3 ms·

This will embolden countries like Germany and Brazil even more to force Google and Microsoft to create local subsidiaries/different companies there and hold the

This will embolden countries like Germany and Brazil even more to force Google and Microsoft to create local subsidiaries/different companies there and hold their citizens data only in those datacenters and with that specific company. And I don't blame them. As a response to this, and to avoid that, Google and Microsoft should be adopting end-to-end encryption in their services as soon as possible, because it's the only way they can now say with a straight face that EU citizen data is "safe" with them. Otherwise (hopefully) people will be using less and less American services over the next few years. Europeans (and others) can't and shouldn't feel safe with their data used by American companies now.

arethuza 13y ago
They presumably already have wholly owned subsidiaries in each country where they have any presence - the US government can then presumably say to the parent company in the US "tell your subsidiary in <country> to give us their data" and what can they do?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- tomp 13y ago
  They would respond "We ordered the CEO of the local subsidiary to give us the data, and he refused, because that would be illegal in the country the subsidiary is based in. We then fired the CEO, now he's suing the subsidiary and we had to close it down. We made $50M loss this year because of the lawsuit. Thank you, honourable judge."
- wmf 13y ago
  One wonders if having the parent company in, say, Switzerland would be better.
bjelkeman-again 13y ago
It is not enough that they are local subsidiaries. Microsoft said this already in 2011. A subsidiary on foreign soil, under foreign law is required by the patriot act to produce the data that a US authority is demanding, even if it breaks the law in the country it is in. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/igeneration/microsoft-admits-patriot-act-can-access-eu-based-cloud-data/11225 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/igeneration/microsoft-admits-patri...
- pedrocr 13y ago
  That's the difficult case. Suppose you're the head of Microsoft Brasil, a Brazilian company 100% owned by Microsoft. You're a Brazilian citizen siting in your office in São Paulo, overseeing the local datacenter. A US court asks Microsoft to ask Microsoft Brasil for some data. The request arrives at your desk and it goes against local law. Do you comply and risk going to jail in Brazil or do you not comply and let your boss in the US go to jail? There's got to be precedent for this in the physical world. There's nothing special about data in a datacenter vs cargo in a warehouse for this scenario.
  - SoftwareMaven 13y ago
    In cases like this, there is a difference: that data can be accessed from US soil, even while it is stored on foreign turf. Guns sitting in a warehouse cannot be used in the commission of a crime in the US; data on an email server in Brazil can be. And I bet that's the angle the US govt is taking on this. It still reeks of a belief that other nations do not really have sovereignty.
    - pedrocr 13y ago
      >In cases like this, there is a difference: that data can be accessed from US soil, even while it is stored on foreign turf. Guns sitting in a warehouse cannot be used in the commission of a crime in the US; data on an email server in Brazil can be. A distinction without a difference. If the argument is that the data can, at some unspecified future time, be brought to the US, you get to wait for that to happen to intercept it. Just like you would with cargo in a foreign port that you suspect is going to be shipped to the US. But suppose you've already lost that argument in court in the US how does the head of Microsoft Brazil respond to the request? Microsoft seems to be screwed either way.
- hrktb 13y ago
  There is something I don't really understand. If the subsidiary said no, it would have followed the local law, the parent company can explain the order was refused by the subsidary with reason and it can't do anything more (the employees don't fall under the same juridiction), and technically everything would be OK. Am I missing anything apart MS not wanting to piss the US government and throwing their subsidy under the bus instead ?
KMag 13y ago
If a country had a good precedent of telling the FBI to go away and come back when they obtained a search warrant through local courts, an educated population (with a high rate of English literacy), a climate that kept datacenter cooling costs low, and a high potential for geothermal power, I think this would be the time for such a country to push hard for even stronger privacy laws and start up some locally owned cloud computing/cloud storage businesses. It's too bad such a country isn't closer to the great circle route between New York and London, Paris, or Berlin. Being able to terminate trans-Atlantic cables on a small Atlantic island nearly for free would pretty much make it an ideal location for datacenters.

arethuza 13y ago

They presumably already have wholly owned subsidiaries in each country where they have any presence - the US government can then presumably say to the parent company in the US "tell your subsidiary in <country> to give us their data" and what can they do?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
tomp 13y ago
They would respond "We ordered the CEO of the local subsidiary to give us the data, and he refused, because that would be illegal in the country the subsidiary is based in. We then fired the CEO, now he's suing the subsidiary and we had to close it down. We made $50M loss this year because of the lawsuit. Thank you, honourable judge."
wmf 13y ago
One wonders if having the parent company in, say, Switzerland would be better.

bjelkeman-again 13y ago

It is not enough that they are local subsidiaries. Microsoft said this already in 2011. A subsidiary on foreign soil, under foreign law is required by the patriot act to produce the data that a US authority is demanding, even if it breaks the law in the country it is in. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/igeneration/microsoft-admits-patriot-act-can-access-eu-based-cloud-data/11225 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/igeneration/microsoft-admits-patri...

pedrocr 13y ago
That's the difficult case. Suppose you're the head of Microsoft Brasil, a Brazilian company 100% owned by Microsoft. You're a Brazilian citizen siting in your office in São Paulo, overseeing the local datacenter. A US court asks Microsoft to ask Microsoft Brasil for some data. The request arrives at your desk and it goes against local law. Do you comply and risk going to jail in Brazil or do you not comply and let your boss in the US go to jail? There's got to be precedent for this in the physical world. There's nothing special about data in a datacenter vs cargo in a warehouse for this scenario.
- SoftwareMaven 13y ago
  In cases like this, there is a difference: that data can be accessed from US soil, even while it is stored on foreign turf. Guns sitting in a warehouse cannot be used in the commission of a crime in the US; data on an email server in Brazil can be. And I bet that's the angle the US govt is taking on this. It still reeks of a belief that other nations do not really have sovereignty.
  - pedrocr 13y ago
    >In cases like this, there is a difference: that data can be accessed from US soil, even while it is stored on foreign turf. Guns sitting in a warehouse cannot be used in the commission of a crime in the US; data on an email server in Brazil can be. A distinction without a difference. If the argument is that the data can, at some unspecified future time, be brought to the US, you get to wait for that to happen to intercept it. Just like you would with cargo in a foreign port that you suspect is going to be shipped to the US. But suppose you've already lost that argument in court in the US how does the head of Microsoft Brazil respond to the request? Microsoft seems to be screwed either way.
hrktb 13y ago
There is something I don't really understand. If the subsidiary said no, it would have followed the local law, the parent company can explain the order was refused by the subsidary with reason and it can't do anything more (the employees don't fall under the same juridiction), and technically everything would be OK. Am I missing anything apart MS not wanting to piss the US government and throwing their subsidy under the bus instead ?

KMag 13y ago

If a country had a good precedent of telling the FBI to go away and come back when they obtained a search warrant through local courts, an educated population (with a high rate of English literacy), a climate that kept datacenter cooling costs low, and a high potential for geothermal power, I think this would be the time for such a country to push hard for even stronger privacy laws and start up some locally owned cloud computing/cloud storage businesses. It's too bad such a country isn't closer to the great circle route between New York and London, Paris, or Berlin. Being able to terminate trans-Atlantic cables on a small Atlantic island nearly for free would pretty much make it an ideal location for datacenters.