[governance] Re: [Members] FW: [IP] Obama administration says the world's servers are ours

Wed Jul 16 00:58:37 EDT 2014

The problem is, this isnt even hypocrisy, and an entirely new much 
stronger word has to be invented for it...

See for instance

"The Justice Department said global jurisdiction is necessary in an age 
when "electronic communications are used extensively by criminals of all 
types in the United States and abroad, from fraudsters to hackers to 
drug dealers, in furtherance of violations of US law.""

Yes, global jurisdiction is needed, and that global jurisdiction should 
be US jurisdiction. Sure.

Meanwhile, similar demands by other countries to have  jurisdiction on 
matters of their national concern is supposed to be a call to control 
the Internet.

And at times when saying such think looks just too bad or illogical in 
polite company, say, ok multistakeholder jurisdiction is fine, knowing 
very well that it means nothing, which is the whole point..

parminder

On Wednesday 16 July 2014 12:06 AM, michael gurstein wrote:
>
> *From: *Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne at warpspeed.com 
> <mailto:dewayne at warpspeed.com>>
>
> *Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Obama administration says the world's servers 
> are ours*
>
> *Date: *July 14, 2014 at 3:47:28 PM EDT
>
> *To: *Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net <dewayne-net at warpspeed.com 
> <mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com>>
>
> *Reply-To: *dewayne-net at warpspeed.com <mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com>
>
> Obama administration says the world's servers are ours
> US says global reach needed to gut "fraudsters," "hackers," and "drug 
> dealers."
> By David Kravets
>
> Jul 14 2014
>
> <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/07/obama-administration-says-the-worlds-servers-are-ours/>
>
> Global governments, the tech sector, and scholars are closely 
> following a legal flap in which the US Justice Department claims that 
> Microsoft must hand over e-mail stored in Dublin, Ireland.
>
> In essence, President Barack Obama's administration claims that any 
> company with operations in the United States must comply with valid 
> warrants for data, even if the content is stored overseas. It's a 
> position Microsoft and companies like Apple say is wrong, arguing that 
> the enforcement of US law stops at the border.
>
> A magistrate judge has already sided with the government's position, 
> ruling in April that "the basic principle that an entity lawfully 
> obligated to produce information must do so regardless of the location 
> of that information." Microsoft appealed to a federal judge, and the 
> case is set to be heard on July 31.
>
> In its briefs filed last week, the US government said that content 
> stored online doesn't enjoy the same type of Fourth Amendment 
> protections as data stored in the physical world. The government cited 
> <safari-reader://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/federalbrief-microsoftcase.pdf> (PDF) 
> the Stored Communications Act (SCA), a President Ronald Reagan-era 
> regulation:
>
>     Overseas records must be disclosed domestically when a valid
>     subpoena, order, or warrant compels their production. The
>     disclosure of records under such circumstances has never been
>     considered tantamount to a physical search under Fourth Amendment
>     principles, and Microsoft is mistaken to argue that the SCA
>     provides for an overseas search here. As there is no overseas
>     search or seizure, Microsoft's reliance on principles of
>     extra-territoriality and comity falls wide of the mark.
>
> Microsoft said the decision has wide-ranging, global implications. 
> "Congress has not authorized the issuance of warrants that reach 
> outside US territory," Microsoft's attorneys wrote 
> <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/microsoft-challenges-us-govt-warrant-to-access-overseas-customer-data/>. 
> "The government cannot seek and a court cannot issue a warrant 
> allowing federal agents to break down the doors of Microsoft's Dublin 
> facility."
>
> The Redmond, Washington-based company said its consumer trust is low 
> in the wake of the Edward Snowden revelations. It told the US judge 
> presiding over the case that "[t]he government's position in this case 
> further erodes that trust and will ultimately erode the leadership of 
> US technologies in the global market."
>
> Companies like Apple, AT&T, Cisco, and Verizon agree. Verizon said 
> <safari-reader://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/verizonamicus.pdf> (PDF) 
> that a decision favoring the US would produce "dramatic conflict with 
> foreign data protection laws." Apple and Cisco said 
> <safari-reader://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/applebriefinremicrosft.pdf> (PDF) 
> that the tech sector is put "at risk" of being sanctioned by foreign 
> governments and that the US should seek cooperation with foreign 
> nations via treaties, a position the US said is not practical.
>
> The Justice Department said global jurisdiction is necessary in an age 
> when "electronic communications are used extensively by criminals of 
> all types in the United States and abroad, from fraudsters to hackers 
> to drug dealers, in furtherance of violations of US law."
>
> The e-mail the US authorities are seeking from Microsoft concerns a 
> drug-trafficking investigation. Microsoft often stores e-mail on 
> servers closest to the account holder.
>
> The senior counsel for the Irish Supreme Court wrote in a recent 
> filing that a US-Ireland "Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty" was the 
> "efficient 
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/06/10/National-Security/Graphics/SDNY%20McDowell%20Declaration.pdf>" 
> avenue (PDF) for the US government to obtain the e-mail held on 
> Microsoft's external servers.
>
> Orin Kerr, a Fourth Amendment expert at George Washington University, 
> said 
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/microsoft-fights-us-search-warrant-for-customer-e-mails-held-in-overseas-server/2014/06/10/6b8416ae-f0a7-11e3-914c-1fbd0614e2d4_story.html>, 
> "The scope of the privacy laws around the world is now a very 
> important question, and this is the beginning of what may be a lot of 
> litigation on the question. So it's a big case to watch."
>
> Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now> 
> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/22720195-c2c7cbd3>| 
> Modify 
> <https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd4308> 
> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now 
> <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-97c5b007&post_id=20140714160148:B4952B62-0B91-11E4-BC5E-F4360264DADE> 
>
>
> 	
>
> <http://www.listbox.com>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140716/355a69b6/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