4 ms·

I don't understand why this is bad. The argument makes sense. If you are conducting your business via email using an American provider, expect it to be subject

I don't understand why this is bad. The argument makes sense. If you are conducting your business via email using an American provider, expect it to be subject to American law. I don't see how this could be unusual or a shock to anyone.

jbmorgado 10y ago
I think the shock here is exactly that american law allows for this.
pyrale 10y ago
If you start behaving like that, expect foreign governments/clients to ban/boycott american providers. Jurisdiction is an important concept, and if the american justice starts using the good economic position of its companies to bypass or expand its jurisdiction, it should be expected that the feedback will effect said economic position. While this case seems to be a bit different from the Ms case, the court essentially orders a private entity to take action in a foreign country, something which it could not do itself. This seems wrong to me. Instead, the issue is probably that this info should probably not be foreign if the producers were domestic.
- WildUtah 10y ago
  If you start behaving like that, expect foreign governments/clients to ban/boycott american providers. If it were a real concern to anyone, the EU countries would have simply used their big stick and started banning Google and Microsoft from doing business until they cleaned up their acts. And they'd have done it years ago. As long as it's the US government violating your privacy, those EU countries are perfectly happy to see their data privacy laws neutered.
  - pyrale 10y ago
    The situation is not immune to change. E.g. the election of Trump, and more specifically the executive order he passed calling for the stripping of any expectation of privacy for all foreigners may spur europeans to action. At least currently, there seems to be a trend in the EU pleading to shield ourselves from US interference, and the tech cos are probably the obvious first target.
- herbst 10y ago
  People do that. I have several clients that _can_, by company policy, use services in pretty much any european country but nothing that has a headquarter in the U.S. sometimes a official U.S. brunch is already enough to make it a nogo.
tensor 10y ago
Corporations are international entities. If a corporation conducts business in my country, has offices, personnel, and stores data in my country, pays taxes here, I would not expect to be subject to American law.
- singlow 10y ago
  And this does not say that you are. But if you are otherwise subject to American law by jurisdiction, storing your data on foreign soil does not exempt it from warrants. However if the storage provider itself has no US presence, it is much harder for the US government to compel them. But Google and the target of the warrant are subject to US courts so the physical location of the data is not relevant.
beejiu 10y ago
But an American company operating in the UK is also subject to British law. Suppose if the British government compelled Google to hand over information stored in the United States on Americans. Is that okay? This is only acceptable if you think the United States governs the world. See 'Extraterritorial Jurisdiction'.
herbst 10y ago
From my POV i am dealing with a company in the next city and servers within my country and in neighboring countries. My data shouldnt move to the U.S. even once, i mean i know it does. But the google i use is a Irish coorperation with a big center in a city nearby. If i, as swiss, would have a company in switzerland and a brunch in the U.S. and move all the data to switzerland while claiming to be a U.S. company you may would think that is wrong as well.

jbmorgado 10y ago

I think the shock here is exactly that american law allows for this.

pyrale 10y ago

If you start behaving like that, expect foreign governments/clients to ban/boycott american providers. Jurisdiction is an important concept, and if the american justice starts using the good economic position of its companies to bypass or expand its jurisdiction, it should be expected that the feedback will effect said economic position. While this case seems to be a bit different from the Ms case, the court essentially orders a private entity to take action in a foreign country, something which it could not do itself. This seems wrong to me. Instead, the issue is probably that this info should probably not be foreign if the producers were domestic.

WildUtah 10y ago
If you start behaving like that, expect foreign governments/clients to ban/boycott american providers. If it were a real concern to anyone, the EU countries would have simply used their big stick and started banning Google and Microsoft from doing business until they cleaned up their acts. And they'd have done it years ago. As long as it's the US government violating your privacy, those EU countries are perfectly happy to see their data privacy laws neutered.
- pyrale 10y ago
  The situation is not immune to change. E.g. the election of Trump, and more specifically the executive order he passed calling for the stripping of any expectation of privacy for all foreigners may spur europeans to action. At least currently, there seems to be a trend in the EU pleading to shield ourselves from US interference, and the tech cos are probably the obvious first target.
herbst 10y ago
People do that. I have several clients that _can_, by company policy, use services in pretty much any european country but nothing that has a headquarter in the U.S. sometimes a official U.S. brunch is already enough to make it a nogo.

tensor 10y ago

Corporations are international entities. If a corporation conducts business in my country, has offices, personnel, and stores data in my country, pays taxes here, I would not expect to be subject to American law.

singlow 10y ago
And this does not say that you are. But if you are otherwise subject to American law by jurisdiction, storing your data on foreign soil does not exempt it from warrants. However if the storage provider itself has no US presence, it is much harder for the US government to compel them. But Google and the target of the warrant are subject to US courts so the physical location of the data is not relevant.

beejiu 10y ago

But an American company operating in the UK is also subject to British law. Suppose if the British government compelled Google to hand over information stored in the United States on Americans. Is that okay? This is only acceptable if you think the United States governs the world. See 'Extraterritorial Jurisdiction'.

herbst 10y ago

From my POV i am dealing with a company in the next city and servers within my country and in neighboring countries. My data shouldnt move to the U.S. even once, i mean i know it does. But the google i use is a Irish coorperation with a big center in a city nearby. If i, as swiss, would have a company in switzerland and a brunch in the U.S. and move all the data to switzerland while claiming to be a U.S. company you may would think that is wrong as well.