occurs at the time of disclosure in the United States," Rueter wrote... The ruling came less than seven months after the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York said Microsoft could not be forced to turn over emails stored on a server in Dublin, Ireland that U.S. investigators sought in a narcotics case.

Google announced they'd appeal the case, saying "We will continue to push back on overbroad warrants."

5 of 91 comments (clear)

  1. I can't think of a good subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "no meaningful interference with the account holder's possessory interest" WTF?

    I'll just leave this here:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyV_UG60dD4

  2. Maybe this judge didn't think things through. by Sique · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder what happens if an E.U. court finds that the data transfer of personal data from an E.U. located server to the U.S. without E.U. judicary oversight is illegal. That was one of the arguments in the Microsoft case. If the U.S. judge then orders Google to ignore the E.U. court, he could be held in contempt of the E.U. court and face punitive measures.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  3. Re:Constutution by thsths · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And this is one of the reasons we are moving to Microsoft for our email and file storage. I have no idea why the 4th amendment only applies to Microsoft, not to Google, but so be it.

    Of course according to Trump, aliens are not people. I wonder whether he can find a corrupt judge to support that argument.

  4. Re:Constutution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nearly impossible

    That's a feature, not a bug.

  5. Re:Constutution by currently_awake · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I would suggest Microsoft Corporation has a "Working Business Relationship" with the US Government, that grants them more leeway in such matters.