<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Monday 24 June 2013 08:18 PM,
Katitza Rodriguez wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:51C85C4C.20905@eff.org" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Only answering one of the questions
on jurisdictional issues: The answer is somewhat complex<br>
<br>
<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Lucida Grande',
'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 14px;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 21px; orphans: auto;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255); display: inline !important; float: none;">if data
is hosted in the US by US companies (or hosted in the US by
companies based overseas), the government has taken the
position that it is subject to U.S. legal processes, including
National Security Letters, 2703(d) Orders, Orders under
section 215 of the Patriot Act and regular warrants and
subpoenas, regardless of where the user is located.</span><br>
<br>
<meta charset="utf-8">
<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Lucida Grande',
'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 14px;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 21px; orphans: auto;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255); display: inline !important; float: none;">The legal
standard for production of information by a third party,
including cloud computing services under US civil (</span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45"
style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family:
'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size:
14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; line-height: 21px; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);
text-decoration: none; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255);"><span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border:
0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-style:
inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit;
line-height: 21px;">http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45</span></a><span
style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Lucida Grande',
'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 14px;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 21px; orphans: auto;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255); display: inline !important; float: none;">) and
criminal (</span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16"
style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-family:
'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size:
14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; line-height: 21px; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);
text-decoration: none; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255);"><span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border:
0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-style:
inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit;
line-height: 21px;">http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16</span></a><span
style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Lucida Grande',
'Lucida Sans Unicode', sans-serif; font-size: 14px;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 21px; orphans: auto;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255); display: inline !important; float: none;">) law is
whether the information is under the "possession, custody or
control" of a party that is subject to US jurisdiction. It
doesn’t matter where the information is physically stored,
where the company is headquartered or, importantly, where the
person whose information is sought is located. The issue for
users is whether the US has jurisdiction over the cloud
computing service they use, and whether the cloud computing
service has “possession, custody or control” of their data,
wherever it rests physically. For example, one could imagine a
situation in which a large US-based company was loosely
related to a subsidiary overseas, but did not have
“possession, custody, or control” of the data held by the
subsidiary and thus the data wasn’t subject to US
jurisdiction.</span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Interesting, although maybe somewhat obvious! So, even if an
European sends a email (gmail) to another European, and the transit
and storage of the content never in fact reaches US borders, Google
would still be obliged to hand over the contents to US officials
under PRISM...... Can a country claim that Google broke its law in
the process, a law perhaps as serious as espionage, whereby the
hypothesized European to European email could have carried
classified information! Here, Google, on instructions of US
authorities would have actually transported a piece of classified -
or otherwise illegal to access - information from beyond US borders
into US borders. <br>
<br>
What about US telcos working in other countries, say in India.
AT&T (through a majority held JV) claims to be the largest
enterprise service provider in India. And we know AT & T has
been a somewhat over enthusiastic partner in US's global espionage
(for instance see <a
href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100121/1418107862.shtml">here</a>
)... Would all the information that AT & T has the "possession.
custody and control" of in India in this matter not be considered
fair game to access by the US...... All this looks like a sliding
progression to me. Where are the limits, who lays the rules in this
global space.... <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:51C85C4C.20905@eff.org" type="cite">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"> <br>
On 6/24/13 5:28 AM, parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
Hi All<br>
<br>
There was some demand on the bestbits list that we still need to
ask a lot of questions from the involved companies in terms of
the recent PRISM plus disclosures. We are being too soft on
them. I refuse to believe that everything they did was forced
upon on them. Apart from the fact that there are <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-14/u-s-agencies-said-to-swap-data-with-thousands-of-firms.html">news
reports</a> that US based tech companies regularly share data
with US gov for different kinds of favours in return, or even
simply motivated by nationalistic feeling, we should not forget
that many of these companies have strong political agenda which
are closely associated with that of the US gov. You must all
know about '<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Ideas">Google Ideas</a>',
its revolving doors with US gov's security apparatus, and its
own aggressive <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34535.htm">regime
change ideas</a>. Facebook also is known to 'like' some
things, say in MENA region, and not other things in the same
region.....<br>
<br>
<font face="Verdana">Firstly, one would want to know </font>whether
the obligations to share data with US government extended only
to such data that is actually located in, or flows, through, the
US. Or, does it extend to all data within the legal control/
ownership of these companies wherever it may reside. (I think,
certainly hope, it must be the former, but still I want to be
absolutely sure, and hear directly from these companies.)<br>
<br>
Now, if the obligation was to share only such data that actually
resided in servers inside the US, why did these companies, in
face of what was obviously very broad and intrusive demands for
sharing data about non US citizens, not simply locate much of
such data outside the US. For instance, it could pick up the top
10 countries, the data of whose citizens was repeatedly sought
by US authorities, and shift all their data to servers in other
countries that made no such demand? Now, we know that many of
the involved companies have set up near fictitious companies
headquartered in strange places for the purpose of tax
avoidance/ evasion. Why could they not do for the sake of
protecting human rights, well, lets only say, the trust, of non
US citizens/ consumers, what they so very efficiently did for
enhancing their bottom-lines? <br>
<br>
Are there any such plan even now? While I can understand that
there can be some laws to force a company to hold the data of
citizens of a country within its border, there isnt any law
which can force these companies to hold foreign data within a
country's borders... Or would any such act perceived to be too
unfriendly an act by the US gov?<br>
<br>
<br>
I am sure others may have other questions to ask these
companies.....<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:katitza@eff.org">katitza@eff.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:katitza@datos-personales.org">katitza@datos-personales.org</a> (personal email)
Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>