Slashdot Mirror
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.
Could it not be argued that it is Microsoft Europe, Microsoft Europe is a European company, and it must adhere to European laws?
Assuming there is indeed a European entity.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Shouldn't the so-called "conservative" judges be in favor of personal privacy, against governmental overreach, and pro-business? The definition of conservative seems to get twisted more and more every day.
Yeah, this case is basically the U.S. version of the German cases requiring search engines to strike Nazi results worldwide, and French cases requiring websites abroad to block content deemed illegal in France.
It's one of those situations where you only see the advantages if you consider only yourself (your country). But the disadvantages become obvious when you consider the world as a whole. e.g. "What if you could have sex with anyone who wanted?" Most people think that would be fantastic. "What if anyone could have sex with you?" Suddenly it doesn't seem like such a great idea.
The only decision which makes sense if you want to preserve the integrity of national borders is that U.S. law stops at the U.S. border, German law stops at the German border, French law stops at France's border. If the U.S. wants to get its hands on information Microsoft is storing in Ireland, they should file a request with Irish authorities (similar to an extradition request). Then Ireland can decide whether or not it should honor that request, and legally force Microsoft to turn the info over.
My position is the law has crashed. It is utterly unlawful to create a situation where it is no longer possible for somebody to comply with all the laws that are over them. On issuing that warrant, the situation was made manifest.
The law does not say that, actually, nor is the argument MS is making; MS is not saying that handing over the data would be illegal for them to do on the EU side, but that as the search warrant being used is a domestic one, said warrant does not apply to data outside the US. The law in Europe says that Microsoft or any other corporation cannot process data concerning EU citizens outside the Union without following European law. This means 2 things:
1) If the data in question is not of European citizens but American citizens, in so far as I understand, there's nothing that prevents Microsoft from handing over the data. Although even if this is the case this doesn't mean they have to do so. But my current understanding is that nothing in the Data Protection Directive (which is about to be replaced by General Data Protection Regulation coming into effect in May this year) prevents handing over the data of non-EU citizens.
2) The data is not inaccessible to US authorities if you follow the correct procedure. Contact the authorities in the country that the data is located in and present the evidence for your case and if it is solid said authorities can force MS to hand over the data and then hand it over to the US.
The laws are meant to protect people's privacy, which is a good thing. However, this does not mean evidence for a case will always be inaccessible, or that any transfer of data from EU to the US is in all cases forbidden. it just means you need to co-operate with the local authorities to get it.
Even if the US supreme courts eventually rules against MS, that doesn't negate either of the 2 points above. Meaning, even if the supreme court decides that domestic US search warrants apply to data abroad, the US authorities still cannot compel corporations to hand over data of EU citizens without co-operation from local authorities.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead