Case decided today says that U.S. govt can't access data stored overseas by service providers, even with a warrant.
@ over 1 year ago
Lakeland, MN 55043, USA
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision earlier today, in favor of Microsoft. User email stored in Ireland inaccessible to U.S.
@ over 1 year ago
Kids, if you want to keep your junk safe, now you know how.
ok well safe from the U.S. government anyway.
even for an American company? interesting!
@ over 1 year ago
Mar Vista, Los Angeles, CA
Very interesting. And very problematic
@ over 1 year ago
@ over 1 year ago
Chaska, MN 55318, USA
Good? Great! The question is, great for who? The average American? The government? The criminal? Who benefits the most and who suffers the most under this?
It is great, isn't it!
Interesting word choice.
I'll reserve judgement until I understand better. My current gut feeling is "weird" though.
Cerritos, CA, USA
ignore the question and concentrate on word usage. Deflect Deflect Deflect
I simply reject the premise of the question.
Who do you think is "suffering"?
"Is "suffering"" implies currently. Not what I said.
Ok, who do you think will suffer then?
I reject your premise.
What's my premise?
What's wrong with following the data privacy laws where the data is physically stored, including warrants for access?
US will still access that email, it'll just be extrajudicially. Won't be asking any judge
@ over 1 year ago
Northwest Harbor, NY 11937, USA
Maybe. But anything that throws a wrench into the intrusive process is a rare bit of relief.
Not privacy...anything but that.
@ over 1 year ago
Winder, GA 30680, USA
Criminals across the country are rejoicing!
@plc - should law enforcement be required to abide by the laws of foreign sovereign entities for which the foreign entities have jurisdiction?
Dacula, GA 30019, USA
Should US service providers be required to allow access or turn over data stored on their servers to foreign entities upon demand?
Lawrenceville, GA 30045, USA
Or an MLAT: https://mlat.info/countries-mlats/ireland/united-states
I think Microsoft has to get a warrant within any country where something resides in order to access it. If it were a gun or something instead of data that's how it would work, I think.
Even if there is a treaty, I doubt it allows the U.S.to go in unannounced and seize things. They still have to make some arrangement with that government. Treaty may = rubber stamp though.
I wonder if they tried to get Ireland to cooperate and they refused due to their own privacy laws or something. It could depend on the nature of the request, e.g. a murder investigation treated differently from tax evasion.
I didnt say I have a problem with the ruling. I just see how it's going to benefit criminals. And if it benefits criminals, does it help the average American citizen? I think not.
why couldn't it also benefit average American citizens?
are all potential benefits mutually exclusive?
that's how it works in Heroes vs Savages
Grayson, GA 30017, USA
Loganville, GA 30052, USA
Lots of laws benefit criminals plc. Criminal laws in particular. This has basis in our laws that presume innocence until proven guilty. We have a lot of freedoms that are double edged swords. Doesn't make them bad.
The right to privacy from government intrusion often, not always, trumps the need of the government for your private information.
Of course all of that is purely theoretical. Anyone who thinks the government doesn't overstep its bounds on a regular basis is wearing rose colored glasses.
which makes this win for privacy benefit everyone.
I would agree with that statement. If the foreign government wants to grant the U.S.government a warrant, I've no problem with that. I imagine some countries might say no.
Hi! I'm John Q Punlic. I have a wife, 2 1/2 kids, a job in the private sector, a home 2 cars and a dog named Spike. I wake up, go to work, come home, #### my wife and go to bed. I don't commit any crimes. Ever.
How does this benefit me?
How does this make my life better? How does this make my life safer? How does this have a positive impact on my life?
helps keep the government out of your bedroom, where it has no business
@ over 1 year ago
Spotsylvania Courthouse, VA 22553, USA
Provided your bedroom is in another country. SMH
I'm John Q Public. My bedroom is in America. I'm sorry I didn't specify that. How does this benefit me?
Hello Mr. Public, my name is Edward Snowden. You don't know me, but I know *everything* about you. Too much, actually.
Did you really think those pics you sent to your wife were private?
You also might want to have *that talk* with your daughter. Soon.
A few years ago, I was a NSA contractor working surveillance. And we were good...We were the Ash Ketchum of surveillance!
We could capture anything with our XKeyScore program – even your trans-midget fetish...
Anyways, as with all excess power, people found ways to abuse it. Spying on loved ones, foreign governments, industrial espionage, reporters, and collecting porn. Lots and lots of porn.
I couldn't live in a real-life 1984, so I blew the whistle.
They didn't like that too much, so now I'm stuck in Russia. ####.
You asked how this ruling benefits you, makes your life better or safer. It probably won't give you any direct benefit. However, you may not even realize the harms.
You didn't even know we had your dick pics, Mr. Public
As expected. No answer. Thanks.
Doesn't your difficulty in provifing what should be an easy answer make you think?
Mr. Public, you may not think of privacy as a benefit, but many value it much more than you do.
Let me guess, you're rejecting the premise again. How convenient. Have a good night.
Your premises suck.
Privacy IS the benefit.
Privacy is one of those things where you only notice it when it's lost.
That's why you won't notice any direct benefit, Mr. Public.
Very true. Live in some other country where the government can freely invade citizen's private lives at will, and you'll appreciate just what we the people struggle so hard to hold onto.
And these days, we the people seem to be losing most of the battles. That's why I posted the o.p.: this sort of result is now extremely rare. Our data is freely gang raped on a daily basis. Some relief feels good.
So you've established that there is no benefit to John Q Public. Great. Watching you idiots struggle was entertaining.
Doc, have you ever lived in a foreign country?
we've established that privacy is the benefit.
can you read?
Skal, it appears that any question that challenges your opinions are poorly premised. Does the closed mindedness run in your family?
You haven't established anything. I've asked a question that the three of you have been unable to answer. Should I ask it again? Please continue to reject the premises. It's funny.
What benefit do you gain from the 4th Amendment, Señor Public?
Tucker, GA 30084, USA
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
This right existed before this ruling and continues to exist after.
I'll ask again. How does this ruling benefit me, John Q Public?
I had the right to privacy before this ruling as per the 4th amendment. This ruling didn't change that.
I answered your question. Privacy is the benefit. This ruling further protected the privacy you already had.
Now please answer mine.
Señor Public, how does the 4th Amendment benefit you?
Tucker, GA, USA
Maybe you should scroll up and read. My answer is there. Your answer fell short. I already had the right to privacy before this ruling. It didn't benefit me in any way.
Now that that's established let proceed. Who "won" this case? These ruling stem from actual cases. The actual case here was against an alleged drug dealer who fought the release of his "effects". Even after a search
warrant was issued upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation describing the things to be searched.
Think of it as adding a deadbolt to the door of your casita.
You already had a lock on the puerta. What benefit do you get from adding a deadbolt?
Another layer of protection.
The alleged drug dealer "won". Congrats. This may cause him to be cleared of charges as incriminating evidence may have been found in his effects. If he's innocent, those files would t have mattered. If he's guilty
He'll be released and free to destroy John Q Publics neighborhood once again.
The cool thing about laws is that they're applied universally to all citizens. If the drug dealer has increased privacy rights...so does every US citizen.
Thanks for recognizing that the drug dealer now has the benefit of additional protection to good privacy.
That benefit applies to you too, Señor Public.
Again, I gain no benefit. None. At all.
Did the drug dealer gain a benefit?
He did. He gained the right to store all evidence of criminal activity in a safe place. A benefit that doesn't apply to me. I don't have evidence of criminal activity that I need a safe place for.
Does the benefit only apply to evidence of criminal activity?
nope, although it helps the average law abiding citizens very little, it does prevent an overreaching government from arbitrarily gaining evidence without an approved warrant in all countries concerned.
it really is no different than what the states practice now. You cannot obtain a search warrant in NY, for a house in MN.
MN, can decide if your request is valid or not.
NY has absolutely no jurisdiction in MN.
same should apply to countries.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
Except that Snowden showed it has been systematically violated
plc you didn't gain any benefit here. The point is you didn't lose anything. For once, we the people didn't lose ground. It's fair to say that considering that a victory is very sad. But it's our reality.
"This right existed before this ruling and continues to exist after."
So while that right existed, it has been eroded and will continue to be eroded until we start to value our privacy rights.
H2O we agree on something else, don't we. It's a sign, when we can agree that our government is in serious overreach mode and needs to be put on a tougher leash.
The US isn't the Lord & high priest of the world, nor is any other country
other countries cannot carry out searchs, on warrants issued by them, on American soil.
np there is not an obvious benefit to JQP, other than to solidify & provide clarity to rights already granted.
Thank you for admitting that John Q Public gains no benefit here. I didn't lose anything directly but knowing that John D Criminal will be harder to convict makes it a loss for me and the general public.
Direct win for the criminal. Direct loss for the people through the prosecutor. Indirect loss for John Q Public.
Indirect win for John Q Public's ever eroding privacy rights.
You forgot that one.
H2O, that's not true. A NY judge can issue a search warrant to Google in California and it be completely valid. Happens daily.
"Ever eroding" LMAO
And you complaint about false premises. lol
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Any rule/law/decision that directly and substantially benefits and aids criminal activity without substantial benefit to law abiding citizens is bad to me.
That's what I see here.
What is false about that premise?
We know about PRISM, Xkeyscore, etc. from Snowden's revelations. Those are facts.
Congress wants is trying to fight against encryption. Another fact.
So unless you have evidence that those facts are not actually facts, that's not a false premise.
You do know these programs didn't save content. Metadata & content are 2 different things. You do know that, don't you? Whether or not the gov should retained metadata is 1 thing. Claiming they retain all content another
"those pics you sent to your wife were private?" False premise.
