Slashdot Mirror
Apple, Amazon, and Microsoft Are Helping Google Fight an Order To Hand Over Foreign Emails (businessinsider.com)
Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, and Cisco have filed an amicus brief in support of Google, after a Pennsylvania court ruled that the company had to hand over emails stored overseas in response to an FBI warrant. From a report: An amicus brief is filed by people or companies who have an interest in the case, but aren't directly involved. In this case, it's in Silicon Valley's interest to keep US law enforcement from accessing customer data stored outside the US. It isn't clear what data Google might have to hand over and, last month, the company said it would fight to the order. In the brief, the companies argue: "When a warrant seeks email content from a foreign data center, that invasion of privacy occurs outside the United States -- in the place where the customers' private communications are stored, and where they are accessed, and copied for the benefit of law enforcement, without the customer's consent."
Does not apply to domestic data. Sounds like a market for foreign cloud services is about to be born..
Shouldn't it depend on who owns the servers? If the overseas servers are owned by a branch of Google incorporated in the US, then serve the warrant against the US corporation. If the servers are owned by a branch of Google incorporated in a foreign nation then the FBI should go through Interpol to obtain a warrant in the jurisdiction in which the servers/corporation are located.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
...on the same page??
Good to know that they found a way to communicate with parallell universes...
... and no one noticed.
By now it is really clear: if you care about the privacy of an email, you must use end to end strong encryption. Not "web email server to web email server", which is hardly better than not encrypting at all. Real honest to god end to end on devices you control which are not compromised by third parties.
If you do not, that is in effect saying you do not not care who looks at your email.
Has Google tried using APKs host file generator to protect themselves from such requests?
I hear that thing is the "bee's knees" and solves almost any security problem there is.
Such a policy would immediately cause every foreign nation to ban using any American company if they might collect any data that might violate their privacy or security policies... and corporations might just beat their government to the punch on that.
The American government gets a little bit of above-board data access at the cost of crippling their global competitiveness in IT. That seems like an exceptionally stupid trade-off.
As I understand it - in some areas data and communications cannot be stored outside of the respective country relating to that information. So if Google hand overseas comms in the US then they likely go against data protection laws in other countries.
Microsoft already won this case in the 2nd circuit. Apparently the Feds are venue-shopping while the case is on appeal to the Supremes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
prosecutors: seeking data from outside the US on our servers is an invasion of privacy
Kim Dot Com: what about me?
prosecutors: unless that person is a witch, then we must burn the witch.
Good people go to bed earlier.
All the US Government needs to do is bribe foreign governments to chase these companies in their countries and hand over the data.
It's not like governments protect their people anyway...
Geert praat heel veel, maar op luisteren heb ik hem nog nooit kunnen betrappen. Hij luistert alleen naar de buitenlandse extremisten die zijn campagne financieren. Op hem stemmen is een weggegooide stem die helemaal niets oplost.
Om je off-topic-bericht toch maar aan het artikel te koppelen: als het aan Geert ligt blijft er weinig over van onze privacy.
Technically it's not exactly *ownership* that matters. The law is "possession, custody, or control". Basically, a subpoena can be directed at whomever has the ability to produce the item. (Note I didn't write the law, I only read it, so please don't yell at me if you don't like the wording of the law.)
Imagine I leave my gun at your house. Police can get a court order ordering you to hand over the gun (assuming 4th and 5th amendment issues are satisfied). You don't own the gun, but you have the ability to hand it over - possession, custody, or control.
This can create an issue when a foreign nation (Ireland in this case) has privacy laws that conflict with US law (which applies to US corporations). A subpoena can be defended by citing legally-recognized confidentiality. It's not clear if a confidentiality under Irish law is a valid defense to a supoena directed at a US corporation under US law.
Ideally, perhaps the countries should by treaty try respect each other's legal process to the extent practicable - the US should attempt to meet any reasonable Irish requirements for a valid subpoena, and Ireland should then recognize the information has been lawfully subpoenaed.
It's tricky because on the one hand perhaps in some ways you don't want US law to apply to US-based corporations around the world; on the other hand US corporations shouldn't be able to hide whatever they want by using servers across the border.
And help the tech giants defy the deep state!
Land of the free....
How many people actually know where or what server their emails are stored? This is a tricky argument for these companies considering that the emails could be stored anywhere. But why is there are argument for seizure when the email are property of the end user? Would a Microsoft store your email in a certain place upon request? I highly doubt it, they store data based on capacity, networking and other technical and logistical reason. Obviously this could eventually required that data be stored within the boarders of the country of that account holder. I think companies better be careful how they fight this kind of data warrants. Or they will create a mess for themselves.
The big data companies don't want to be forced to give up the data under subpoena or court order.
They want to be able to to sell it to the government instead.
The government won't buy *anything* if they can use the court system to get it for free, or on an actual-cost basis.
Maybe the agencies want this! A domestic cloud industry is controlled and regulated by domestic law. If the cloud industry shifts to foreign countries, then that is classified legally as international commerce. The dark government then is fully, lawfully, legally allowed to subject all files and traffic to surveillance and in-depth spying on their own citicens where they are not allowed to domestically. This is more efficient as it skips the entire process parallel construction and theoretically be more palitable by judges at time of prosecution and financially cheaper!
It is a win-win for the justice dept and spy agencies to sink a domestic cloud industry!