They can and they have. When the courts order Americans who failed to appear that they must appear for military service often they get shipped off to do things like shoot people in other jurisdictions that the incumbent governments find highly illegal.
Are Microsoft Ireland employees allowed to transfer the data if it's against the laws of Ireland?
Probably yes. Generally the courts recognize each other and European courts, unlike European/.ers don't think USA courts as being too aggressive. But we've been working a hypothetical where Microsoft USA employees setup a situation where they don't have access to the data, and European courts aren't fully supporting USA courts. Both of which are unrealistic.
This stuff is all on Azure. But if worse came to worse. Microsoft USA employees can physically go there and get it and bring it back to the USA themselves.
If you want to treat them as property that's fine too. A subpoena can tell you to get stuff from a box inside a closet inside a house which you have a complex rental agreement for. Layers of ownership don't matter. The question is "can you get it", not "is is currently in your possession".
Microsoft Ireland is two companies. One is licensing company Microsoft Island Research (MIR) and one is an operations company Microsoft Ireland Operations Limited (MIOL). The operations company which is the one which has employees is owned by a Bermuda company (Round Island One) which is owned by Round Island LLC a Nevada investment group which is owned by Microsoft of Washington. They aren't the same company in some paper sense. However MIOL is so totally controlled by the other companies that it passes its money to another company completely and operates in a way so that it will never be profitable. No one is going to ever see that as anything other than a legal fiction that exists for tax purposes.
Obeying a USA court order even if normally illegal is legal in the United States. For example it is illegal to hand over medical records. Under court order it is perfectly legal to do so. Judges are entitled under USA law to tell people to do things that are normally illegal.
Think about imprisonment. Without a court order, forcibly taking someone and locking them in a box for years is a very serious crime. With a court order it is a function of the state.
The final jurisdiction for USA corporations is the USA government. The final jurisdiction for French corporations is the French government. The final jurisdiction for Russian corporations is the Russian government.
Sure that's possible. It is also possible to have useful information. Many of the icons on my iPhone present a number which indicates important information, none of which is advertising. Windows takes this much further.
Of course the Chinese person doesn't have to care. The question is whether the USA person can be ordered to produce the antique. They don't need to go after the Chinese person.
Let's say I work for WidgetCoUSA, a wholly-owned subsidiary of WidgetCoUK
You reversed the situation here. You have the UK company owning the USA company. The hypothetical had the reverse ownership.
Microsoft-Ireland have the same requirement?
Yes they are owned by a Bermuda company that is owned by a Nevada company ( Round Island LLC) that is owned by the Washington company Microsoft. Microsoft has the ability to compel Microsoft Ireland to do what they want. They are obligated to do so. Ultimately if MIOL is an unfixable criminal enterprise (as per your scenario) Round Island would have to shut it down.
If the employees of Microsoft Ireland want to fail to comply with direct orders they are going to get fired and the data is going to get taken back from them. The courts are not going to play games.
Because name aside, these do not count as the same company, or the same people in charge.
Of course the same people are in charge. MIOL is property (indirectly) of Microsoft USA. It is the same company.
So if I say to my foreign counterpart "give me this data that I have been subpoenaed to provide" I am obstructing justice?
If you did understanding that telling them there was a subpoena would make you less likely to get the data, then yes it would be. You have an obligation to the court. The court is not interested in playing word games with you. If you say anything which causes a foreigner to restrict the courts access to the data you are obstructing justice.
Even if you put a policy in place where everyday you called them up and said "I'm not under subpoena" and then when you were under subpoena you didn't call, setting up that system is still obstruction.
You could argue that the foreign branch is obstructing US justice when they implement the policy of automatic refusal unless/until a local subpoena complying with local legal requirements is received, but nobody there is personally bound by US law, so it's not particularly relevant unless they want to travel to the US in the future. Meanwhile they might very well be in violation of local law by supplying said data without the appropriate local legal authorization.
The don't go after the foreigners, they go after the locals.
The US can't be allowed to be "world cops" to this degree
This isn't about world cop. American corporations are American legal persons. They need to follow USA law.
Yes allows. The spying scandal has to do with terrorism and specific exemptions. Once it is purely foreign and non-compliant then non-terrorism related intelligence comes into play.
So . . . ultimately . . . a secret USA government court c
We are talking about the regular normal courts here, not secret courts. Rephrase this in terms of the actual laws and actual courts otherwise it is meaningless.
Can they do it if they give an order. Do they have any way to accomplish the goal.
If exercising that authority contravened the laws of a foreign power, does it constitute having authority? What if it contravenes a foreign religious system? What if it contravened the laws of a foreign power that the US doesn't recognise, or in a territory which is under dispute? (Palestine? Crimea? Taiwan? Sealand?).
In all those cases doesn't matter. Yes they have the authority.
The end game of this is that tech companies will set up the head of the pyramid of the company in some obscure jurisdiction who will do what they are told, and they'll set up their servers in countries with strong privacy laws, and the US will be left out of the loop.
If they can collect revenue from the pyramid then they have control. If they have control then they can comply with court orders.
