4 ms·

This has always been the law. Common law courts have been issuing court orders that require you to take actions in foreign countries, even in violation of forei

This has always been the law. Common law courts have been issuing court orders that require you to take actions in foreign countries, even in violation of foreign law, for as long as it's been a legal question. The CLOUD Act actually introduced some additional safeguards and allows judges to consider the seriousness of the foreign law violation and weigh it against the importance of the court getting access to the foreign-stored data. You unfortunately need something like this because otherwise people will just hide documents, money, stolen property, etc. in foreign countries out of reach of US courts, even if they are US persons and corporations. It isn't just pro-government. Imagine you are a criminal defendant and there is evidence proving your innocence in a foreign server controlled by an American person or company. This rule makes sure you can legally compel that entity to go get the data, the laws of that other country be damned, so you can present your defense.

closewith 4y ago
While extra-territoriality is not a new concept, it’s absolutely false to say that the CLOUD Act didn’t grant sweeping new powers to US courts. That’s a truly absurd claim that makes me question whether you’re commenting in good faith?
- legalcorrection 4y ago
  It was passed because in the Microsoft v. US case, the Supreme Court was expected to affirm the long-standing law on this: that in response to a U.S. court order, Microsoft had to hand over user data from Irish servers, Irish law be damned. Such a blunt rule was considered a little too harsh, and a potential source of international problems, so Congress passed a law softening the rule and allowing judges more discretion in considering the burdens of complying with the order. The law had the effect of making the Supreme Court case moot. Sorry that the truth is more nuanced than you’d like it to be.
  - closewith 4y ago
    There is nuance, but in the opposite direction. Microsoft did not adhere to the original court order, and fought it to the supreme court, where it was undecided when the CLOUD Act came into force and a new warrant was issued for the data held in Ireland. It is unambiguously an expansion of Government powers. You're the first and only person I've ever come across who has argued the opposite. It's such a ridiculous thing to write that I am wondering if you're trolling me?
    - legalcorrection 4y ago
      >There is nuance, but in the opposite direction. Microsoft did not adhere to the original court order, and fought it to the supreme court, where it was undecided when the CLOUD Act came into force and a new warrant was issued for the data held in Ireland. What part of this do you think is incompatible with the fact that almost everyone expected Microsoft to lose the case? And in fact, Microsoft, Apple, and Google lobbied for the CLOUD Act. So maybe instead of accusing people of bad faith, you should have a little humility and open-mindedness to improving your understanding of the world. Believe it or not, techie discussion forums and Wired are not reliable sources of legal information, so that would explain why you're so misinformed.
      - closewith 4y ago
        > you should have a little humility and open-mindedness to improving your understanding of the world If this is trolling, I applaud your creativity. If not, I'm in awe of the irony.

closewith 4y ago

While extra-territoriality is not a new concept, it’s absolutely false to say that the CLOUD Act didn’t grant sweeping new powers to US courts. That’s a truly absurd claim that makes me question whether you’re commenting in good faith?

legalcorrection 4y ago
It was passed because in the Microsoft v. US case, the Supreme Court was expected to affirm the long-standing law on this: that in response to a U.S. court order, Microsoft had to hand over user data from Irish servers, Irish law be damned. Such a blunt rule was considered a little too harsh, and a potential source of international problems, so Congress passed a law softening the rule and allowing judges more discretion in considering the burdens of complying with the order. The law had the effect of making the Supreme Court case moot. Sorry that the truth is more nuanced than you’d like it to be.
- closewith 4y ago
  There is nuance, but in the opposite direction. Microsoft did not adhere to the original court order, and fought it to the supreme court, where it was undecided when the CLOUD Act came into force and a new warrant was issued for the data held in Ireland. It is unambiguously an expansion of Government powers. You're the first and only person I've ever come across who has argued the opposite. It's such a ridiculous thing to write that I am wondering if you're trolling me?
  - legalcorrection 4y ago
    >There is nuance, but in the opposite direction. Microsoft did not adhere to the original court order, and fought it to the supreme court, where it was undecided when the CLOUD Act came into force and a new warrant was issued for the data held in Ireland. What part of this do you think is incompatible with the fact that almost everyone expected Microsoft to lose the case? And in fact, Microsoft, Apple, and Google lobbied for the CLOUD Act. So maybe instead of accusing people of bad faith, you should have a little humility and open-mindedness to improving your understanding of the world. Believe it or not, techie discussion forums and Wired are not reliable sources of legal information, so that would explain why you're so misinformed.
    - closewith 4y ago
      > you should have a little humility and open-mindedness to improving your understanding of the world If this is trolling, I applaud your creativity. If not, I'm in awe of the irony.