Now actually I was making the argument that a USA court can order a USA company to force its the subsidiary to deliver the contents of a safety deposit box. That of course puts the company in an impossible situation where they are subject to conflicting law. So staying with the analogy they way Microsoft handled it is by letting the patient know when they walk in the door of subsidiary X that if they have X perform tests on them they have already agreed to export the results of those test to the United States already and thus don't have European privacy law protection.
I'm losing who owns what in the question. There are several slightly different versions floating through this thread.
But if the USA company is able to comply they must comply. So if they are able to get the box shipped the court can force them to ship it. So yes for the same reason a European wanting privacy from US courts shouldn't use Azure, if they want their safety deposit box to operate outside USA law they shouldn't use a safety deposit box owned directly or indirectly by a USA company.
Which since Microsoft announces this would be the clients not Microsoft. Under your agreement with Azure Europe you aren't allowed to use it to store information which it would illegal to export to the United States.
Yes a USA court could order it. They can order Microsoft USA to do anything that Microsoft USA can do on its own. If you agree Microsoft USA can do it then a USA court can order them to do it.
The liquidation would be subject to European law but whether it happens or not is not.
Huh? Microsoft USA could disband MOIL tomorrow. Executives are just employees they can be fired and replaced with other executives whose job it is to liquidate. There is no due process. MOIL is a possession of a USA legal person. Same as if I owned a chair in Europe. The chair doesn't get due process.
They don't do that. In the USA setting up a system unable to comply with the laws is called racketeering and it could get MIOL seized in its entirety. Microsoft USA has control over the Azure infrastructure. As far as MIOL employees are concerned at the time of first upload it has already been handed over to Microsoft USA.
The daughter companies can be forced indirectly. The parent company is obligated to assist in collecting the information. Since the parent company has effective control... What happens in this case with MIOL is that Microsoft USA does the handing over so the MIOL people aren't involved in anyway.
Under USA law the corporate parent is responsible for the properties they own including foreign subsidiaries. USA law doesn't allow companies to go around committing crimes because their foreign subsidiary did it.
I get where the data is. MOIL is owned by a Bermuda company that is owned by a Nevada corporation that is owned by a Washington State corporation called Microsoft. Microsoft of Washington State as the owner of MOIL has obligations to keep MOIL compliant with USA law.
As far as sanctions. Microsoft has already said unambiguously that agreeing to store data on Azure is exporting it. Azure should not be used for data which it is illegal to export to the USA. The clients not Microsoft would be sanctioned.
MS is a multi-national. They could move their HQ to Ireland next week, for tax purposes, and not much would change.
A lot would change. They would lose all the USA government contracts. They would no longer be trusted for all sorts of companies with export restrictions... They would then be a foreign company.
As slashdot readers should know, the USA frequently shoves its copyright laws for a start. The problem is not so much in buying USA products, as "If you want to be able to sell anything in the US market, here are a bunch of laws we need you to adopt before getting our 'free' trade agreement. "
In this case it is buying. In the case of copyright that's the USA government applying pressure to get countries to have copyright laws that don't. That doesn't apply to much to Europe as Europe has reasonably copyright laws.
There are a bunch of ACs here and I can't tell one from another. But assuming you are following this thread the situation is a bank has a document in a safe deposit box it can open. If they can't open it then there isn't a problem.
Which may very well be the situation with USA cloud services. You simply can't run an international cloud service because USA and European law conflict too much. So there will likely need to be a treaty. But in terms of whether a USA court can order it, yes they can.
No it doesn't. Microsoft is a US entity. They aren't European. If you want European law then keep your data on European servers. Europe has a rich collection of local cloud providers. But you use Azure you are exporting your data to the USA.
The USA doesn't shove their laws down other countries throats. You don't want USA law don't buy USA products.
No you aren't. The government is absolutely right. The threat to the functioning of the rule of law posed by the European position far outweigh the advantages of Microsoft getting a few extra sales for Azure.
your safe deposit box example, if the US wanted the contents of a safe deposit box in Europe they cannot legally seize it,
The analogy is right, your understanding of the law is not. If a USA company had records in a Europeans safe deposit box a USA federal court could demand they retrieve it and present it to the court. They would not have to get a warrant in Europe. That's an option of course but just an option.
The answer is going to be yes. The USA government can order USA companies to break other country's laws. The alternative would be that the USA loses sovereignty on its own soil. I'd say that Microsoft is just making it crystal clear there is a real problem so perhaps a treaty can be negotiated.
He may be aware of other country's laws. He just doesn't care. When/until the USA signs a treaty on this companies with physical presence in the USA are going to give up data when ordered.
Microsoft has protected themselves. Their notices indicate that giving data to Azure is agreement to exporting the data. Thus Azure cannot store data for which export is illegal. Essentially they are in a terrible bind where USA law and European law conflict and now they are pushing against both with two different strategies.
IMHO there is no chance they win their appeal in the USA federal courts. USA courts are not going to allow court ordered subpoenas to not be binding because the entity being subpoenaed thinks they have a good reason not to hand over what the court demands.
Think about it. If I have a grievance from 2006 then I was active on wikipedia then. Ergo it was substantially more gender balanced. And as a point of fact your psychic skills sucked. I could care less about userboxes I wasn't in to them then. But I did observe the change.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you.
