4 ms·

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

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.
  - Spivak 9y ago
    Which is fine, but my hope is that giving the police and military a method to deal with 'national security' threats by seeking exceptions on a case-by-case basis that generally applicable law can be reigned in unburdened from dealing with exceptional cases and add a bit of additional transparency because people would start paying attention when it's invoked. > never given any exception in following the law But my point is that in your world the law needs to explicitly handle exceptional cases and remain consistent which I think leads to an unnecessary expansion of power. For example I think there is a strong case that when faced with a credible bomb threat that the police should be able to compel suspects to unlock their phones. But outside of literal states of emergency I would be very uncomfortable with police having that power and I think asking the court to effectively instate temporary martial law to acquire powers like this would actually reduce their power most of the time. * It means we can write laws without having to worry about exceptional cases that can be used as loopholes. * It's an incredibly high bar to meet. I think the courts would rightfully be reluctant to grant these powers. * There would be little chance of these powers setting a precedent since it's by definition since they're suspensions of the law. * It would be an incredibly loud signal that would be obvious to anyone and everyone if it was being abused.
    - oldandtired 9y ago
      The problem is that this exists already and doesn't work. The fundamental problem is that "suspect" is based on assumption of guilt first and not on assumption of "innocence" first. We already have enough evidence that the "haystacks" are far too big. Law enforcement should required very highly trained individuals that have extremely high standards of protecting the citizenry without requiring exceptions to obeying the law. Yet, what we see is LEO's of all description who are self-entitled, above the law and are only concerned about what they want, they kill, they steal, they destroy with the courts (in many cases) just giving them a free pass. Society at large, doesn't trust them and these non-trusted groups are not interested (on the whole) to change to gain that trust back. So, until they change there is no logical reason for giving them any leeway. In terms of your exceptional cases, there are laws already on the books that handle this. There is no need for additional specialised law to cover these cases. The problem of "crime prevention" is that this is not an add-on feature. "Crime prevention" is a fundamental feature of a society that is responsible. Yes, there will be instances of a crime happening and you need to deal with this after the event with the appropriate action. Unfortunately, in today's society, many things that are "crimes" only because a section of society think they should be are treated as more serious than things that are really crimes. So copying a film is more punishable than taking a life. Go on from there. [edits to correct spelling]
andmarios 9y ago
If the data are stored in a Russian VPS, you ask the Russian authorities to get them for you. Asking Google to get them, is akin to asking a hacker hack foreign servers. Would you like the reverse? A Russian company delivering data from US based servers just because a Russian court asked for them?
- nsp 9y ago
  That’s exactly what I’d expect

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.
- Spivak 9y ago
  Which is fine, but my hope is that giving the police and military a method to deal with 'national security' threats by seeking exceptions on a case-by-case basis that generally applicable law can be reigned in unburdened from dealing with exceptional cases and add a bit of additional transparency because people would start paying attention when it's invoked. > never given any exception in following the law But my point is that in your world the law needs to explicitly handle exceptional cases and remain consistent which I think leads to an unnecessary expansion of power. For example I think there is a strong case that when faced with a credible bomb threat that the police should be able to compel suspects to unlock their phones. But outside of literal states of emergency I would be very uncomfortable with police having that power and I think asking the court to effectively instate temporary martial law to acquire powers like this would actually reduce their power most of the time. * It means we can write laws without having to worry about exceptional cases that can be used as loopholes. * It's an incredibly high bar to meet. I think the courts would rightfully be reluctant to grant these powers. * There would be little chance of these powers setting a precedent since it's by definition since they're suspensions of the law. * It would be an incredibly loud signal that would be obvious to anyone and everyone if it was being abused.
  - oldandtired 9y ago
    The problem is that this exists already and doesn't work. The fundamental problem is that "suspect" is based on assumption of guilt first and not on assumption of "innocence" first. We already have enough evidence that the "haystacks" are far too big. Law enforcement should required very highly trained individuals that have extremely high standards of protecting the citizenry without requiring exceptions to obeying the law. Yet, what we see is LEO's of all description who are self-entitled, above the law and are only concerned about what they want, they kill, they steal, they destroy with the courts (in many cases) just giving them a free pass. Society at large, doesn't trust them and these non-trusted groups are not interested (on the whole) to change to gain that trust back. So, until they change there is no logical reason for giving them any leeway. In terms of your exceptional cases, there are laws already on the books that handle this. There is no need for additional specialised law to cover these cases. The problem of "crime prevention" is that this is not an add-on feature. "Crime prevention" is a fundamental feature of a society that is responsible. Yes, there will be instances of a crime happening and you need to deal with this after the event with the appropriate action. Unfortunately, in today's society, many things that are "crimes" only because a section of society think they should be are treated as more serious than things that are really crimes. So copying a film is more punishable than taking a life. Go on from there. [edits to correct spelling]

andmarios 9y ago

If the data are stored in a Russian VPS, you ask the Russian authorities to get them for you. Asking Google to get them, is akin to asking a hacker hack foreign servers. Would you like the reverse? A Russian company delivering data from US based servers just because a Russian court asked for them?

nsp 9y ago
That’s exactly what I’d expect