3 ms·
When those datacenters are in your own jurisdiction, but the Global HQ of the company is in a different jurisdiction, then you have a problem. This is bigger t
by amirmc 10y ago
When those datacenters are in your own jurisdiction, but the Global HQ of the company is in a different jurisdiction, then you have a problem. This is bigger than corporate vs individual interests.
What you're really saying in the first part of your comment is that there would need to be 'an independent google' for every jurisdiction. That isn't going to happen.
The current situation is a little different since:
"Each account holder resides in the United States, the crimes they are suspected of committing occurred solely in the United States, and the electronic data at issue was exchanged between persons located in the United States."
In this case it does seem reasonable that the company should comply.
- raesene9 10y agoWell I'd agree that an independent google for every jurisdiction won't happen, but I'd bet on independent googles in major legal blocs (e.g. the EU) for exactly this reason. Whilst this case my seem straightforward, the precedent (that data held in other countries can be requested by a court in the US based on the fact that Google is a US corp) would lead them necessarily to establish legal entities to prevent that spreading.
- amirmc 10y ago> * ... would lead them necessarily to establish legal entities to prevent that spreading* They already have multiple legal entities. And there are two different things being conflated here. 1. Info/data that was generated and pertains to people in one jurisdiction that just 'happens' to be shipped to a datacenter elsewhere, just because Google can. This seems to be the current story. 2. Info/data that was generated and pertains to people in one jurisdiction that a legal system in a different jurisdiction tries to claim rights to. This is also happening and has implications for service users, privacy law, etc.