Is it a false premise? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M
You don't think the government has those pics?
Are you sure you don't live in that pretend world you were hassling Evil about?
It is a false premise. They didn't retain content. I don't think the gov has those pics. Do you have proof that they do? (Should I define proof?)
And again, we know from Snowden that govt employees were using these surveillance methods for less than noble means (ie LOVEINT)
(Hassling! LMAO! You're pathetic)
Just thousands that we know about. No biggie. We can fully trust that them with protecting our privacy at all times.
"They didn't retain content. I don't think the gov has those pics."
So you're saying there WERE pics...interesting.
Why don't you think they picked them up in their dragnet?
PRISM was more than just metadata. It included content.
You are also wrong about retention. If they do collect it, they can retain it up to 5 years, unless it's encrypted. Then they can retain it until the encryption is broken.
"Any rule/law/decision that directly and substantially benefits and aids criminal activity without substantial benefit to law abiding citizens is bad to me."
It's sad you don't see privacy as a substantial benefit.
I had the privacy before this ruling. This ruling provides no benefit. You've said it yourself.
And I've shown the substantial benefit to criminal activity. Even if you have chosen to ignore it.
You thought you had privacy before the ruling.
This ruling clarifies the privacy you have and prevents continued overreach, which has been demonstrated, even if you choose to ignore it.
No. I had privacy. Like you said, this ruling provides me with no benefit. No matter how paranoid you are. No matter what John Oliver jokes about.
As Evil pointed out, there are lots of laws that make it more difficult to prosecute criminals, too. Laws guaranteeing due process, etc.
Ease of prosecution shouldn't be the end goal.
It shouldn't. Tthose laws have a substantial benefit to the average law abiding citizen. Unlike this ruling.
"This ruling provides no benefit. You've said it yourself."
That's a lie. I've said you may not notice direct benefit, but that's not the same as saying there is no benefit.
Privacy is an indirect benefit.
Racer, Evil and I have also said that privacy is the benefit of the ruling several times.
So you are wrong there, too.
"Like you said, this ruling provides me with no benefit"
No, I didn't say that. Repeating a lie does not make it true.
Privacy I've already possessed isn't a benefit.
Back to the case in the OP.
The court was unanimous in this case that the Stored Communications Act as written applied only to the territorial US.
Our data privacy laws shouldn't apply to their country just like theirs should not apply to ours.
If the data is stored extraterritorial, we need to streamline the process of legally requesting access to that data
in its current physical jurisdiction. That requires a legislative fix.
You may not value privacy as a benefit, Mr. Public, but others do.
I value privacy. This ruling doesn't provide me with anything that would benefit me. My level of privacy remains the same.
This ruling helps criminals further their criminal activity. Pat yourself on the back.
You also narrowly focus on the criminal implications of this specific case. As usual, the privacy implications of the case are much more broadly applicable
to digital privacy than you may realize. I implore you to look at some of the amici curiae filed with the case for further info.
I doubt you will and I'm not going to summarize them for you.
But I really don't think you grasp the digital privacy concerns raised here.
Narrowly focus on the criminal implications of this case? It's a criminal case. Something you've completely ignored.
The privacy implications don't effect law abiding citizens.
I am more aware of the digital privacy concerns than you can imagine. I'll say it again, there is no benefit to law abiding citizens here. None. A ruling that benefits criminals and doesn't benefit us is a bad ruling IMO
Microsoft corporation versus USA is not a criminal case.
You are completely wrong there.
So, since you are more aware of them then I can imagine, what are they?
There are many, but please name a few.
And yes, I'm calling your bluff.
this oughta be good
Snellville, GA, USA
Also, you are wrong that criminals benefit from the ruling, plc. Just like there is no actual gain to we the people by the ruling, so is there no actual gain for the criminal. It's just in line with previous protocol.
It's my opinion that you are wrong plc, just so we're clear. Please do not go off on one of your "it's your opinion I'm wrong and not fact" nanny nanny boo boo rants.
"The government was attempting to seize emails of a suspected drug trafficker,"
Pick that mic back up and get your ass back here.
The case before the second circuit was Microsoft Corp versus USA (a civil contempt case), not the criminal case.
This is the case with digital privacy implications
Can you name a few of those digital privacy implications yet?
Just because the government attempted to assert themselves in a certain way doesn't mean they ever had the right to do so in the first place.
This is how the boundaries of privacy rights are often determined, plc...someone pushes it too far one one way and the court checks and balances by staking out the actual boundary.
So it's fiction to say that they ever had the right to do so in the first place, when the actual boundary ends up prohibiting the prior activity.
....aaaand crickets crickets crickets
Didn't expect anything different.
This is the part where he comes in and says something like "you didn't you read the article" and then quote a few parts of it to pretend like he understood the privacy ramifications more than we ever could imagine.
...while also dismissing others' posts and links with "tl;dr". Excellent.
It's a great strategy for winning an argument in your own mind.