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."

13 of 67 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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...

  6. 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.