Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple, Amazon, and Microsoft Are Helping Google Fight an Order To Hand Over Foreign Emails (businessinsider.com)

Posted by msmash on from the shape-of-things-to-come dept.

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."

36 of 67 comments (clear)

  1. Double Standard - Foreign Cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Does not apply to domestic data. Sounds like a market for foreign cloud services is about to be born..

  2. Who owns the servers? by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

    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.
    1. Re:Who owns the servers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If I write letters that government wants access to. And I have put them on the box and shipped it to another country.
      What does it matter who owns the shipping box, when the letters are still in the another country?

      Government can not step outside of its borders. This is something very strange thing for a USA government that is so custom to perform military operations outside of its borders and terrorize the world. Thinking that they can just go and do what ever they want and everyone else should just comply.

      If there is something wrong, then the USA government should contact the another country government and request a collaboration to get the data.

      And you know how it quickly happens that they get rejected. So instead they try to threaten the companies that has the means to get data access in first place, to just hand it to them, without resorting to foreign laws problems.

      So what USA government now wants, is that they call the American shipping company and demand them to return the content of the shipping box to them oversees.

    2. Re:Who owns the servers? by Luthair · · Score: 1

      No, you could make the same argument in the physical space. Outside of your borders the US court has no authority.

    3. Re:Who owns the servers? by 91degrees · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:Who owns the servers? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      What does it matter who owns the shipping box, when the letters are still in the another country?

      Because if the shipping box is owned by an entity under the jurisdiction of US laws (a US citizen or corporation) they can be ordered to retrieve it? They're not ordering a foreigner or a foreign government to do anything.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    5. Re:Who owns the servers? by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

      letters in a shipping box isn't really the case tho - it isn't accessible by you until you get the box back from over seas. In this case the contents of the box is immediately available to you even tho it's in a box overseas.
      So technically, the data is still here, in the United States.

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    6. Re:Who owns the servers? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Not until it's retrieved it's not. There's a crucial difference between "accessible from" and "stored in".

      Especially if there are laws in the country it's stored in restricting the reasons for which it can be retrieved - such as "no surveillance by foreign governments" (not sure if that's relevant here, but it has been in similar cases in the past)

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    7. Re:Who owns the servers? by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      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.

      Really? Suppose you are an American living in the U.S. but you own a vacation home in Tuscany. Should a judge in the U.S. have the authority to issue a warrant that allows U.S. police to raid your Tuscany home?

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    8. Re:Who owns the servers? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      No, but why wouldn't they be able to subpoena you, in the US, to produce something from the Tuscany home? They're acting on you, in the US, not on the home, in Tuscany.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    9. Re:Who owns the servers? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      It depends on the law were the servers are. Handing over data to US law enforcement if local laws do not allow that is usually a criminal act...

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    10. Re:Who owns the servers? by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      owned by a branch of Google incorporated in a foreign nation

      That is absolute lunacy. The FBI is investigating something domestic which need data from overseas, data obtainable by a US corporation. Google was made in the US, they are US property - if they say no shoot the board and ask their replacements.

  3. It's scary to know the gov't is so dumb by Baron_Yam · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:It's scary to know the gov't is so dumb by green1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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...

    2. Re:It's scary to know the gov't is so dumb by Baron_Yam · · Score: 2

      The court order itself is bad. Google has a distinct corporate entity, with distinct storage, operating in a different nation... and the US courts are essentially saying, "Because you have the same top level owners and your partnership agreements give you access to the data, you're going to get it for us and other nation's laws be damned".

      The best Google (US) can do if this insanity proceeds would be to fully sever business ties with foreign Google entities. Presumably that will mean a huge reduction in their efficiency and capabilities.

      I'd have expected the Americans to use covert means to get the data they want and to pretend to play nicely in public.

    3. Re:It's scary to know the gov't is so dumb by green1 · · Score: 2

      No, what this is doing is killing the ability of any US company to do business in any civilized jurisdiction in the world.

      Companies need to be held accountable to local laws, but you can't make them accountable to 2 separate conflicting laws and then tell them it's their problem.

    4. Re:It's scary to know the gov't is so dumb by green1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd have expected the Americans to use covert means to get the data they want and to pretend to play nicely in public.

      The Americans gave up pretending to play nice years ago, it's not like anyone has believed them recently anyway.

    5. Re:It's scary to know the gov't is so dumb by turp182 · · Score: 1

      We're not famous for having no clue about jurisdiction.

      We just define our jurisdiction as Everywhere.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    6. Re:It's scary to know the gov't is so dumb by gweihir · · Score: 1

      In fact, that has already started. There is a way around though. For example MS does not operate the German MS cloud, Deutsche Telekom does and they will just laugh at any US court order. That way, German companies can put data of German residents on the MS cloud. Otherwise that would likely be a criminal act.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    7. Re:It's scary to know the gov't is so dumb by drew_kime · · Score: 1

      This is piercing the corporate veil. If the precedent stands, look for lawsuits targeting corporate officers individually for the actions of the corporation.

      Note that I don't think that's necessarily a bad idea, but probably not what they intend with this.

