3 ms·
One thing that I don't think this article has mentioned that the customer is from the US. I think that alone gives them jurisdiction. As stated in the article i
by laveur 12y ago
One thing that I don't think this article has mentioned that the customer is from the US. I think that alone gives them jurisdiction. As stated in the article its about who has control. Both the company and the customer are located members of the US so I think that Microsoft should be compelled to comply with the warrant. However if the customer was not a US customer I don't think they would have jurisdiction.
- laveur 12y agoI would also like to add that as long as each country follows this logic, that is they can only obtain warrants for customers in their own jurisdiction and that the company in question must operate in the country of origin then there is very limited ability for this to be abused. That is it would prevent say China requesting emails from a US Citizen because they have no jurisdiction of them.
- higherpurpose 12y agoLet's not accuse the US government of common sense yet, until proven otherwise. It's not like it would be the first time US has claimed ridiculous jurisdictions. As the NSA_PR mock account was saying recently: > Reminder: If it's connected to the U.S. via the internet, it's considered U.S. soil. Unless we want to spy on it, then it's foreign. https://twitter.com/NSA_PR/status/494927165691944961 https://twitter.com/NSA_PR/status/494927165691944961