Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Email Privacy Case No Longer Needed, Says The US (cnn.com)
An anonymous reader quotes CNN:
The U.S. Department of Justice is asking the Supreme Court to abandon its case against Microsoft over international data privacy. A new law signed by President Donald Trump last week answers the legal question at the heart of Microsoft's case, the DOJ says. So the case "is now moot," the department said in a court filing posted Saturday.
Microsoft's legal battle began in 2013, when it refused to hand over emails stored on a server in Ireland to US officials who were investigating drug trafficking. Microsoft argued at the time that sharing data stored abroad could violate international treaties and policies, and there was no law on the books to provide any clarity. That changed with the The Cloud Act, which was tucked into the spending bill that Trump signed March 23. The act establishes a legal pathway for the United States to form agreements with other nations that make it easier for law enforcement to collect data stored on foreign soil... Microsoft cheered the new law, saying the Cloud Act provides the legal clarity the company sought.
The ACLU's legislative counsel argues that the new act hurts privacy and human rights, "at a time when human rights activists, dissidents and journalists around the world face unprecedented attacks."
"Would even a well-intentioned technology company, particularly a small one, have the expertise and resources to competently assess the risk that a foreign order may pose to a particular human rights activist?"
Microsoft's legal battle began in 2013, when it refused to hand over emails stored on a server in Ireland to US officials who were investigating drug trafficking. Microsoft argued at the time that sharing data stored abroad could violate international treaties and policies, and there was no law on the books to provide any clarity. That changed with the The Cloud Act, which was tucked into the spending bill that Trump signed March 23. The act establishes a legal pathway for the United States to form agreements with other nations that make it easier for law enforcement to collect data stored on foreign soil... Microsoft cheered the new law, saying the Cloud Act provides the legal clarity the company sought.
The ACLU's legislative counsel argues that the new act hurts privacy and human rights, "at a time when human rights activists, dissidents and journalists around the world face unprecedented attacks."
"Would even a well-intentioned technology company, particularly a small one, have the expertise and resources to competently assess the risk that a foreign order may pose to a particular human rights activist?"
This new law may prove to be unconstitutional - even with a conservative-leaning court in place.
#DeleteChrome
You were warned.
You are welcome on my lawn.
At one time, I was surprised by Microsoft's approach: defending their customer's privacy.
Now they are selling them out. I don't think that this is a good business decision: it will dissuade non-US customers from using Microsoft's services.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Definition of moot
1 a : open to question : debatable
b : subjected to discussion :
But instead we get this version of moot:
2 : deprived of practical significance : made abstract or purely academic
Thanks a lot Rick Springfield, you screwed a word by making it opposite of itself. I’m happy you didn’t get Jessie’s girl.
The General Data Protection Regulation will be enforced in the EU very soon. It is a regulation that is specifically aimed at protecting the data of natural persons. Here is the text in english if you want to read it
There will be enormous conflicts between the GDPR and this law passed by the US congress.
It might take a while to fight this out in courts but i think this will probably lead to a ban of personal data transfer from european companies to any USA owned entity in a few years.
God damn you are a fucking idiot deflecting things as badly as the Russian trolls/Ivans around here! Guess who actually added the rider which is disputed here? Rep. Collins, Doug [R-GA-9]" - an exclusively conservative Republican from Georgia. Pointing out who and especially which party is genuinely responsive for an instance of rights violations is crucial for acting against it in a way that politicians actually feel and fear.
If it's anything like how extradition works? Then it will depend entirely on if the foreign government wishes to cooperate or not--it can sometimes be safer to go with a country which does have an agreement, but the agreement requires the request be in compliance with local laws as well & there's little chance of that happening.