      --
      Nope, no sig
  4. Data protection by symes · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Data protection by green1 · · Score: 1

      And that's exactly the issue. They get the choice of violating a court order in their own country, or breaking the law in another country they do business in. There's no right answer for them.

      Too bad the USA has never understood the concept of "jurisdiction"...

    2. Re:Data protection by Frobnicator · · Score: 1

      Not sure if this will apply, but could they not plead the fifth amendment on this warrant.

      That isn't the protection of the 5th. The relevant parts of the 5th are protections against self incrimination and due process requirements.

      Warrants usually don't (but very rarely do) have something to do with self-incrimination. They are a demand to seize an item for evidence purposes. Even so, US courts have treated this type of data as business records which can be obtained through several methods. They aren't trying to incriminate Google, they are trying to incriminate someone who uses Google. The due process issue doesn't apply because they DID follow due process. They got testimony of the probable location and contents of the data, they signed a statement of probable cause, they got a warrant specifying the exact items to be seized and searched, that's due process.

      The fundamental problem is one of jurisdiction on the Internet. It is an open problem.

      .

      On the one side, companies should not be able to move data to another country in order to avoid law enforcement actions. If that were allowed, every major company on the globe would open a data center in that location and preserve all copies of documents in that haven. There (arguably) needs to be some reasonable way for law enforcement to access data stored remotely so criminals cannot merely hide their crimes by storing documents in a server located abroad. Governments must be able to enforce their own laws, which means some access to information.

      On the other side, governments should not be able to violate rights of other nations with impunity, including digital privacy rights. If that were allowed, companies could leverage the most oppressive nations and the most aggressive nations to compel discovery of their most secret documents. There needs to be ways for people to legally ensure their privacy and protections granted by their own governments, and individuals have rights to be secure from interference.

      Like most things in law, it is a tricky balance of between rights, benefits, and interests. In criminal cases society has a security interest in getting the criminal caught, but that interest competes with the interest of security for individuals to be safe from intrusion. There is also the balance of one nation's sovereignty and another nation's sovereignty, the one wanting access and the other wanting protections. There is also the issue of an individual's rights to secure their property how and where they please, versus storing their property in a way that violate's society's rights to security by identifying criminals. None have an easy answer.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    3. Re:Data protection by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Depending on the country, they would open themselves up for criminal prosecution and a prohibition to continue to do business in that country. They certainly do not want any of that.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  5. Microsoft is winning this in the 2nd Circuit by mveloso · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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/...

    1. Re:Microsoft is winning this in the 2nd Circuit by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 2

      It's not venue-shopping, it's part of the design of our system that the Supreme Court weighs in only after the issue has been litigated in multiple circuits, especially if the circuits are split.

      For one thing, if many or all of the circuits agree, there's much less reason to have the Court weigh in. But moreover, it means that the Court can draw on the full record of opinion and reasoning from all the lower courts to better inform their decision.

  6. an invasion of privacy you say? by nimbius · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
    1. Re:an invasion of privacy you say? by green1 · · Score: 2

      This is actually completely consistent with the Kim Dot Com case.
      Both are cases of the USA completely ignoring jurisdiction and imposing their laws and enforcement on a worldwide basis with no concern for the country they are actually in.

      The question becomes, just how much longer will the rest of the world bend over backwards to accommodate the US in these matters?

    2. Re:an invasion of privacy you say? by swillden · · Score: 1

      The people in the first and third lines of your play are not only not the same people, they're opponents. The people in the third line may be called prosecutors, but the people in the first line are not.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:an invasion of privacy you say? by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      >just how much longer will the rest of the world bend over backwards to accommodate the US in these matters?

      How long will the US be militarily, economically, and culturally dominant?

      I'm looking forward to a world where the biggest players have to compromise more with each other... but I'm slightly more comfortable with what I believe the USA will demand than China. It'd be nice to see the EU become cohesive enough to be a strong counter to the US as well.

    4. Re:an invasion of privacy you say? by green1 · · Score: 1

      Thing is, the US is NOT economically dominant, unless the rest of the world agrees that "IP" is economically important.
      The US has a severe trade deficit with the rest of the world on all physical things, it's only "IP" that saves the US. Which means that the rest of the world could chose to cripple the US economically by simply refusing to agree to all the IP ridiculousness.

      Militarily the US is dominant, but would they go to war over copyright? we've never seen any indication of it so far.

  7. Easy solution by rodrigoandrade · · Score: 2

    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...

    1. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You must be confusing the US with the rest of the civilized world

      In the EU for instance we have privacy protections laws which is why for instance you can't visit FB anonymous in Belgium anymore.
      The court ruled FB was violating our privacy laws with their tracking cookies and instead of fixing the cookies FB just removed access for everyone not logged in.

      It suck for people like me without an account but sometimes want to look up information about public events that only have a FB web-presence

  8. Not exactly: possession, custody, or control by raymorris · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  9. Trump should step in ... by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

    And help the tech giants defy the deep state!

  10. It's actually a money issue by bagofbeans · · Score: 1

    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.