SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
janrinok
on Saturday April 26 2014, @11:08PM
from the no-jurisdiction-without-representation!-Pass-my-musket dept.
from the no-jurisdiction-without-representation!-Pass-my-musket dept.
People all over the world should consider US companies as controlled by their (i.e. the US) government in all matters. Because a judge in US has now ruled that search warrants for customer email and other content must be turned over, regardless of whether the data is stored on servers in other countries. The case is one where law enforcement demanded data from Microsoft's servers in Ireland. Microsoft fought back, saying, 'A U.S. prosecutor cannot obtain a U.S. warrant to search someone's home located in another country, just as another country's prosecutor cannot obtain a court order in her home country to conduct a search in the United States. We think the same rules should apply in the online world, but the government disagrees.'
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
US Court Demands Jurisdiction in Other Countries
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 11 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Dealing with failure is easy:
Work hard to improve.
Success is also easy to handle:
You've solved the wrong problem.
Work hard to improve.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Appalbarry on Sunday April 27 2014, @12:07AM
1) Microsoft has recently emphasized to its customers abroad that their data should not be searchable by U.S. authorities and said it would fight such requests.
2)Microsoft determined that the target account is hosted on a server in Dublin and asked Francis to throw out the request, citing U.S. law that search warrants do not extend overseas.
Francis agreed that this is true for "traditional" search warrants but not warrants seeking digital content, which are governed by a federal law called the Stored Communications Act.
A search warrant for email information, he said, is a "hybrid" order: obtained like a search warrant but executed like a subpoena for documents. Longstanding U.S. law holds that the recipient of a subpoena must provide the information sought, no matter where it is held, he said.
All of which suggests that there is prior case law to support the judge's decision.
I'd also wonder about he possibility that the data in question at some point will travel through US server space anyhow. Certainly the NSA etc will be watching those access points.
All of this proves once again that you should not ever assume that any communications are private or protected.