
United States v. Microsoft Corp - based2
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-microsoft-corp/
======
ahakki
This is a very important case. If the SCOTUS rules in favor of the US then
corps which are active in both the US and the EU will be stuck having to
decide who’s laws to follow. Unilateral extraterritorial application of
domestic laws is rarely a good idea, especially when a bilateral mutual legal
assistance treaty already exists (which the US didn’t use in this case).

The following amicus briefs are a good read introduction to the case:

Brief amici curiae of Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie e.V., Deutscher
Industrie- und Handelskammertag e.V., Ibec clg, Konfederacja Lewiatan, and
Mouvement des Enterprises de France filed. (Distributed)
[http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-2/27520/20180111...](http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-2/27520/20180111125139649_17-2.AMICUS.FINAL.pdf)

Brief amicus curiae of European Commission on Behalf of the European Union in
support of neither party filed.
[https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-2/23633/2017121...](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-2/23633/20171213113332456_17-2%20Amicus%20Brief%20in%20Support%20of%20Neither%20Party.pdf)

———

These are way to long to read completly, but already a quick browse can be
enlightening:

Brief of petitioner United States filed.
[https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-2/22902/2017120...](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-2/22902/20171206191900398_17-2tsUnitedStates.pdf)

Brief of respondent Microsoft Corporation filed. (Distributed) Jan 17 2018
[https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-2/27619/2018011...](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-2/27619/20180111205746909_Brief%20for%20Respondent%202018.01.11.pdf)

———

HN Readers might also enjoy this one:

Brief amicus curiae of 51 COMPUTER SCIENTISTS filed:

[https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-2/28101/2018011...](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-2/28101/20180117133756823_FILE-
Amicus%20Brief-US%20v%20Microsoft%20No.%2017-2.pdf)

~~~
xigency
There's no reason to believe a multinational corporation can roll out a
service globally and maintain it consistently with all nations's laws. See for
example Google in China. They could always segment their services or be split
into multiple companies.

Although it would be convenient to live in a legally consistent world, I think
we are in a much better situation than hundreds of years ago, when the largest
corporation had its own laws, its own army, and the ability to carry out the
death penalty.

~~~
ahakki
> See for example Google in China.

Yes, Google’s Services in China are adapted to local laws. But China only
applies those laws inside it’s territory. China is not demanding that Google
block “Tank Man”-Videos outside of China. The US wants to apply the Stored
Communications Act outside of it’s territory (In casu to Ireland).

~~~
CamperBob2
_The US wants to apply the Stored Communications Act outside of it’s territory
(In casu to Ireland)._

Devil's-advocate point of view: if SCOTUS decides in Microsoft's favor, won't
that give them carte blance to play "keep away" with any data sought by law
enforcement? Any potentially-sensitive data would presumably be stored outside
the US's borders in that case, in a country with laws sympathetic to the
company's interests. I just don't see a good argument to be made for allowing
a company _chartered under US law_ to behave this way.

IMO, if Microsoft has the ability to access the data, then they have the
responsibility to turn it over in response to a legitimate court order. The
fact that they chose to store the data on a server in Ireland, a server in
Washington, or a server in orbit around Mars seems immaterial. If it's under
their control, it's under their control.

~~~
merb
> Any potentially-sensitive data would presumably be stored outside the US's
> borders in that case, in a country with laws sympathetic to the company's
> interests. I just don't see a good argument to be made for allowing a
> company chartered under US law to behave this way.

well currently than they need to search a country that would not coporate.
Currently if some bad guy would store sensitive/illegal or whatever data in
germany and the us would come and ask for it, the german law enforcement would
check if the request (would meet all requirements in the german law for data
search, etc) is valid and if it would, they would hand over the data. that's
how it should happen and how it actually happens to some extent.

~~~
CamperBob2
But this isn't just "some bad guy" stashing data on a foreign server. The
person who is the target of the search warrant handed his data over to a third
party, a corporation operating under US law.

The fact that it's currently stored on a server that happens to be outside the
US strikes me as one of those clever technicalities that impresses us nerds
but doesn't impress judges.

~~~
yodon
The issues are not actually technological here.

These data access/privacy/disclosure issues could have and did exist in the
days of paper records. The tech stuff is just a spurious justification for
stepping around 200 years of treaties this country has signed, many of which
cover jurisdictional issues wrt multi-national companies.

