
Does US have right to data on overseas servers? - kjw
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/06/supreme-court-asked-to-decide-if-us-has-right-to-data-on-foreign-servers/
======
RcouF1uZ4gsC
I think in the next 5-10 years, the notion of a free, worldwide internet goes
away. The current powers are realizing that the Internet is far too powerful a
tool to let it be free. I think China showed the benefits of government
control - suppression of dissent and making people who tow the government line
rich. Tunisia demonstrated the danger of the government not controlling the
Internet, and Russia demonstrated with Donald Trump that the Internet and
especially social media is a great way to cause chaos at the highest levels of
leadership even of a super power. You can be sure that everybody who has any
kind of power has been observing and learning.

------
dingo_bat
The US exerts it's influence over the world by the trillions they spend on
weapons and soldiers. The idea of a "right" is quite irrelevant. The only
relevant question is how much the target country spends on military.

~~~
tensor
And the US and it's citizens should not react with shock when they are seen as
a hostile entity. The US is arrogant, history has a lot to say on the topic.

~~~
nyolfen
as hegemons go, there have been far worse

~~~
pluma
"Favourite oppressor" isn't exactly a saving grace.

~~~
nyolfen
apologies, i forgot that everything the US does is evil

~~~
pluma
Not everything the nazis did was evil either.

"There's someone more consistently harmful than us" doesn't make a good
argument.

~~~
nyolfen
you can take this position about literally any power that has ever existed. it
doesn't change the fact that during the period of US leadership the world has
had objectively fewer wars and the greatest degree of economic growth in
history, thanks in no small part due to that very leadership eg in
establishing the UN. that doesn't mean it's perfect or hasn't done carried out
many actions that may seem reprehensible from the political norms of our
contemporary moment, but thinking of it as simply an 'oppressor' lacks nuance
to such a degree that it's essentially adolescent.

you make the mistake of assuming that because your political opponents think
america is good, it must be bad. hideously common sentiment these days,
though.

~~~
pluma
Correlation does not equal causa... nevermind, I can't be bothered to carry
this exchange any further.

------
thekevan
"In a nutshell, the US government claims it should not matter where the data
is stored. What matters is whether the company can access that data in the
US."

Ugh, not that I like the idea, I kind of think they are correct.

~~~
candiodari
Sadly, that still gives US citizens effectively more control over their data :
the right to not give up encryption keys because they might be used to
incriminate you is pretty much exclusive to the US.

Also: US citizens CARE about this. Well, some do. That alone makes them far
better off, over time. Europeans are really worse off, but no-one cares.

------
candiodari
People should just once and for all assume that any data you have that is
hosted on a drive that isn't encrypted OR has encryption, but you don't have
exclusive control of the keys (e.g. all the cloud products) can and will be
used :

(note that exclusive control of the keys means it can't be on a virtualized
server shared with anyone)

1) in any court case against you or anyone else it might be relevant to. It
does not have to be a criminal case (translation: you don't have to have done
anything against the law, a mere commercial disagreement will do). This is
especially true of divorce cases, but also for others.

2) This means that this data is no longer covered under the right to avoid
self-incrimination in criminal cases in the US. Your Gmail/Outlook/Office 365
documents ... cannot be held from any court, no matter how much you disagree.

3) "to further the strategic interests of the US and it's allies" is the term,
I believe. Essentially, anything one of the three letter agencies.

4) The way corporations are responding to this is to delete any and all mail,
documents, ... after 2-3 months unless it's specifically marked to keep. Also,
as soon as someone leaves the company, the duration is reduced, to avoid
incriminating themselves.

------
jrnichols
The US DOJ certainly thinks that it has the right to go after a non-US
citizen's assets in a foreign country even if the citizen has never been to
the US, simply because the citizen's company had a server in the United
States. All over copyright issues too.

It's ridiculous just how far reaching our government thinks it is sometimes.

------
rachelbythebay
2004, Rackspace, Indymedia, London DC. Precedent long since set.

~~~
no_protocol
Hmm, from [1]:

> US authorities issued a federal order to Rackspace’s office in the US ...
> Indymedia’s hardware located in London ... Rackspace complied, without first
> notifying Indymedia, and turned over Indymedia’s server in the UK

So is the main difference here just that Microsoft was not willing to just
immediately comply with the order from the US government? Or are there
additional differences as well?

[1]: [https://citizenlab.org/2004/10/fbi-seizes-imc-servers-in-
the...](https://citizenlab.org/2004/10/fbi-seizes-imc-servers-in-the-uk/)

------
LorenzoLlamas
There is no "the US". There is only "we" (if you reading this are a US
Citizen). And it doesn't really matter whether if we have a "right". Question
is: Do WE go after data if WE think it is important to defend our country? And
when you frame it like that, you suddenly realize we have been doing that
since we sent out "spies" (basically farmers) to check on British troop
movements in the 1760s.

Everyone else does it, too. So, go ahead: don't do it. See what happens.

------
mjevans
I wonder if shell corporations that license a tech stack from a company in the
US, but are administratively 'their own' company entirely incorporated within
another country, are the way around this...

