3 ms·

No, I don't believe this is correct. The source of the emails seems to never be brought up. The discussion in the decision is pretty readable. Essentially the

No, I don't believe this is correct. The source of the emails seems to never be brought up. The discussion in the decision is pretty readable. Essentially the argument seems to be because Google transfers data from country to country in normal operations, the data currently stored outside of the US is somehow different than the data Microsoft was permanently storing in Ireland. As a result, Google could just transfer the data back to the US and then the search is just a normal domestic search with a warrant: > Under the facts before this court, the conduct relevant to the SCA's focus will occur in the United States. That is, the invasions of privacy will occur in the United States; the searches of the electronic data disclosed by Google pursuant to the warrants will occur in the United States when the FBI reviews the copies of the requested data in Pennsylvania. Seems like the judge's argument would apply to any user of a service with multiple data centers that regularly replicate (or transfer) data between them.

joatmon-snoo 10y ago
You're right with respect to the point about the source of the emails. > Seems like the judge's argument would apply to any user of a service with multiple data centers that regularly replicate (or transfer) data between them. I find this decision even more onerous than that, which is disturbing on a number of levels, specifically, this excerpt from the conclusion: under this court's interpretation, Google will gather the requested undisclosed data on its computers in California, copy the data in California, and send the data to law enforcement agents in the United States, who will then conduct their searches in the United States. An important note is that this is not simply because the data in question is sharded (and therefore cannot be guaranteed to be wholly present in some single sovereign's jurisdiction - this conclusion is considered ancillary to the SCA warrant extraterritoriality question).

joatmon-snoo 10y ago

You're right with respect to the point about the source of the emails. > Seems like the judge's argument would apply to any user of a service with multiple data centers that regularly replicate (or transfer) data between them. I find this decision even more onerous than that, which is disturbing on a number of levels, specifically, this excerpt from the conclusion: under this court's interpretation, Google will gather the requested undisclosed data on its computers in California, copy the data in California, and send the data to law enforcement agents in the United States, who will then conduct their searches in the United States. An important note is that this is not simply because the data in question is sharded (and therefore cannot be guaranteed to be wholly present in some single sovereign's jurisdiction - this conclusion is considered ancillary to the SCA warrant extraterritoriality question).