Posted on 04/09/2015 6:57:49 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
In a brief filed late Wednesday, Microsoft said the federal governments legal argument for seizing user emails stored overseas rewrites an almost 30-year-old law to reinterpret it in a way it was never meant to be used.
At the heart of the issue is a government warrant for Microsoft user emails stored on a server in Dublin, Ireland, which the government claims are relevant to an ongoing drug trafficking investigation. To justify the seizure of the data outside of U.S. territory, the government is basing its argument on legislation born out of the Reagan era.
The statute in this case, the Electronics Communications Privacy Act, is almost 30 years old, Brad Smith, general counsel for Microsoft, said in a blog post Thursday. Thats an eternity in the era of information technology.
For an argument that purports to rest on the explicit text of the statute the government rewrites an awful lot of it, the brief filed late Wednesday said.
The government argues that because Microsoft is a U.S.-based company, it must comply with a valid warrant for business records regardless of where theyre stored.
According to Microsoft, the governments authority does not extend outside of U.S. territory, and that lumping private communications under the definition of business records undermines users Fourth Amendment protection. The company further argues that setting such a precedent threatens public trust in Microsoft and other companies cloud-based services. (RELATED: Microsoft Disputes Government Request For Overseas Emails)
Microsoft argues digital records are guaranteed the same rights as physical documents under Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful search and seizure, and that for the government to obtain records stored overseas, it must go through the foreign government in question.
Looking back, theres no indication that Congress intended to expand the geographic reach of search warrants when the statute was written in 1986, long before the dawn of the era of cloud computing, Smith wrote.
Beyond that, Smith said, Congress must update the law not allow the government to twist its original intent.
Congress already is looking at potential ideas that we believe would address the issues that the government raises in this case, Smith wrote. A good example is the bipartisan LEADS [Law Enforcement Access to Data Stored Abroad] Act, which has been introduced in both the House and Senate. It would address a number of the governments concerns about the needs of law enforcement while offering strong privacy protections for people everywhere, including non-U.S. citizens and residents.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York sided with the government last summer. Microsoft appealed the case, which goes before the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals in summer 2015. (RELATED: Obama Administration Claims The Right To Access U.S. Company Data Stored Overseas)
Microsofts case marks a significant change in company policy and an obvious attempt to regain public trust. According to documents leaked in 2013 by National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden, Microsoft was one of the intelligence agencys closest secret collaborators, and consistently built new avenues for the government to access troves of user communications through Hotmail, Outlook, Skype and other services.
Follow Giuseppe on Twitter and Facebook
Obama and Holder don’t give a rat’s ass about the law. All they want is unbridled, authoritarian power, which the Dems would heartily give, and the Republicans grudgingly surrender.
A pen and a phone is all that is needed to create new law.
This may be grist for your list. . . Microsoft related.
I wish our government would go to these extremes to get their own emails that are under subpoena.
The War on Drugs is a War on the Constitution.
Ah, but that might force real Treason to come to light.
Yep, good call. I'm on it.... Thanks!
Let's hope Microsoft prevails in this one -- looks like a troublesome precedent if they don't!
[[Microsoft said the federal governments legal argument for seizing user emails stored overseas rewrites an almost 30-year-old law to reinterpret it in a way it was never meant to be used.]]
no, no, it’s ok- the constitution is subjective, not objective- one can interpret laws any which way they like- with one caveat- one must a a flaming liberal/socialist- but let any other person or political persuasion try to reinterpret law and the main stream media goes absolutely ballistic
This is a huge consideration for any company or person that intends to put data in the “cloud”. If the gubberment wants it, they’re going to take it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.