------
yodon
Also [https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-
issues/2018/01/19/somethi...](https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-
issues/2018/01/19/something-extraordinary-happened-washington-d-c-yesterday/)

------
WheelsAtLarge
If Microsoft has to disclose information from other countries this will be a
big hit for all the other providers too. I even see the coming of a segmented
internet. A future where you'll need permission to cross "internet" borders.

~~~
dragonwriter
> A future where you'll need permission to cross "internet" borders.

Yes, a natural (if slightly delayed) consequence of the internet becoming an
important part of the real world is that governments treat information moving
across the internet like everything else in the real world.

------
jacksmith21006
I am American and believe as patriotic as anyone but honestly it does not make
sense to me for the US gov to be able to go after data stored outside the US.
This is a very important rulling and I worry about the ruling being the wrong
one, imo.

~~~
tzs
Think about it in terms of physical documents or items, and it might make more
sense.

Suppose, for example, I have leased a rare car from you. The lease has expired
and I have refused to return the car. You have sued me for the return of the
car. You have won, and the court has ordered me to turn over the car.

The court can force me to comply, even if I'm keeping the car in a garage I
rent across the border in Mexico.

Does that raise issues of extraterritorial jurisdiction? Will Mexico be upset
with the court? Will the court have to work with Mexican authorities to
enforce its order?

The answer to all three of those questions is no.

The key is that the court is not ordering anything to happen in Mexico. It is
just ordering me to produce the car.

Sure, I may have to act in Mexico to do this, by sending someone to go get it,
or calling up the garage there and paying them to ship the car back, but those
are ordinary acts that I am allowed to do in Mexico at will. As far as Mexico
is concerned all that is happening is that someone (me) who has legally stored
a car in a garage there is legally retrieving that car. They don't care WHY
I'm retrieving the car.

Now if the court was not ordering me to produce the car, but instead was
authorizing a sheriff to go seize the car from the garage, that would be an
attempt at a US court at exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction, and Mexico
would quite strongly object. The sheriff would have to go through the Mexican
judicial system and get a Mexican order to seize the car.

The above example used a civil case, but the principles apply in general. I
used the US and Mexico, but that's how it is between pretty much any pair of
countries.

If it did NOT work this way, it would be a complete disaster for consumer
protection regulation (and most other regulation). Any company that wanted to
keep their records secret from regulators could simply keep those records in
another country.

Nowadays, in the age of paperless, this could even be made automatic. Keep
your internal mail servers and file servers in another country that does not
have good relations with your home country and most of your internal records
are now out of reach of regulators.

~~~
CrossWired
How does this work if the car was never in the US in the first place, and you
are being ordered to turn over a car that was procured, leased, operated and
contracted in Mexico entirely, nothing to do with the US, other than the fact
that you live here and were ordered by a Judge to go get the car and bring it
back?

Isn't this closer to what has actually happened? The account holder indicated
he was from Ireland when he signed up with Microsoft, thus the account was
created and maintained in Ireland to reduce latency, thus the Fed should
invoke the mutual assistance treaty with Ireland to get the data properly.

The example of using the Government agents to do the bidding being bad and
FORCING me to do the bidding is proper is completely wrong. If I am being
forced to do something by the government, am I not acting as its agent at that
point? If the government is denied a warrant for a building, it can't convince
the janitor to steal the docs at the end of the night, thats just a run around
the checks and balances of the law.

------
dmoy
Am I missing something, or is there no new information here since summer 2017?
Did the supreme Court ruling happen already?

~~~
kencausey
In the External Links section is a link to a SCOTUSBlog page that appears to
be kept up to date on the case:

[http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-
v-m...](http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-microsoft-
corp/)

~~~
sctb
Thank you, we've updated the link from
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._United_Stat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._United_States).

------
panabee
Unrelated to this article, but concerning the government's anti-monopoly
crusade against Microsoft in the late 90s (which is relevant because many
circles are unfortunately exploring government intervention against tech) ...

One common narrative is government intervention proved irrelevant because
Microsoft missed mobile and the web anyway.

This is correct for mobile but wrong for the web.

Imagine no government intervention around the browser. If Microsoft controls
the browser, and essentially the search engine, does Google enjoy the same
trajectory? It's possible, but improbable.

Incidentally, mobile probably looks different with no Android, with Apple
possibly even more dominant. However, this mobile assertion is more tenuous
because it's two hypothetical steps away from non-intervention.

Whether intervention is right or wrong is a separate question altogether. But
to claim that intervention had no practical effect on Microsoft undermines the
pursuit of the right answer.

~~~
codeulike
n/m

~~~
panabee
Already noted, just wanted an excuse to hear discussion on this topic since
government intervention is gaining steam among many circles.

Didn't mean to distract from the article. Better to delete the comment?

Thanks for the reply!

~~~
spsful
I'd say keep it up. Made me think for a minute

~~~
panabee
Thanks, do you agree/disagree? Received downvotes so it seems the crowd felt
like it didn't belong, but couldn't delete the comment because the option
vanished.

