[governance] FW: Data stored overseas should be accessible to US government, judge rules -- RT USA

Sat Aug 2 19:08:15 EDT 2014

Fyi, perhaps relevant to this thread.

http://pando.com/2014/08/01/icann-but-youcant-internet-naming-body-wont-hand-over-iran-syria-and-north-koreas-domains-to-terror-victims/

Lee

________________________________
From: pouzin at gmail.com <pouzin at gmail.com> on behalf of Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 2, 2014 1:00 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Peter H. Hellmonds
Cc: parminder
Subject: Re: [governance] FW: Data stored overseas should be accessible to US government, judge rules -- RT USA

Peter,

Remember Rojadirecta.org, a spanish site seized by ICE (i.e. FBI), without US court order, in violation of spanish law and court decision.

Obviously .org was not seized, it being under whole US control. The FBI acted only upon 2nd level domains.

New gTLDs are no longer under whole US control, despite the arcane delegation process imposed by ICANN. Some new gTLD delegated to a non US organization could deviate from USG hegemony or its lobbies interests. Then, by the same logic, the FBI could seize this new gTLD without US court order. Though it will not seize the whole root, yet.

To me Parminder's logic is crystal clear.

Louis.
- - -

On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 2:44 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:

Sure, Peter, I will try and explain where I see the 'same logic', although I thought it was obvious.

What we see in the present case is that, in order to exercise its legal will, no doubt as enforcing US law and the such, a US court thinks that data stored in Ireland under the control of a US corporation is fair game to forcibly access. It simply goes by the fact of control, and disregards territorial limits of jurisdiction, It also disregards the principle of comity in international legal relationships.

It being so, what chance does one give that a US court will not directly interfere with the root zone file - for instance, to seize the gtld of a foreign company which it assesses as violating US intellectual property law - when the root zone actually lies both in the territory of the US and under the control of a US entity.

Do you think that a US court is unlikely to do any such thing in the future? If so, on what basis?

It is obvious that US courts will do whatever it takes to enforce US law, and therefore the root zone of the Internet lying in control of an US entity is simply not safe from interference from US courts.

parminder

On Saturday 02 August 2014 04:33 PM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote:

Hi Parminder,

Not sure I can follow your logic yet. I was talking about data privacy, i.e. about the privacy of the content of a person's data and communications, as it referred to a concrete court case. In that case, a US judge is ordering a US company (Microsoft in this case) to hand over data stored in a data center in Europe.

My argument was (and is) that this judge's order infringes upon European data privacy laws and directives. I was also pointing out that the NSA affair has left a certain sour taste in the mouths of many business executives who care about the privacy of their business secrets.

Again, I was referring to the contents of data stored in the cloud and I was alluding to that when I argued that businesses would rather seek non-US based  cloud providers if they want the content of their data kept out of the hands of third parties or at least subject to stricter privacy rules.

Now, please explain how IANA and the DNS root management would follow "the same logic". Is there private data stored in the DNS root? Does IANA provide access to law enforcement about data stored in its cloud?

I guess you are referring to the general feeling of mistrust in the US government when it comes to the management of the DNS root, a feeling we have been discussing since pre-WSIS times. So, what is new? Does the current cloud data content court case shed any fresh light on that decades old struggle? Please enlighten me where you see "the same logic".

Peter H. Hellmonds
<peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu><mailto:peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu>
+49 (160) 360-2852<tel:%2B49%20%28160%29%20360-2852>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140802/c465c062/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t