3 ms·

> "A U.S. prosecutor cannot obtain a U.S. warrant to search someone's home located in another country, just as another country's prosecutor cannot obtain a cour

by kijin 13y ago

> "A U.S. prosecutor cannot obtain a U.S. warrant to search someone's home located in another country, just as another country's prosecutor cannot obtain a court order in her home country to conduct a search in the United States," the company said. Sure, the U.S. government cannot send agents to search Irish homes owned by U.S. citizens, but it can damn well order the citizen in question to retrieve and present a certain document that is known to be stored in the basement of that home, and threaten to hold him in contempt if he fails to have it shipped stateside within a few weeks. So according to Microsoft's own analogy, there's nothing surprising about this decision. What I'd really like to know is what happens if it is illegal in the country where the server is located for Microsoft to disclose the server's contents to the U.S. government. I don't know much about EU privacy laws, but surely some countries take issue with the personal information of their own citizens being shipped abroad? Could U.S. corporations (and/or their EU subsidiaries, if any) argue that it would be illegal for them to obey this U.S. judgment?

mariuolo 13y ago
> Sure, the U.S. government cannot send agents to search Irish homes owned by U.S. citizens, but it can damn well order the citizen in question to retrieve and present a certain document that is known to be stored in the basement of that home, and threaten to hold him in contempt if he fails to have it shipped stateside within a few weeks. Even when the document in question doesn't belong to said citizen? Can a US court compel you to commit theft abroad?
- jellicle 13y ago
  U.S. courts (and all courts everywhere) can compel you to produce any document or item under your control, whether or not you actually "own" it. Your cousin Bob gave you a sealed letter to hold for him and the court says you have to hand it over? You must. And calling it "theft" is an attempt to prejudice the discussion. Theft is taking without due process of law. By definition, taking at the command of a court is with due process of law.
  - pedrocr 13y ago
    >And calling it "theft" is an attempt to prejudice the discussion. Theft is taking without due process of law. By definition, taking at the command of a court is with due process of law. Not if the taking is in a jurisdiction the court commanding it has no power over. Which was the point here.
  - mariuolo 13y ago
    > And calling it "theft" is an attempt to prejudice the discussion. Theft is taking without due process of law. By definition, taking at the command of a court is with due process of law. By the same token I could come and repossess your car after obtaining a judgement against you in a foreign court if it was in my parking lot, right?
sergiosgc 13y ago
EU laws are directives, which must be converted into law in each country. So, it really depends on the wording of the law in each country. In my country (Portugal), if Microsoft were to comply with the US court and send information from Portuguese datacenters over to the US, they would be in violation of the privacy law. The penalty varies, usually it is just a fine and compensation to the information owner. In severe cases, however, the law allows for mandatory removal of the data stores, effectively prohibiting Microsoft from operating the service in the country. Not that I imagine the full penalty ever being applied. It never happened to anyone yet, and Portugal is strangely in bed with the US [1]. [1] The guy on the left in the picture is the then prime minister, when Bush was drumming the drums of war onto Iraq; photo taken at the military base in Azores. He later became president of the European Commission: http://imagens6.publico.pt/imagens.aspx/227656?tp=UH&db=IMAGENS http://imagens6.publico.pt/imagens.aspx/227656?tp=UH&db=IMAG...
Zigurd 13y ago
There is of course a big practical difference. Deniability is far easier if something the US government wants is outside the US. Searches in the US are, in practical terms, comprehensive - take everything that isn't nailed down, especially every electronic thing, never mind the wording of the IVth or the warrant. Having something outside the US naturally enforces the condition that the thing be described, and only that thing be produced.

by kijin 13y ago

mariuolo 13y ago

> Sure, the U.S. government cannot send agents to search Irish homes owned by U.S. citizens, but it can damn well order the citizen in question to retrieve and present a certain document that is known to be stored in the basement of that home, and threaten to hold him in contempt if he fails to have it shipped stateside within a few weeks. Even when the document in question doesn't belong to said citizen? Can a US court compel you to commit theft abroad?

jellicle 13y ago
U.S. courts (and all courts everywhere) can compel you to produce any document or item under your control, whether or not you actually "own" it. Your cousin Bob gave you a sealed letter to hold for him and the court says you have to hand it over? You must. And calling it "theft" is an attempt to prejudice the discussion. Theft is taking without due process of law. By definition, taking at the command of a court is with due process of law.
- pedrocr 13y ago
  >And calling it "theft" is an attempt to prejudice the discussion. Theft is taking without due process of law. By definition, taking at the command of a court is with due process of law. Not if the taking is in a jurisdiction the court commanding it has no power over. Which was the point here.
- mariuolo 13y ago
  > And calling it "theft" is an attempt to prejudice the discussion. Theft is taking without due process of law. By definition, taking at the command of a court is with due process of law. By the same token I could come and repossess your car after obtaining a judgement against you in a foreign court if it was in my parking lot, right?

sergiosgc 13y ago

EU laws are directives, which must be converted into law in each country. So, it really depends on the wording of the law in each country. In my country (Portugal), if Microsoft were to comply with the US court and send information from Portuguese datacenters over to the US, they would be in violation of the privacy law. The penalty varies, usually it is just a fine and compensation to the information owner. In severe cases, however, the law allows for mandatory removal of the data stores, effectively prohibiting Microsoft from operating the service in the country. Not that I imagine the full penalty ever being applied. It never happened to anyone yet, and Portugal is strangely in bed with the US [1]. [1] The guy on the left in the picture is the then prime minister, when Bush was drumming the drums of war onto Iraq; photo taken at the military base in Azores. He later became president of the European Commission: http://imagens6.publico.pt/imagens.aspx/227656?tp=UH&db=IMAGENS http://imagens6.publico.pt/imagens.aspx/227656?tp=UH&db=IMAG...

Zigurd 13y ago

There is of course a big practical difference. Deniability is far easier if something the US government wants is outside the US. Searches in the US are, in practical terms, comprehensive - take everything that isn't nailed down, especially every electronic thing, never mind the wording of the IVth or the warrant. Having something outside the US naturally enforces the condition that the thing be described, and only that thing be produced.