Does US Have Right To Data On Overseas Servers? We're About To Find Out (arstechnica.com)

Long-time Slashdot reader quotes Ars Technica: The Justice Department on Friday petitioned the US Supreme Court to step into an international legal thicket, one that asks whether US search warrants extend to data stored on foreign servers. The US government says it has the legal right, with a valid court warrant, to reach into the world's servers with the assistance of the tech sector, no matter where the data is stored.

The request for Supreme Court intervention concerns a 4-year-old legal battle between Microsoft and the US government over data stored on Dublin, Ireland servers. The US government has a valid warrant for the e-mail as part of a drug investigation. Microsoft balked at the warrant, and convinced a federal appeals court that US law does not apply to foreign data.
According to the article, the U.S. government told the court that national security was at risk.

Comments

National Security!

[Calydor]

When isn't it national security?

I don't recall the details of the case and can't be bothered to read up on it, but according to the summary it's a drug investigation. It's a pretty far leap from there to national security.

Also, four years. If nothing's happened yet based on the information in those emails it's VERY unlikely anything is going to happen ever. That alone should rule out a national security issue.

Re:National Security!

[Dog-Cow]

It's also a pretty big leap from "national security" to "we must trample the Constitution". Or at least, it used to be.

Re:National Security!

[renesch]

I'm waiting for the day that North Korea will issue a warrant to search the NSAs computers. After all, Kim might find stuff related to his national security....

Re:National Security!

[Solandri]

There is a national security issue here, but not the one you're probably thinking of.

If the SCotUS decides this in favor of the U.S. government, this isn't going to end the way they think it will. The U.S. companies aren't going to roll over and hand over the information the U.S. government wants. They're going to expatriate and reincorporate in another country which doesn't have such overreaching search and seizure laws.

The stupid IRS policy of taxing all income earned abroad simply because you're a U.S. citizen already causes wealthy Americans to move abroad (with their money) and give up their U.S. citizenship. A bad decision here will start the same exodus among U.S.-based multinational corporations. That's the national security issue here - the nation's economic security is being put at risk due to the U.S. government trying to make its laws and authority apply outside of the U.S.

Re:National Security!

[green1]

And here's the problem, the US can, as you point out, force a company that does business in the US to either hand over the data, or cease doing business in the US. But that's only the start of it. A precedent like that would trigger what is effectively a trade war, with other countries making laws that if you want to do business in their country you must not do business in the US, as well as the precedent that all data held in the US is also obtainable by any other country in the world, including places like China, Russia, and Iran. The US is a big market, but it's not as big as the rest of the world, and businesses worldwide would suffer from such a trade war, especially those based in the US.

The question here has never been whether the US can force Microsoft to hand over the data, that part is obvious, they can. The real question is whether the US should do so, or if the cost is really too high. I believe it is.

Re: National Security!

[currently_awake]

If they are not soldiers then they are civilians, entitled to a lawyer and a speedy trial. Getting held for decades and getting tortured without even being charged with a crime is a clear violation of US law. Also they should be charged under the legal system where the "Crime" was committed (Afghanistan, Iraq etc), not the USA. If you want the world to treat you as the "Good Guys" you have to act the part.

Re:I'm all for privacy and all that...

[Great Big Bird]

Except for the little detail that the other country has data protection laws that make it illegal to do so. An American court should not be able to override the law where it seems to have had no intent to hide the data from the American authorities.

Ask yourself this

[Mistakill]

Does China, Russia, Germany have a right to your data if you are in the USA but using a such a country's service? Because this is the gate being left open

Re:I'm all for privacy and all that...

[Anonymous Coward]

even if the laws in that other country prevent you from doing so? European data privacy laws tend tp be much stronger than in the US, and US courts have no authority outside the US to overrule other countries laws. If Microsoft complied with the US court order it would be breaking the law in Ireland. They're between a rock and a hard place...

Re:I'm all for privacy and all that...

[radarskiy]

No one forces a multinational company into the shenanigans they play with moving things between jurisdictions. They could have considered beforehand whether they were painting themselves into a corner by doing something other than straightforward offering of services in different places.

The laws of Ireland are not the concern of the courts of the USA, nor vice versa. The US court has issued an order on the US corporate entity which that corporate entity had stipulated that it could meet. Either the US corporate entity was lying before when the said they could satisfy the order or they are lying now when they say they cannot. One way or another the US corporate entity lied to the US court.

If a multinational company wants to reap the benefits of having distinct corporate entities in different jurisdictions they also have the pay the costs, which consist of keeping track of when the obligations between the distinct corporate entities are constrained by the the different jurisdictions they were created to run in.

Re: Actually we are not about to find out.

[Zontar The Mindless]

Actually, it's more like the US wants international law where it's favourable to the US, and wants to ignore it otherwise.

Of course, the US is not alone in this regard.

Re:US brands and their global profits

[dwywit]

"Consider hosting in your own nation, with your own local brands and their much stronger data protection."

That's almost exactly what I've recently told a customer who asked advice about web hosts. Sure, the el cheapo operations look attractive, until you find out where the servers are actually located.

Qatar or UAE? I don't think so. Sydney or Melbourne are just fine, thanks. I'd prefer to deal with my own country's rules.

Re:I'm all for privacy and all that...

[Sique]

Put it more clearly: Any employee of the local subsidary has to refuse that order by the employer, because it is against the law. And firing him because of that refusal will bring the local employer into deep trouble because then the local prosecution could use the local equivalent of RICO laws to shut the company down.

Huge logical sink hole

[Zemran]

A US warrant only has jurisdiction in the US. It cannot cover any other country. How can the US complain that Russia has hacked US computers and then want to hack other people's computers?