Legal Authority in the Clouds

Cloud storage and computing is an emerging technology increasingly in use worldwide. Documents and email discussions can be stored in the Cloud, and then be accessed by collaborators from anywhere to work on joint projects together.

That is an American led business, with market leaders such as Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon, and Facebook, among others. But U.S. law has not yet caught up with the technology, though that is being resolved now, in the courts and in Congress.

In the currently leading case, United States of America v. Microsoft, the U.S. government issued a warrant to Microsoft, an internet service provider, to obtain customer emails now stored in its data center in Dublin, Ireland. The warrant was approved in federal court under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), enacted in 1986 to govern the privacy of information held by technology providers.

Microsoft resisted complying, arguing that the U.S. cannot legally issue a warrant for data held overseas, which may require the company to violate foreign law or contracts with foreign customers. Microsoft contended that the ECPA says nothing about the applicability of its provisions outside the U.S., and American legal precedents state that when a statute is silent about extraterritorial application its provisions do not apply abroad.

But the Justice Dept. argued that there was nothing extraterritorial in the case. The emails are actually the records of Microsoft, it contended, and the company could access them and comply with the subpoena entirely within the U.S. online.

The Second Circuit held for Microsoft, quashing the warrant, and refusing to overturn the ruling en banc 4-4. Justice appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted a writ of certiorari on October 16, 2017 to hear the case.

If the Supreme Court rules that companies are only acting domestically within their own borders when they unilaterally reveal private correspondence across borders, then the U.S. would have no basis to object when foreign countries demand to see, from the offices of foreign companies abroad, the emails of U.S. citizens stored in the U.S.

Suppose Chinese intelligence officers investigating leaks to the foreign press wanted to see the emails of a U.S. reporter stored in the U.S.? They would be able to cite the U.S. Supreme Court for legal authority to do that. Would foreign agents have the authority to see the cloud documents of U.S. companies to steal their patented technology, intellectual property, and trade secrets?

What would happen to the American-led cloud technology then? This emerging high tech opportunity to ease and increase collaboration across the entire economy can be central to economic growth in the 21st century, ultimately affecting almost everything. America does not want to lose leadership of that.

These issues can best be solved only by Congress, which can best weigh all the policy arguments concerning the public interest in privacy, needs of law enforcement, protection of constitutional rights, effects on international relations, and impacts on the economy. Fortunately, Congress is moving to do precisely that.

Just this week, Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch will be introducing bipartisan legislation, Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data (CLOUD) Act of 2018, with Senators Coons (D-DE), Graham (R-SC) and Whitehouse (R-RI). Representatives Collins (R-NY), Jeffries (D-NY), Issa (R-CA) and DelBene (D-WA) will introduce companion legislation in the House. President Trump and the Justice Dept. also support it.

The bill establishes a formal framework to resolve the issues diplomatically through international bilateral agreements recognizing the valid rights and interests of all parties. Protects privacy and constitutional rights by requiring warrants to search any data held at home and abroad. Protects cloud providers through rights to notify foreign governments of warrant requests, and to seek judicial review. Protects law enforcement, and economic opportunities, by clarifying procedures and legal rights.

A broad range of civil libertarians and economic libertarians support the bill, including Americans for Tax Reform, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Freedom Works, National Taxpayers Union, American Commitment, Citizens Against Government Waste, Campaign for Liberty, and Free the People, among others. This broad and bipartisan support is because everyone can see that these issues cannot be governed by a law enacted over 30 years ago, even before the rise of the modern internet, and now outdated AOL even started offering email.

This demonstrates what I consider to be an abuse of the definition of “normal business records” in law enforcement.

It’s one thing when a BUSINESS is under investigation and their records (such as tax return, accounting data, expenses) are made available under a weaker standard for seizure, but it’s quite another when a business is forced to hand over data concerning an INDIVIDUAL who happened to do business with that company.

I.e., authorities can more easily get your phone data by calling the phone companies records of your calls as “normal business records”, but they are hot investigating the phone company, they are investigating you!

You cannot write good legislation without a catchy name. Just look at the success of the DREAM Act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act). We are now awash in DREAMers. Republicans should have never accepted that name - it should be the INVADER act.

This one is the CLOUD (Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data (CLOUD) Act of 2018. If it passes, will we be hear nothing but CLOUDy, CLOUDer, overcast, sunshine, etc. references?

End OT curiosity. Back to the news.

I'm a big supporter of the U.S. Constitution, but the last time I checked, it only apply's in the U.S. and it's Territory's (Guam, et al.) and 3 nautical miles (1 marine league, or 3.45 statute miles [5.5 km]) off the coast(s) of the United States.

I am some what of a jail house lawyer, {WAY MORE EXPERIENCE IN THE {Washington State} COURT ROOM(S), then the average Joe six-pack} my thinking is the Justice Dept. will lose @ the Supreme Court of the United States.

Oral arguments for U.S. vs Microsoft will be heard on Feb. 27 in the morning session. Transcripts of arguments will be available here later that day. I'll definitely be taking a look at the transcripts, as it is likely to be fairly interesting.

Hope you're right. I am always leery of cases that involve any serious impact to federal power. If MS wins, it will be a huge blow to claimed federal power. As such, both the 'conservatives' and the liberals on the court will have reasons to want the government to prevail.

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.