Not really. Microsoft Ireland Operations Limited (MIOL) is owned by Round Island One a Bermuda corporation Round Island One is owned by Round Island LLC which is a Nevada corporation Round Island LLC is owned by Microsoft a Washington State corporation
Round Island LLC and Microsoft are subject to USA law and as owners are responsible for making sure that Round Island One and MIOL aren't criminal organizations.
Slashdot Mirror
I never said they could indemnify them. The question was about the US judge being extradited. Read the thread. I never mentioned indemnification once.
They can and they have. When the courts order Americans who failed to appear that they must appear for military service often they get shipped off to do things like shoot people in other jurisdictions that the incumbent governments find highly illegal.
Probably yes. Generally the courts recognize each other and European courts, unlike European /.ers don't think USA courts as being too aggressive. But we've been working a hypothetical where Microsoft USA employees setup a situation where they don't have access to the data, and European courts aren't fully supporting USA courts. Both of which are unrealistic.
This stuff is all on Azure. But if worse came to worse. Microsoft USA employees can physically go there and get it and bring it back to the USA themselves.
If you want to treat them as property that's fine too. A subpoena can tell you to get stuff from a box inside a closet inside a house which you have a complex rental agreement for. Layers of ownership don't matter. The question is "can you get it", not "is is currently in your possession".
Microsoft Ireland is two companies. One is licensing company Microsoft Island Research (MIR) and one is an operations company Microsoft Ireland Operations Limited (MIOL). The operations company which is the one which has employees is owned by a Bermuda company (Round Island One) which is owned by Round Island LLC a Nevada investment group which is owned by Microsoft of Washington. They aren't the same company in some paper sense. However MIOL is so totally controlled by the other companies that it passes its money to another company completely and operates in a way so that it will never be profitable. No one is going to ever see that as anything other than a legal fiction that exists for tax purposes.
Extraordinary renditions, drones... are against terrorism that's guns.
Every day subpoena are laws.
You are the one who brought up guns.
Exactly. The government has a ton of leverage.
Extradition requests of Americans (see above the topic) are in USA jurisdiction.
Obeying a USA court order even if normally illegal is legal in the United States. For example it is illegal to hand over medical records. Under court order it is perfectly legal to do so. Judges are entitled under USA law to tell people to do things that are normally illegal.
Think about imprisonment. Without a court order, forcibly taking someone and locking them in a box for years is a very serious crime. With a court order it is a function of the state.
The final jurisdiction for USA corporations is the USA government.
The final jurisdiction for French corporations is the French government.
The final jurisdiction for Russian corporations is the Russian government.
Sure that's possible. It is also possible to have useful information. Many of the icons on my iPhone present a number which indicates important information, none of which is advertising. Windows takes this much further.
Of course the Chinese person doesn't have to care. The question is whether the USA person can be ordered to produce the antique. They don't need to go after the Chinese person.
You reversed the situation here. You have the UK company owning the USA company. The hypothetical had the reverse ownership.
Yes they are owned by a Bermuda company that is owned by a Nevada company ( Round Island LLC) that is owned by the Washington company Microsoft. Microsoft has the ability to compel Microsoft Ireland to do what they want. They are obligated to do so. Ultimately if MIOL is an unfixable criminal enterprise (as per your scenario) Round Island would have to shut it down.
If the employees of Microsoft Ireland want to fail to comply with direct orders they are going to get fired and the data is going to get taken back from them. The courts are not going to play games.
Of course the same people are in charge. MIOL is property (indirectly) of Microsoft USA. It is the same company.
If you did understanding that telling them there was a subpoena would make you less likely to get the data, then yes it would be. You have an obligation to the court. The court is not interested in playing word games with you. If you say anything which causes a foreigner to restrict the courts access to the data you are obstructing justice.
Even if you put a policy in place where everyday you called them up and said "I'm not under subpoena" and then when you were under subpoena you didn't call, setting up that system is still obstruction.
The don't go after the foreigners, they go after the locals.
This isn't about world cop. American corporations are American legal persons. They need to follow USA law.
Yes allows. The spying scandal has to do with terrorism and specific exemptions. Once it is purely foreign and non-compliant then non-terrorism related intelligence comes into play.
That's fine. Foreign governments can bully USA corporations they can't exercise final jurisdiction.
You think a EU country is going to launch air strikes against the USA?
The domestic employees can carry out the orders. US company means US ownership, means there are USA people who can get the data. So they get it.
We are talking about the regular normal courts here, not secret courts. Rephrase this in terms of the actual laws and actual courts otherwise it is meaningless.
Can they do it if they give an order. Do they have any way to accomplish the goal.
In all those cases doesn't matter. Yes they have the authority.
If they can collect revenue from the pyramid then they have control. If they have control then they can comply with court orders.
Not really.
Microsoft Ireland Operations Limited (MIOL) is owned by Round Island One a Bermuda corporation
Round Island One is owned by Round Island LLC which is a Nevada corporation
Round Island LLC is owned by Microsoft a Washington State corporation
Round Island LLC and Microsoft are subject to USA law and as owners are responsible for making sure that Round Island One and MIOL aren't criminal organizations.
Absolutely. If we signed a treaty with the EU countries involving data privacy that would be USA law. We haven't.
What can they be extradited for? You can only be extradited for something that's a crime in both jurisdictions.
Held where? The judges ordering this are in the USA.
The world is starting to move away from USA technology? By what possible metric?