Supreme Court Wrestles With Microsoft Data Privacy Fight (reuters.com)

Supreme Court justices on Tuesday wrestled with Microsoft's dispute with the U.S. Justice Department over whether prosecutors can force technology companies to hand over data stored overseas, with some signaling support for the government and others urging Congress to pass a law to resolve the issue. From a report: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both conservatives, hinted during an hour-long argument in the case at support for the Justice Department's stance that because Microsoft is based in the United States it was obligated to turn over data sought by prosecutors in a U.S. warrant. As the nine justices grappled with the technological complexities of email data storage, liberals Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor questioned whether the court needed to act in the data privacy case in light of Congress now considering bipartisan legislation that would resolve the legal issue. A ruling is due by the end of June.

Comments

Re:American Companies Abide by American Laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft owns that data, thus it is Microsoft property

NO, Under EU law Microsoft DOES NOT own the data, a user retains all rights to his data even when housed on a companies server and said company must abide by those laws in handling of the data. The Data is governed within the borders of the EU under EU laws.

It's not complicated.

It is extremely complicated as you proved by getting almost everything wrong in your 2 line comment and the fact that even after several years the US supreme court can't work out the right decision.

Re:American Companies Abide by American Laws

[Teun]

There are lawyers specialising in this game, it's called Conflict of Law and it pays very well.
Rest assured MS has consulted these specialists years ago.

Re:American Companies Abide by American Laws

[BitterOak]

No it is not complicated. American law does not apply outside American territory, period.

That's simply not true. There is a presumption of non-extraterritoriality in U.S. law which means that if a law doesn't state otherwise, it is presumed to apply only on U.S. soil (or U.S. military bases, etc.), but laws can explicitly state that they apply outside the U.S. and U.S. courts have found them enforceable (usually when a citizen returns to the U.S. after a foreign trip.) Notable examples are the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act which make it a crime to bribe a foreign government. Another example is the Child Protect Act which makes it illegal for American citizens to hire child prostitutes even in countries where the practice is legal (eg. in the Netherlands, 16 years olds can legally work as prostitutes, but if a U.S. citizen hires one while visiting Amsterdam, they can be charged when they return to the U.S.). Another example are violations of certain travel restrictions, such as travel to Cuba, etc. Now, whether or not the search warrant in question is presumed to be non-extraterritorial or not is up to the Supreme Court to decide, but your blanket statement is clearly untrue.