7 ms·

In this article, the government directly accuses Google of deliberately storing data overseas, so that they don't have to comply with certain court orders. How

In this article, the government directly accuses Google of deliberately storing data overseas, so that they don't have to comply with certain court orders. How is it a crime to store data internationally? Am I a criminal for storing my photos on a Russian VPS? Does this enrage you? Also absolutely insane that one ruling in one Fed District Court is non-binding to the other Courts.

uiri 9y ago
Also absolutely insane that one ruling in one Fed District Court is non-binding to the other Courts. What is the point of having the Supreme Court if courts which are nominally peers of one another are bound by each other's decisions? By having multiple cases with slight variations of the facts involved, the Supreme Court gets multiple data points upon which to base their decision which is then binding for the whole country.
- bonesss 9y ago
  From the article, and I'm no expert: they referred to that other court as a "sister court". My take on that was that those courts reside on the same legal 'tier' so neither one really dictates for the other, SCOTUS is the point of final arbitration.
dataminded 9y ago
You aren't a criminal for storing photos on a Russian VPS but you might be a criminal if you store data related to your money laundering activities on that same server. If the government can meet a reasonable standard for a warrant and prove that there is likely evidence on that server, should they be unable to secure access? What if that data were related to an imminent attack? I'm in favor of protecting data privacy and hope that the courts side with Google/Microsoft but I don't think that the arguments are as crazy as you describe them. From the government's standpoint, tech companies are enabling criminal's efforts to circumvent the law and endanger citizens. Offline laws are struggling to keep pace with the internets, nothing new.
- pjc50 9y ago
  If I understand the 5th amendment correctly, and its caselaw, you would be OK storing evidence of your own crimes overseas, but evidence relating to other people you could be compelled to turn over.
- exergy 9y ago
  The "reasonable standard" I agree with, and they should be discussed not in secret courts.
- Spivak 9y ago
  > If the government ... access? What if that data were related to an imminent attack? We can always play the game of upping the consequences but it's always the case that people are willing to throw out the rule of law when there's enough danger and I think that's the standard we should hold. If there's an imminent attack I think the argument should be that the danger is so great that the police/military must be given an exception to the law, not constantly expanding their power just in case.
  - oldandtired 9y ago
    When "the rule of law" can be changed at whim by one side to the detriment of the citizens, without recourse by the citizens to fix those changes, then "the rule of law" is a farce and has already been thrown out. Too often, the group who is currently in charge of a government gets a free pass to play havoc with both constitutional interpretations and general reasonableness of the societal rules and laws simply because they are the government. They are not held to any standard of responsibility for the changes they force upon the citizens. How often do we find that governments create more and more law and regulation solely for the benefit of that government and its "backers"? These laws and regulations end up being to the detriment of the citizens, those for whom, ostensibly, that regulation and law is supposed to protect and benefit. I should make note that irrespective of any imminent threat, law enforcement and military should always be held to the highest possible standard and never given any exception in following the law, that is the path to them never following the law and becoming a "law" unto themselves.

uiri 9y ago

Also absolutely insane that one ruling in one Fed District Court is non-binding to the other Courts. What is the point of having the Supreme Court if courts which are nominally peers of one another are bound by each other's decisions? By having multiple cases with slight variations of the facts involved, the Supreme Court gets multiple data points upon which to base their decision which is then binding for the whole country.

bonesss 9y ago
From the article, and I'm no expert: they referred to that other court as a "sister court". My take on that was that those courts reside on the same legal 'tier' so neither one really dictates for the other, SCOTUS is the point of final arbitration.

dataminded 9y ago

You aren't a criminal for storing photos on a Russian VPS but you might be a criminal if you store data related to your money laundering activities on that same server. If the government can meet a reasonable standard for a warrant and prove that there is likely evidence on that server, should they be unable to secure access? What if that data were related to an imminent attack? I'm in favor of protecting data privacy and hope that the courts side with Google/Microsoft but I don't think that the arguments are as crazy as you describe them. From the government's standpoint, tech companies are enabling criminal's efforts to circumvent the law and endanger citizens. Offline laws are struggling to keep pace with the internets, nothing new.

pjc50 9y ago
If I understand the 5th amendment correctly, and its caselaw, you would be OK storing evidence of your own crimes overseas, but evidence relating to other people you could be compelled to turn over.
exergy 9y ago
The "reasonable standard" I agree with, and they should be discussed not in secret courts.
Spivak 9y ago
> If the government ... access? What if that data were related to an imminent attack? We can always play the game of upping the consequences but it's always the case that people are willing to throw out the rule of law when there's enough danger and I think that's the standard we should hold. If there's an imminent attack I think the argument should be that the danger is so great that the police/military must be given an exception to the law, not constantly expanding their power just in case.
- oldandtired 9y ago
  When "the rule of law" can be changed at whim by one side to the detriment of the citizens, without recourse by the citizens to fix those changes, then "the rule of law" is a farce and has already been thrown out. Too often, the group who is currently in charge of a government gets a free pass to play havoc with both constitutional interpretations and general reasonableness of the societal rules and laws simply because they are the government. They are not held to any standard of responsibility for the changes they force upon the citizens. How often do we find that governments create more and more law and regulation solely for the benefit of that government and its "backers"? These laws and regulations end up being to the detriment of the citizens, those for whom, ostensibly, that regulation and law is supposed to protect and benefit. I should make note that irrespective of any imminent threat, law enforcement and military should always be held to the highest possible standard and never given any exception in following the law, that is the path to them never following the law and becoming a "law" unto themselves.