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."
We're almost there already.
Due to the US's known lack of any privacy protections, many areas of our business are prohibited by law from using any provider who will store customer information within the borders of the US. Currently we do business with companies like Google, only if they can provide guarantees that all customer data will be stored outside of the US in jurisdictions with actual privacy protections.
If this precedent stands, then a re-interpretation of the same law would almost certainly require that we also stop using any provider with any US presence.
Here's the thing though, it's actually an impossible order for Google to follow. They end up with a choice. Violate a court order in their own country, or break the law in another country they do business in. There's no right answer for them here.
Of course the USA is famous worldwide for having no clue about the concept of jurisdiction...
The FBI is subject to US law.
A wholly owned subsidiary company may well be a foreign company. The majority shareholder is not responsible for their actions. I believe this applies even if the shareholder owns 100% of the company. Google cannot comply with an order targeting another company.
The FBI can not simply seize google.com. They need a court order to do so. Such a court order cannot be used simply to harass.
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.