Apple backs Microsoft in data privacy fight against U.S. government
Apple was one of more than 50 private companies and trade associations to sign amicus briefs in support of Microsoft on Monday as the Redmond, Wash., company continues an ongoing court battle with the U.S. government over customer data privacy protections.
Source: Microsoft
Microsoft announced 28 technology and media companies, 23 trade and advocacy groups and 35 computer scientists signed ten briefs in support of its fight to keep customer emails stored on international servers protected from U.S. government agency warrants.
Alongside Apple, prominent tech companies on the list of signatories (PDF link)include Amazon, AT&T, Cisco, eBay, HP, Rackspace and Verizon, along with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Microsoft is arguing against a U.S. government request to release emails currently stored on servers outside the country. According to court filings, Microsoft was issued a search warrant relating to a drug investigation last year, compelling the company hand over customer data from an Outlook email account located in Ireland.
Instead of complying, Microsoft appealed to keep the data private as it resides only on a server in Dublin. As such, U.S. government agencies do not have jurisdiction and should be required to go through international channels, the company argues.
At issue is the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), which allows federal and local law enforcement agencies to demand digital records, such as email correspondence, with appropriately served warrants. Microsoft argues Congress did not include stipulations in ECPA that would allow seizures outside the U.S.
If ECPA is interpreted to allow for extraterritorial jurisdiction, it may hurt cloud-based businesses located within the U.S., as international customers would be unwilling to sign up for such services. Further, such a distinction could lead to identical requests from foreign agencies for data owned by U.S. citizens. A lower court previously ruled against Microsoft, rejecting the warrant as illegal. The company has since taken the argument to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Digital privacy has become a hot topic in tech as Apple and other industry giants look to increase transparency over government data requests. Most recently, Apple has been in the crosshairs of law enforcement agencies for implementing aggressive customer security in iOS 8 that makes it impossible to extract data from locked iPhones and iPads.
Source: Microsoft
Microsoft announced 28 technology and media companies, 23 trade and advocacy groups and 35 computer scientists signed ten briefs in support of its fight to keep customer emails stored on international servers protected from U.S. government agency warrants.
Alongside Apple, prominent tech companies on the list of signatories (PDF link)include Amazon, AT&T, Cisco, eBay, HP, Rackspace and Verizon, along with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Microsoft is arguing against a U.S. government request to release emails currently stored on servers outside the country. According to court filings, Microsoft was issued a search warrant relating to a drug investigation last year, compelling the company hand over customer data from an Outlook email account located in Ireland.
Instead of complying, Microsoft appealed to keep the data private as it resides only on a server in Dublin. As such, U.S. government agencies do not have jurisdiction and should be required to go through international channels, the company argues.
At issue is the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), which allows federal and local law enforcement agencies to demand digital records, such as email correspondence, with appropriately served warrants. Microsoft argues Congress did not include stipulations in ECPA that would allow seizures outside the U.S.
If ECPA is interpreted to allow for extraterritorial jurisdiction, it may hurt cloud-based businesses located within the U.S., as international customers would be unwilling to sign up for such services. Further, such a distinction could lead to identical requests from foreign agencies for data owned by U.S. citizens. A lower court previously ruled against Microsoft, rejecting the warrant as illegal. The company has since taken the argument to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Digital privacy has become a hot topic in tech as Apple and other industry giants look to increase transparency over government data requests. Most recently, Apple has been in the crosshairs of law enforcement agencies for implementing aggressive customer security in iOS 8 that makes it impossible to extract data from locked iPhones and iPads.
Comments
Nice to see where Google stands on the issue.
How about customer e-mails stored on US servers protected from the LACK of US government agency warrants? Because that’s a pretty big problem, too.
But in the age of the Internet, does the whole geographic location thing need to be rethought?
If I were king of the world, I'd resolve this thus:
1. Country A requests access to data on server located in country B.
2. Country B askes, 'is this data belonging to a citizen of country A?'
If the answer is Yes, then be respectful of country A's sovereignty over its citizens and grant access to the data.
If the answer is No, then it's up to country B whether they wish to comply.
If I were king of the world, I'd resolve this thus:
1. Country A requests access to data on server located in country B.
2. Country B askes, 'is this data belonging to a citizen of country A?'
If the answer is Yes, then be respectful of country A's sovereignty over its citizens and grant access to the data.
If the answer is No, then it's up to country B whether they wish to comply.
But what if the person is question is not a citizen of the US (just a resident), but is commiting a crime (or suspected of such) in the US?
If I was King of the World, I would base it on a thing being a crime in both jurisdictions. That is, country A contacts country B and asks for the data off the server. Country A provides the legal justificiation (under their system) for wanting that data. If that justification would also be a justification under Country B's legal system, then they provide the data. e.g. terrorism is illegal in both countries, and the US offers evidence of such, so Ireland agrees.
This is electronic data (ones and zeros) stored on one or more hard drives located in a specific geographic location — in this case, the Republic of Ireland. The idea of the data being "in the cloud" and therefore immune to geographic demarcation is bogus. The data is in a foreign country outside of the US jurisdiction.
The only way to get at this data should be through formal requests by the US to the Republic of Ireland authorities, as governed by international treaty.
Either that, or the US could invade Ireland...
Such a difficult question! The whole legal system up until this point in history has been that certain governments control certain geographical areas. So it would seem Microsoft/Apple is in the right, if the Microsoft server is in Ireland it falls under Irish government rules.
But in the age of the Internet, does the whole geographic location thing need to be rethought?
Not difficult at all. There are existing arrangements by which the Irish government could have been requested to obtain the information and hand it over, which they would have done. Someone doesn't want to play by the rules and needs to lose their job for trying this on.
This is the right thing for Apple to do.
Also, bravo, Microsoft!
Apple is not a private company...
Apple is not a private company...
It’s certainly not a public company.
This is a big issue, and I fully support Microsoft in this fight.
Nice to see where Google stands on the issue.
Agree 100%.
And indeed where is Google on this?
It’s certainly not a public company.
It's a publically traded company. That's the definition of a public company... I don't know how anyone takes you seriously.
Which is meaningless to the argument at hand, since it isn’t owned by the government.
By paying attention, I’d guess.
Which is meaningless to the argument at hand, since it isn’t owned by the government.
By paying attention, I’d guess.
Being a public company has nothing to do with being owned by the government. You really don't understand that? Honestly you don't? If you don't get that then there's no point in further discussions with you.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/publiccompany.asp
Public in the context of publicly traded and public in the context of owned by the government are wholly different. This article regards the latter, so it makes sense to say that Apple is a private company.
It’s like how you can say LOS and mean “loss of signal” in interplanetary communication and “length of stay” in hospitalization.
https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/aclu-joins-att-google-and-privacy-groups-urge-updates-privacy-law
http://blog.zwillgen.com/2014/10/23/google-can-compelled-produce-emails-pursuant-civil-subpoena/
(I don't know if either MS or Apple offered support for Google's legal argument)
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Google-Reminds-People-the-Electronic-Communications-Privacy-Act-is-Bad-Needs-Reform-447521.shtml
Thanks Gatorguy!
I really appreciate the information.
Call me crazy but you seem to often add good information to the site. Good on ya.