3 ms·
Right, except the specific claim here as I understand it is that companies should be able to refuse to comply with warrants if the responsive data is stored in
by rainsford 9y ago
Right, except the specific claim here as I understand it is that companies should be able to refuse to comply with warrants if the responsive data is stored in another country even if the company can access said data and that the lack of ability to do so exists in the US but not in the EU.
- bsder 9y ago"Lack of ability" will have to be demonstrated politically as well as technically. If Google doesn't want to be subject to US laws, then the data and servers in question have to be under the control of an entity not under US jurisdiction. And that includes financially and politically as well as technically. This really isn't that hard. Google can either set things up so that Google US really, truly cannot affect anything in Le Google--and that includes management decisions--of course, Google does not want independent Googlets as those companies will start to compete with the mothership (or they can't function because they lose the economy of scale). Or Google can set it up so that NOBODY including Google, Le Google, etc. can get at the data because it is encrypted--of course, Google doesn't want this as then they cannot mine your stuff for advertising. Why do you think Microsoft just announced all the SGX support stuff for Azure? They want email to be really, truly encrypted such that even Microsoft can't get at it so that the can keep selling Office 365 without getting embroiled in this.