Now actually I was making the argument that a USA court can order a USA company to force its the subsidiary to deliver the contents of a safety deposit box. That of course puts the company in an impossible situation where they are subject to conflicting law. So staying with the analogy they way Microsoft handled it is by letting the patient know when they walk in the door of subsidiary X that if they have X perform tests on them they have already agreed to export the results of those test to the United States already and thus don't have European privacy law protection.
Holding the USA people in contempt is how they enforce their orders.
I'm losing who owns what in the question. There are several slightly different versions floating through this thread.
But if the USA company is able to comply they must comply. So if they are able to get the box shipped the court can force them to ship it. So yes for the same reason a European wanting privacy from US courts shouldn't use Azure, if they want their safety deposit box to operate outside USA law they shouldn't use a safety deposit box owned directly or indirectly by a USA company.
It is not the end. You would like it to be the end, but it isn't.
Which since Microsoft announces this would be the clients not Microsoft. Under your agreement with Azure Europe you aren't allowed to use it to store information which it would illegal to export to the United States.
We both agree the USA court can ask the Irish court to assist.
In your analogy have Seamus live in a house Bob owns in Dublin. Also Bob pays for the maid who cleans up and thus has legal access to the book.
Yes a USA court could order it. They can order Microsoft USA to do anything that Microsoft USA can do on its own. If you agree Microsoft USA can do it then a USA court can order them to do it.
The liquidation would be subject to European law but whether it happens or not is not.
Huh? Microsoft USA could disband MOIL tomorrow. Executives are just employees they can be fired and replaced with other executives whose job it is to liquidate. There is no due process. MOIL is a possession of a USA legal person. Same as if I owned a chair in Europe. The chair doesn't get due process.
They don't do that. In the USA setting up a system unable to comply with the laws is called racketeering and it could get MIOL seized in its entirety. Microsoft USA has control over the Azure infrastructure. As far as MIOL employees are concerned at the time of first upload it has already been handed over to Microsoft USA.
The daughter companies can be forced indirectly. The parent company is obligated to assist in collecting the information. Since the parent company has effective control... What happens in this case with MIOL is that Microsoft USA does the handing over so the MIOL people aren't involved in anyway.
Then like I said there isn't a problem. You are disagreeing with the premise of the other AC's hypothetical.
Under USA law the corporate parent is responsible for the properties they own including foreign subsidiaries. USA law doesn't allow companies to go around committing crimes because their foreign subsidiary did it.
I get where the data is. MOIL is owned by a Bermuda company that is owned by a Nevada corporation that is owned by a Washington State corporation called Microsoft. Microsoft of Washington State as the owner of MOIL has obligations to keep MOIL compliant with USA law.
As far as sanctions. Microsoft has already said unambiguously that agreeing to store data on Azure is exporting it. Azure should not be used for data which it is illegal to export to the USA. The clients not Microsoft would be sanctioned.
A lot would change. They would lose all the USA government contracts. They would no longer be trusted for all sorts of companies with export restrictions... They would then be a foreign company.
In this case it is buying. In the case of copyright that's the USA government applying pressure to get countries to have copyright laws that don't. That doesn't apply to much to Europe as Europe has reasonably copyright laws.
There are a bunch of ACs here and I can't tell one from another. But assuming you are following this thread the situation is a bank has a document in a safe deposit box it can open. If they can't open it then there isn't a problem.
Which may very well be the situation with USA cloud services. You simply can't run an international cloud service because USA and European law conflict too much. So there will likely need to be a treaty. But in terms of whether a USA court can order it, yes they can.
You are wrong. If Bank A has access to the box they can be ordered to retrieve the documents.
No it doesn't. Microsoft is a US entity. They aren't European. If you want European law then keep your data on European servers. Europe has a rich collection of local cloud providers. But you use Azure you are exporting your data to the USA.
The USA doesn't shove their laws down other countries throats. You don't want USA law don't buy USA products.
No you aren't. The government is absolutely right. The threat to the functioning of the rule of law posed by the European position far outweigh the advantages of Microsoft getting a few extra sales for Azure.
Probably not. Microsoft is a USA company. OTOH they could do it for SAP Hana customers.
The analogy is right, your understanding of the law is not. If a USA company had records in a Europeans safe deposit box a USA federal court could demand they retrieve it and present it to the court. They would not have to get a warrant in Europe. That's an option of course but just an option.
The answer is going to be yes. The USA government can order USA companies to break other country's laws. The alternative would be that the USA loses sovereignty on its own soil. I'd say that Microsoft is just making it crystal clear there is a real problem so perhaps a treaty can be negotiated.
He may be aware of other country's laws. He just doesn't care. When/until the USA signs a treaty on this companies with physical presence in the USA are going to give up data when ordered.
Microsoft has protected themselves. Their notices indicate that giving data to Azure is agreement to exporting the data. Thus Azure cannot store data for which export is illegal. Essentially they are in a terrible bind where USA law and European law conflict and now they are pushing against both with two different strategies.
IMHO there is no chance they win their appeal in the USA federal courts. USA courts are not going to allow court ordered subpoenas to not be binding because the entity being subpoenaed thinks they have a good reason not to hand over what the court demands.
Think about it. If I have a grievance from 2006 then I was active on wikipedia then. Ergo it was substantially more gender balanced. And as a point of fact your psychic skills sucked. I could care less about userboxes I wasn't in to them then. But I did observe the change.