4 ms·

Something you missed as well was 2018's "CLOUD Act" [1] Stealing from Wikipedia since frankly it's better articulated than I could do "The CLOUD Act was intro

Something you missed as well was 2018's "CLOUD Act" [1] Stealing from Wikipedia since frankly it's better articulated than I could do "The CLOUD Act was introduced following difficulties that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had with obtaining remote data through service providers through SCA warrants, as the SCA was written before cloud computing was a viable technology. The situation was highlighted from a 2013 drug trafficking investigation, during which the FBI issued an SCA warrant for emails that a U.S. citizen had stored on one of Microsoft's remote servers in Ireland, which Microsoft refused to provide." US Companies can't simply say "well that's in Europe. That's outside *our control*". The US truly considers its data reach to be global in nature when it comes to US companies. it's absolutely terrifying to think about [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLOUD_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLOUD_Act

rswail 1y ago
That's why I'm suggesting that the data storage/retrieval supplier is EU owned and controlled. So in the case you quote, FBI can issue a warrant to Microsoft, but all they can do is pass it on to their data storage provider, who can reject it depending on EU law, not US law.
- tzs 1y ago
  In the quoted case it would not make a difference if the data storage service was EU owned and controlled because the warrant is asking Microsoft to supply the data. Microsoft can do that by simply using the normal data retrieval API that data storage service makes available to all its customers. To the data storage service the API call Microsoft will make to get the data the FBI wants is no different than the thousands of other API calls Microsoft is making daily to store and retrieve data. What using an EU owned and controlled data storage service gets you is that you don't have to worry about non-EU law enforcement getting your data by forcing the data storage service to give it up directly to them.

rswail 1y ago

That's why I'm suggesting that the data storage/retrieval supplier is EU owned and controlled. So in the case you quote, FBI can issue a warrant to Microsoft, but all they can do is pass it on to their data storage provider, who can reject it depending on EU law, not US law.

tzs 1y ago
In the quoted case it would not make a difference if the data storage service was EU owned and controlled because the warrant is asking Microsoft to supply the data. Microsoft can do that by simply using the normal data retrieval API that data storage service makes available to all its customers. To the data storage service the API call Microsoft will make to get the data the FBI wants is no different than the thousands of other API calls Microsoft is making daily to store and retrieve data. What using an EU owned and controlled data storage service gets you is that you don't have to worry about non-EU law enforcement getting your data by forcing the data storage service to give it up directly to them.